Clear Lake council continues Burns Valley Sports Complex appeal after tribal experts, archaeologist clash over cultural resources

CLEAR LAKE, Calif. — The Clear Lake City Council on June 7 continued a public hearing on the Burns Valley Sports Complex appeal after hours of testimony from tribal representatives, city staff and outside experts who disagreed over how to identify and protect tribal cultural resources under CEQA.

The council heard city-hired archaeologist Dr. White explain a multi-year inventory and trenching program — 38 backhoe trench probes, each roughly 8 feet long and 8–12 feet deep — that identified two intact buried deposits the archaeologist said date about 3,000–5,000 years and that were subsequently avoided in the project redesign. Dr. White also described extensive modern-era redistributed fill and surface obsidian he characterized as transported material that, under CEQA’s integrity standard, may not qualify as historical resources.

Tribal leaders and their cultural‑resources specialists countered that surface scatters, redeposited soils and oral histories constitute substantial evidence of tribal cultural resources across a wider area of the parcel and urged the city to adopt stronger mitigation. Robert Gary, identified as the tribe's Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and Director of Cultural Resources, asked the council to require tribal monitoring across the entire project site, not only at the two buried deposits Dr. White identified. Gary said the tribe had found stone tools and high-density obsidian concentrations in pedestrian surveys and warned that disking earlier in May may have exposed additional materials.

“We’re not here to stop the project,” Gary said. “We want to be at the consultation table and we want to protect our footprint. Once these resources are destroyed, they’re gone.”

Appellant counsel and outside attorneys submitted an 11‑page errata at the hearing and additional materials they asked the council to consider; counsel requested an extra 48 hours to review the materials. Counsel also offered — and reiterated during deliberations — that the tribe was willing to perform additional pedestrian survey work for free and to fund monitoring outside areas already identified in the city’s mitigation.

City staff and counsel told the council the administrative record includes AB 52 consultation and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) already incorporates substantial tribal‑resource mitigation measures. City representatives said Subterra Heritage Resources (Dr. White’s firm) identified two intact subsurface sites and that the project was redesigned to avoid them, while transported materials elsewhere on the parcel were documented as redeposits from twentieth‑century construction and demolition.

Several residents and community leaders, including local Little League representatives and former planning commissioners, urged the council to find a path that protects cultural resources while allowing the sports complex to proceed. Speakers from the Native and tribal communities recounted historical displacement and emphasized oral history and non‑archaeological traditions as evidence of cultural significance.

After public comment and rebuttals, the council closed the public hearing for deliberation and discussed options including rewording mitigation language, clarifying the city’s role as lead agency and whether the tribe would fund broader monitoring. Multiple council members said they would not cede lead‑agency control over the project but expressed support for expanding monitoring if the tribe would cover costs in areas the city had not identified as sensitive.

Council Member Kramer noted the tribe had offered to pay for monitors on portions of the site outside the areas the city had already agreed to monitor, and Chairman Jaren Beltran and other tribal representatives confirmed willingness to arrange and pay for additional monitoring. With time needed to review materials newly submitted at the hearing and to refine mitigation language, the council voted to continue the public hearing to Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. in council chambers.

What’s next: council and city staff said they will attempt to negotiate language changes and clarify protocols before the continued hearing. If parties remain in dispute about the sufficiency of the MND, the council could order further environmental review or receive additional legal challenges; counsel for the appellant urged continued consultation to avoid litigation.

(Reporting note: direct quotes in this article are taken from the hearing transcript and were attributed to speakers as introduced at the meeting.)