Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Consultation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tribes and advisory members press for a dedicated tribal element and clearer acknowledgements in Lake County plan
Summary
GPAC members and tribal participants urged the county to include stronger tribal recognition—mapping tribal villages, naming sacred sites such as Mount Kakaii, and creating a tribal element or explicit policies to ensure ongoing consultation in the general plan.
During the April 3 GPAC meeting, PlaceWorks and county staff described ongoing work to include tribal input in the Lake County 2050 general plan, and tribal representatives urged a stronger, more visible role for tribal history and protections.
Tanya Sunberg reviewed the general plan overview and the engagement process, and staff noted ongoing discussions with tribes about inserting a California‑history section and accurate tribal names in land acknowledgements. A county staff member explained the historical treaties (referred to in the meeting as Treaties O and P) and noted ongoing efforts to identify appropriate tribal names and villages for acknowledgements.
GPAC members and tribal speakers requested that the plan either include a standalone tribal element or, at minimum, commit in the overview to developing an element in a subsequent phase. “There should be a tribal element added to the general plan,” one GPAC member said, adding that cultural heritage policies and protections for places such as Mount Kakaii should be reflected prominently. Staff responded that a dedicated tribal element was not included in the current scope but that the draft could capture a goal or policy directing future creation of an element and that cultural heritage resource policy and co‑management agreements are in progress.
Several participants also urged that the plan do more to help the public understand traditional village locations and tribal landscapes—either by mapping traditional villages or by listing tribes and villages affected by historical treaties—because some communities are not federally recognized today yet remain culturally significant.
Separately, GPAC members asked that the general plan be written for broader readability. Marggo Kambara said residents from Scots Valley had reported that the draft is too technical and urged “basic common sense, simpler sentence structure, [and] break text into paragraphs” so the plan will be usable for residents and not relegated to a shelf.
Staff said they will continue tribal outreach, that a land‑acknowledgement list and village names were being prepared for upcoming tribal meetings, and that GPAC input would be compiled for an internal review that will inform the near‑final draft going to hearings in August/September.
