Earlier this year, the First District Court of Appeal issued the first published opinion interpreting Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which governs tribal consultation procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 14, 2025, No. A169438), the Court held that the City’s failure to conduct “meaningful” consultation with the Koi Nation Native American Tribe violated AB 52, resulting in the invalidation of project approvals for a hotel and roadway development.

Overview of AB 52.

Assembly Bill 52, enacted in 2014 (codified as Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.3.1, et seq.), aimed to protect tribal cultural resources by requiring lead agencies to 1) notify tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project before the release of any negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report; and 2) engage in consultation with the affected tribe regarding alternatives to the project, recommended mitigation measures, or significant effects of the project to tribal cultural resources.

Once a project application is complete, the lead agency must notify the tribe within 14 days. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.3.1, subd. (d).) The tribe then has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.3.1, subd. (b).) If requested, the agency must begin meaningful consultation within 30 days after the consultation request. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.3.1, subd. (e).)

Consultation is concluded when the parties agree to mitigation measures and avoid a significant effect or when acting in good faith, a mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.3.2, subd. (b)(1) & (2).)

The City of Clearlake failed to providing meaningful consultation according to the Court.

In the Koi Nation case, the Koi Nation, a federally recognized tribe, requested formal consultation after being notified of a proposed hotel and road project in Clearlake. The City met with the Tribe and subsequently received a letter from the Tribe proposing three mitigation measures to address potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. After the meeting, consultation ceased, and the City prepared a  Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Although the City included one of these measures in its adopted MND, it did not respond to the Tribe’s letter, continue the consultation, or document its rationale regarding the other proposed measures.

The Court found that the City’s actions did not meet the requirements of AB 52. It emphasized that AB 52 mandates a “meaningful consultation process,” which involves seeking, discussing, and carefully considering the Tribe’s views and seeking agreement where feasible. The Court noted that while a meeting was held and a letter was received from the Tribe, the City failed to engage in further discussions or provide a substantive response to the Tribe’s proposals. The City did not document the consultation conclusion or communicate its reasoning to the Tribe. Consequently, the Court ruled that the City’s consultation was inadequate and did not fulfill the requirements within AB 52.

As a result, the Court set aside the City’s project approvals and MND and ordered the City to comply with AB 52’s consultation process if it wished to proceed with the project. This case provides a sense of the necessary rigor for AB 52 tribal consultation under CEQA. It highlights the importance of agencies engaging in substantive, documented, and responsive consultation with tribes when requested, marking the first appellate interpretation of these statutory requirements. The full opinion can be found HERE.

Mitchell Chadwick attorney Joe Knadler contributed this article.

• Next
• Previous