California Attorney General Sues City of Poway Over Construction at Site With Ancestral Remains

On April 21, 2026, the California Attorney General (AG) filed a lawsuit against the City of Poway (City or Poway) alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) after the discovery of ancestral human remains and extensive tribal cultural resources at a residential development site. The AG is requesting the court to halt construction of a 40‑home luxury subdivision and require the City to conduct additional environmental review under CEQA in light of discoveries made during project construction. People of the State of California ex rel. Bonta v. City of Poway, San Diego Superior Court (filed Apr. 21, 2026).

The crux of the AG's suit relates to the City's alleged failure to conduct supplemental CEQA review. However, the complaint also places significant emphasis on tribal cultural resource protections and the consultation requirements established by Assembly Bill 52 (AB-52), notwithstanding the fact that the project's original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved over a decade before AB-52 came into effect.

The Project, 2003 EIR, and Alleged Mitigation of Potential Significant Impacts

The project involves the development of approximately 40 homes on about 60 acres in Poway, northeast of San Diego. The City originally completed its environmental review obligations under CEQA in 2003, when it certified an EIR.

The EIR identifies that disturbing any human remains could constitute a significant impact. However, the AG's complaint argues that the EIR did not adopt appropriate (or any) mitigation measures to mitigate the potential for that significant impact.

Instead, the EIR identified potentially significant cultural impacts only on two designated portions of the project site and required mitigation in the form of archaeological data recovery programs. Those mitigation measures resulted in excavations conducted in 2004 and 2017, which reportedly uncovered more than 8,000 artifacts, including pottery fragments, arrowheads, bone tools, and specialized stone tools. That information was allegedly stored by the City and not disclosed to any member of the public, including tribes or the State, until February of 2026.

The Discovery of Human Remains During Construction

Further project activities, including ground-disturbing activities, began in October 2025. The first discovery of ancestral remains occurred on October 21, 2025, the same day brush‑clearing began. These discoveries occurred in the areas designated for the above archeological data recovery programs, as well as other sites that the City had previously concluded were not culturally significant in the 2003 EIR. Consistent with state law, these discoveries were referred to the Native American Heritage Commission (Commission). The Commission determined the discoveries occurred within the ancestral homelands of the Kumeyaay Nation and designated the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee as the "Most Likely Descendant."

Following the discovery of these remains, the AG alleged that the City took no further action and did not appropriately fulfill its duties under CEQA related to unanticipated discoveries and "new information."

Post‑Discovery Response and Alleged CEQA Violations

The complaint alleges that once the first ancestral remains were discovered, the City verbally issued a stop‑work order but did not conduct additional CEQA review or implement mitigation measures. Instead, the developer's archaeological consultant prepared an "Unanticipated Discoveries Plan" three days later outlining monitoring protocols and procedures for handling additional finds. The AG further alleges that the City had no involvement in drafting the plan and never formally approved it, rendering it a post-hoc, unenforceable mitigation measure under CEQA.

The complaint further alleges that the City allowed construction activities to continue and later issued a tree‑removal permit in January 2026 that enabled grading and the use of heavy equipment. These actions allegedly constitute discretionary approvals that triggered the City's obligation to evaluate whether new information or changed circumstances required supplemental environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166.

Beyond CEQA Violations: CEQA's Tribal Cultural Resource Framework, AB-52, and the Potential New Responsibilities Under Historic CEQA Documents

A central theme of the AG's complaint is CEQA's treatment of tribal cultural resources and the interplay between older CEQA documents, new information, and the consultation framework established by AB-52. AB-52 that was enacted in 2014, more than a decade after the City approved the project's EIR in 2003. Under AB-52, responsible agencies, including the City, are now required to consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project. (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080.3.1–21080.3.2).

Moreover, where a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, such impacts are classified as significant environmental effects and subject to necessary minimization and mitigation measures. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2). Tribal cultural resources include sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe. Importantly, these resources are analyzed separately from traditional archaeological or historical resources under CEQA.

The consultation process is intended to allow tribes to provide information regarding cultural significance and to help develop appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures.

According to the complaint, the City allegedly failed to meaningfully consult or otherwise engage with tribes at several key stages of the project's development, including during both archaeological investigations (in 2005 and 2017). Second, the complaint alleges the City did not conduct consultation with Kumeyaay tribes when it approved a Specific Plan amendment for the project in 2014, even though at that time AB-52 had been enacted and mandated consultation with tribes regarding impacts to places of traditional cultural significance. Third, after construction began in 2025 and ancestral human remains were discovered, the complaint alleges the City failed to directly engage in consultation with tribes regarding the significance of the site and appropriate mitigation measures, effectively arguing that the discoveries constituted new information, requiring additional review under CEQA, and mandating appropriately tribal engagement under AB-52 moving forward.

Relief Sought

The AG is seeking a writ of mandate and injunctive relief that would:

• Halt construction at the site;
• Vacate recent discretionary approvals for the project, such as tree removal and grading permits;
• Require the City to conduct supplemental CEQA review based on the new information; and
• Require consultation with affected tribes and adoption of enforceable mitigation measures.

The complaint also seeks a declaration that the City violated CEQA and failed to comply with its own archaeological guidelines governing unexpected discoveries during construction.

Takeaways

The lawsuit highlights several CEQA issues that frequently arise in long-running projects involving potential tribal cultural resources:

• AB-52 consultation obligations: Lead agencies must consult with tribes regarding tribal cultural resources and cannot rely solely on archaeological consultants to assess cultural significance. Adhering to this maxim during project development, even where historic CEQA documents otherwise govern a project, will likely be critical to insulate project proponents (and lead agencies) whenever new information related to cultural resources becomes apparent.

  Moreover, and following from recent case law interpreting lead agency obligations under AB-52 (see Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 815), this case highlights the potential application of AB-52 standards any time additional CEQA review is required based on changed circumstances or new information, regardless of whether initial CEQA documentation pre-dates AB-52's enactment.

• Importance of tribal engagement: The case also illustrates how failure to meaningfully engage tribes during environmental review, or subsequent project development where there are potentially culturally significant discoveries, can become a central issue in CEQA litigation. Put another way, if existing CEQA documents are not sufficiently robust to address cultural or tribal issues that arise during development, it may be beneficial to affirmatively address such holes before new information mandates a supplemental CEQA review and new tribal consultation mandates.

While the case remains in its early stages, litigation will likely focus on whether the discoveries triggered the City's duty to conduct supplemental CEQA review and the extent to which AB-52 applies to this supplemental CEQA review.

+++

Daniel Quinley is counsel in the real estate group in the San Francisco office of DWT. For questions about this suit, please contact Dan or another member of our land use team. To stay informed, sign up for our alerts.