Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador
(Cal. Ct. App., May 30, 2025, No. C099948)
Introduction
With its Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador decision, the California Court of Appeal (Third District) intensified the tension between CEQA and the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), straining the PSA’s procedural safeguards for housing by allowing CEQA-based information requests to delay determinations of application completeness. While the court acknowledged that Amador County violated the PSA by relying on a vague “catch-all” provision in its encroachment permit checklist—undermining the PSA’s requirement that permit criteria be specified “in detail”—it nonetheless affirmed the County’s authority to require supplemental environmental information for a grading permit, where CEQA compliance was explicitly referenced in both the checklist and municipal code.
This distinction carries particular weight in the housing context, where the date an application is deemed complete under the PSA can trigger protections under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §65589.5) and related laws, including agency obligations within certain time periods and/or vesting a project’s rights against subsequent regulatory changes.
Factual Background
In 2023, Old Golden Oaks LLC (Old Golden) sought to revive a residential subdivision project previously approved by the County in 1973 by applying for encroachment and grading permits. The County deemed the applications incomplete and requested several additional items, including environmental documentation and utility-related materials. Old Golden challenged the County’s determination and requests, arguing they exceeded the scope of the County’s published submittal checklists under the PSA. After the trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend, Old Golden appealed.
Issues and Court’s Analysis
The Permit Streamlining Act requires agencies to maintain one or more detailed checklists specifying the information needed for a development application to be deemed complete. (Gov. Code, §§65940, 65941.) While agencies cannot require full CEQA compliance or the equivalent of an EIR at the completeness stage, they may request enough information to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review. (Gov. Code, § 65941.) Agencies must notify applicants within 30 days whether an application is complete and may only cite missing items listed in their published requirements. (Gov. Code, §65943.) The court’s ruling in Old Golden Oaks addressed these requirements in the context of encroachment and grading permits, examining the adequacy of the County’s use of a general “catch-all” checklist item and CEQA compliance language to justify additional submittal demands.
Encroachment Permit
The court held the County’s use of a broad “catch-all” provision in its encroachment permit checklist that allowed the director to request unspecified additional information violated the PSA. Because the checklist did not detail the specific information required, the County could not condition application completeness on items not explicitly listed.
Grading Permit
In contrast to the encroachment permit, the court upheld the County’s request for additional information related to the grading permit. The County’s submittal checklist and municipal code provisions expressly stated that projects involving significant grading are subject to CEQA and required specific items such as a notice of intent, erosion control plan, and indemnification agreement. The court reasoned notice that CEQA compliance was required was sufficient to request additional environmental information under the PSA’s requirement to “specify in detail” the information necessary to complete an application. As found by the court, because the exact nature of environmental review necessarily varies by project, the County was not obligated to specifically enumerate all CEQA-related materials required for a complete application in advance. Because Old Golden would have to provide environmental information to the County “now or later,” the court reasoned there would be “little extra burden on Old Golden… to prepare the additional environmental information” requested by the County for a completeness determination. The court also rejected the argument that all required materials must be listed in a single checklist, affirming that multiple checklists across municipal code sections are permissible.
Conclusion
While recognizing key procedural safeguards under the PSA, the court’s decision introduces the troubling potential that agencies may delay completeness determinations by insisting upon the preparation of environmental documents not expressly listed on their published checklists. This approach risks undermining the PSA’s purpose of providing clear, predictable standards for applicants and appears inconsistent with both the statutory requirement that completeness criteria be “specified in detail” and State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subdivision (b), which instructs that CEQA lead agencies begin the formal environmental evaluation of a project “after accepting an application as complete” (emphasis added). As such, this case underscores the importance for both public agencies and applicants to confirm – as early as possible – the exact universe of documentation that will be required to support a completeness determination.
[This alert does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or responding to this alert. Legal counsel should be sought for answers to specific legal questions.]