In Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador (May 30, 2025, C09948) __Cal.App. ___, the Third District Court of Appeal struck down a vague “catch-all” provision in Amador County’s encroachment permit checklist as inconsistent with the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq.), which requires agencies to “specify in detail” what information is required to process a development application. But this victory for the developer was largely Pyrrhic, as the court simultaneously upheld the County’s authority to demand nearly all the same information under CEQA, based on requirements embedded in the grading permit checklist and municipal code. The opinion underscores the importance of clear submittal requirements, while affirming agencies’ discretion to require environmental documentation under CEQA.
Background
Old Golden Oaks LLC is the owner of a residential subdivision in Amador County. In 2023, Old Golden Oaks applied to the County for encroachment and grading permits for a housing development project. The County deemed both applications incomplete and requested a range of additional materials, including wastewater treatment design plans, a water service agreement, fire protection documentation, and several items particular to the grading permit, including a stormwater pollution prevention plan and an erosion control plan.
Old Golden Oaks responded with a writ petition, arguing that the County’s request for additional information violated the Permit Streamlining Act because the requests were not included in the County’s published checklists. The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend. Old Golden Oaks appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Permit Streamlining Act was enacted to bring clarity and efficiency to the land use development review process. Among other requirements, it obligates public agencies to maintain checklists identifying in detail the information needed to process a permit application. (Gov. Code, §§ 65940, 65941.) These checklists function as procedural safeguards, enabling applicants to know up front what is required for a complete application and preventing agencies from rejecting applications based on unlisted or vague requirements. Old Golden Oaks argued that the County violated the Act by declaring its application incomplete based on information that was not listed in the County’s checklist, particularly under the encroachment permit’s catch-all provision allowed the director to require “[o]ther information.” In the developer’s view, this undermined the Act’s purposes of transparency and predictability.
The County countered that it is impossible to enumerate every potential environmental document that an agency may need to review a project’s impacts, particularly under CEQA. It argued that the open-ended language in the encroachment permit, along with CEQA-related references in the grading permit materials, gave it flexibility to request such environmental information. The court split the difference. It held that the catch-all provision in the encroachment permit checklist violated the Permit Streamlining Act’s requirement to “specify in detail” what must be submitted, explaining that agencies cannot condition application completeness on vague or discretionary demands. On the other hand, the court upheld the County’s treatment of the grading permit, finding that the relevant provisions of the municipal code and permit materials provided sufficient notice that CEQA compliance would be required. Old Golden Oaks had acknowledged that its proposed grading (nearly 59,000 cubic yards) triggered CEQA review under the County’s municipal code. The court agreed with the County that requiring agencies to maintain exhaustive lists of CEQA-related documentation would be impractical and contrary to the goal of obtaining necessary project-specific environmental information. The Permit Streamlining Act prohibits agencies from requiring CEQA compliance prior to deeming an application complete, but it does not prohibit agencies from requiring enough information to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review.
Finally, the court rejected Old Golden Oaks’s argument that the County must house all permit application requirements in a single checklist. The Permit Streamlining Act permits agencies to use “one or more lists,” and including some requirements through cross-referenced sections of the municipal code was sufficient.