A Court of Appeal held that a provision in the County of Amador's checklist for an encroachment permit requiring "[o]ther information as may be required" violated the Permit Streamlining Act. Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador, 111 Cal.App.5th 794 (2025). However, the court found that the County's grading permit application checklist was sufficient to justify its determination that the developer's application was incomplete.
Petitioner applied for an encroachment permit and a grading permit to grade over 50,000 cubic yards for a residential subdivision. The County deemed both applications incomplete and requested several additional items, including wastewater treatment designs, a water agency plan, an indemnity agreement and "information necessary to comply with CEQA." Petitioner sued, arguing that the request for information not listed on the County's official checklists violated the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov't Code section 65920 et seq., the "PSA").
The PSA requires public agencies to maintain "one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project" (Gov't Code § 65940(a)), and to "indicate the criteria which the agency will apply in order to determine the completeness of any application submitted to it." Gov't Code § 65941(a).
The County's grading permit submittal checklist requires "a completed application, an erosion control plan, and a copy of right-of-way agreements." The application itself asks whether the requested permit is subject to the CEQA. The County Code specifies that an application to grade over 5,000 cubic yards of soil is subject to CEQA, and separately requires an indemnification agreement for CEQA projects.
The court held that these County Code provisions—specifying when CEQA would apply and requiring an indemnification agreement for projects subject to CEQA—were sufficient to support the County's determination that the grading permit application was incomplete. The County was therefore justified in requesting additional information to support its CEQA review, as well as a signed indemnification agreement. The court rejected the argument that the PSA required the County to provide applicants with "all information required for a permit on a single checklist rather than maintaining several checklists in its municipal code and local ordinances," noting that the PSA allows "one or more lists" of required information. Gov't Code § 65940(a)(1).
Further, the County was not required to "list the exact environmental information needed in its criteria for issuance of grading permits." The court agreed with the County that "it is impossible to foresee the unique environmental issues presented in each development project and to include them in a standard checklist." Such a requirement would "frustrate the agencies' authority to seek this exact information during a permit application process" under the PSA's section 65941(b) and CEQA section 21160(a).
Conversely, the court agreed with petitioner as to the encroachment permit. The application form and submittal checklist made no mention of information needed for CEQA compliance. The checklist included a "catch-all provision" listing "'[o]ther information as may be required by the director [of transportation and public works].'" In the absence of any reference to CEQA in the checklist or County Code, this catch-all provision was insufficient to support a County determination that an encroachment application was incomplete for failing to include CEQA-related information.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
