Like a gift to land use lawyers that never stops giving, the strange and wondrous interrelationship between CEQA and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”; Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq) continues to inspire litigation and require judicial explication. In a terse 8-page published opinion filed May 30, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal explained the finer points of the rules governing PSA-required permit submittal checklists and completeness determinations and how they interact with CEQA when the latter applies to the permit at issue. Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador (2025) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. (And, it can be noted, CEQA should virtually always apply to “development projects” subject to the PSA, which do not include ministerial projects. (Gov. Code § 65928).)
Developer Old Golden Oaks LLC (“Old Golden”) applied in 2023 for encroachment and grading permits from Amador County in connection with a housing development project. The project itself was apparently quite “old,” as the opinion informs us it is “a residential subdivision created by a map the county approved in 1973” after which year construction by Old Golden’s predecessor “was halted.” (The opinion makes no mention of any prior CEQA review of the project, which, given the ostensible date of the final map’s approval, may have never occurred.) In any event, the County determined Old Golden’s permit applications were incomplete and requested supplemental information, prompting Old Golden to file a petition for writ of mandate alleging county violated the PSA by requesting information not included in its submittal checklists for both permits. After the trial court sustained county’s demurrer without leave, Old Golden appealed and the Third District reversed in part and affirmed in part.
In affirming the portion of the trial court’s judgment addressing the encroachment permit, the Court of Appeal held county’s submittal checklist as to that permit violated the PSA’s requirement that it “specify in detail” the information required for a complete development project application because it contained a “catch-all” provision for “[o]ther information as may be required by the director [of transportation and public works].” That provision lacked the requisite specific detail required by the PSA and frustrated its purpose to “ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects.” (Citing and quoting Gov. Code, §§ 65921, 65940(a)(1).) Nor, the Court observed, did the encroachment permit submittal checklist mention anything about information needed for CEQA compliance, or indicate what additional information might be required by the director. Accordingly, even though County could seek environmental information from Old Golden both before and after the encroachment permit application was complete (Gov. Code, § 65941(b); Pub. Resources Code, § 21160(a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15060(a)), it could not make providing such information a condition for deeming the application complete. (Gov. Code, §§ 65940(a)(1), 65943(a).)
The situation regarding the grading permit was different since the submittal checklist for that permit and county’s code expressly and specifically required numerous items, at least some of which Old Golden apparently did not provide with its application; these included a proposed erosion control plan, right-of-way agreements, a NOI and SWPPP, engineered plans, and an indemnification agreement. The application also expressly asked if CEQA review was required, and Old Golden didn’t answer that question, but county’s code made clear that grading projects involving over 5,000 cubic yards of earth movement (Old Golden’s involved 58,740 cubic yards) were subject to CEQA and thus to the foregoing requirements. And Old Golden conceded on appeal that its project must comply with CEQA.
The PSA requires public agencies to maintain “one or more lists” that “specify in detail” the information that will be required from any development project applicant (Gov. Code, § 65940(a)), and the list(s) must “indicate the criteria which the agency will apply to determine the [application’s] completeness[.]” (§ 65941(a).) Those criteria can’t require submittal of the “informational equivalent of an [EIR]… or… proof of [CEQA] compliance… as a prerequisite to a permit application being deemed complete” (§ 65941(b)), but an agency may require sufficient information to permit it to make the CEQA determination, i.e., whether an EIR or some type of negative declaration will be required. (Ibid.) An agency receiving a development project application must make and notify the applicant of its completeness determination within 30 days, and provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of any incomplete items – albeit one limited to items actually required on its submittal requirements checklist. (§ 65943(a).)
The Court held that because County’s grading permit submittal checklist alerted applicants to the need for CEQA compliance, and county’s code expressly stated CEQA compliance as a criteria for grading permits, county satisfied the PSA’s requirement to “specify in detail” the information required for a complete application. Per the Court, this was so despite County “not list[ing] the exact environmental information needed in its criteria for issuance of grading permits” since “it is impossible to foresee the unique environmental issues presented in each development project and to include them in a standard checklist.” The Court reasoned that since Old Golden conceded its project must comply with CEQA, and since the county could seek the environmental information during the “permit application process” and Old Golden would have to provide it to the county “now or later,” it saw “little extra burden on Old Golden… to prepare the additional environmental information.”
The Court rejected Old Golden’s argument that county was required to keep all required information on a single checklist, rather than maintaining several checklists in its local codes, as being at odds with Government Code, section 65940(a)(1), which allows public agencies to compile “one or more lists” of the information required for permit applications; the Court further observed that County’s municipal code was clearly organized and allowed for easy access to the lists containing the required information.
What is the “big picture” significance of the PSA permit application submittal checklist rules the Court elucidated here? One obvious lesson is that such rules are useful to provide clear procedures and benchmarks for determining when a development project permit application is complete, which prevents an agency from “horsing around” by refusing to process an application while making endless demands for additional information as a stall tactic. But it is also clear that even after an application is determined complete and while it is being processed, an agency’s ability to request and obtain further information which may be needed to comply with CEQA is not limited by the PSA. (Gov. Code, § 65944(c).) It should be remembered that the PSA’s time limits for approval or disapproval of projects run not from the date of a complete application, but from the agency’s certification of an EIR, adoption of a negative declaration, or determination of an exemption from CEQA (Gov. Code, § 65950), and that there are no effective enforceable deadlines in CEQA for the agency to make those determinations. (E.g., Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1245 [reaffirming CEQA has no deemed or automatic approval provisions and its one-year “deadline” for EIR certification is not mandatory or jurisdictional].) The date that a housing development project application is determined or deemed complete under the PSA may, however, have significant consequences under other laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5), and like-minded laws protecting housing development projects. For example, such laws may trigger agency obligations within time periods measured from an application’s deemed complete date, or vest rights to develop under the laws existing on the date of filing of a preliminary application or the deemed complete date of a formal application, thus protecting against subsequent adverse changes in the law. Such pro-housing laws have been frequently amended and strengthened in an effort to address California’s housing crisis, and it should be kept in mind that the date on which an application is deemed complete will likely continue to play a key role in the application of such laws.
