Developers warned: AB1236/AB970 streamline EV charging permits, but local health‑and‑safety tests and infrastructure needs are causing delays

State permit‑streamlining laws require cities and counties to treat EV charging installations as ministerial projects subject mainly to objective health and safety review, but developers should expect real‑world permitting friction for medium‑ and heavy‑duty charging depots.

At a Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development webinar, GO‑Biz legal lead Hannah Goldsmith summarized AB1236 and AB970: AB1236 limits an authority having jurisdiction's (AHJ's) review to objective health and safety standards and preempts zoning‑based denials; AB970 imposes statutory timelines (for example, projects with 25 chargers or fewer have a 5‑day completeness determination window and a 20‑day approval to build window). "AB1236 largely limits an AHJ's review of an EV charging station application to health and safety," Goldsmith said.

Attorney General guidance: GO‑Biz highlighted an Attorney General legal alert that reiterates AB1236's preemption of aesthetic and discretionary local design requirements, and restates that streamlining should apply to both accessory and primary EV charging projects.

Where projects are getting delayed: GO‑Biz and panelists described several recurring issues affecting medium/heavy projects.

- Integral vs non‑integral components: Streamlining is intended to cover integral components necessary for the chargers to function (chargers, conduit, electrical/utility equipment, paving). Accessory buildings (restrooms, concessions, administrative space) are commonly treated as non‑integral, may trigger planning review, and cause delays. GO‑Biz advised downsizing accessory buildings or decoupling permits so charging infrastructure can proceed under streamlining while buildings follow a different pathway.

- Application completeness: AHJs require a completed application to apply streamlined timelines; preliminary or incomplete submissions will not receive ministerial fast‑tracking.

- Health & safety conditions: If an AHJ makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that an installation would have a specific adverse health and safety impact that cannot be mitigated, the jurisdiction may require a conditional use permit or other measures. Examples cited include stormwater/drainage infrastructure, frontage improvements, truck circulation studies, and interchange/off‑ramp adequacy in rural corridors.

- Environmental review on undeveloped land: Although ministerial approvals are not subject to SQA/CEQA, larger installations on undeveloped or ecologically sensitive sites may trigger environmental review (wildfire risk, biological resources, geologic hazards) or discretionary approvals (for example, endangered species take permits), which can extend timelines substantially; federal funding can also introduce NEPA/agency discretionary review.

- Utilities and rural infrastructure: Remote parcels lacking public water or sewer can force AHJs to require restrooms and associated wells/septic approvals, or may disallow hauled water; these requirements add cost and require coordination with water boards and regional agencies.

Advice and remedies: GO‑Biz recommended early engagement with local AHJs, submission of fully engineered applications to qualify for streamlining, decoupling permits when possible, and using the AG legal alert and GO‑Biz facilitation when disputes arise. GO‑Biz cautioned that while it provides guidance and facilitates conversations, it does not have independent enforcement power; developers retain remedies available under law, including seeking court resolution if necessary.

Next procedural step: GO‑Biz asked developers encountering permitting blockages to contact the office early so staff can help convene AHJs and developers. The AG legal alert and GO‑Biz resources are publicly available for reference.