From: Hannah Goldsmith
To: Jing Yeo; Heidi von Tongeln; Michelle M. Hugard
Cc: Gia Vacin; Heather Hickerson; Jessie Denver; Elsa Alves; Van Nguyen Subject: RE: GO-Biz Concerns Re: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance - City Council Meeting Item 12.A.
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 12:08:17 PM
Attachments: image001.png
EXTERNAL
Dear Director Yeo, City Attorney von Tongeln, and members of the City Attorney’s Office and Community Development Department,
On behalf of GO-Biz, I’m following up to clarify and restate our remarks from our recent call regarding the City of Santa Monica’s processing of any pending ZEV charging infrastructure permit applications, as well as any new applications submitted while the City considers adoption of an AV-fleet-related ordinance.
Please note that any ZEV charging infrastructure permit applications submitted must still be processed in accordance with the requirements and timelines set forth in Government Code sections 65850.7 and 65850.71. These statutes remain fully applicable regardless of any parallel ordinance work underway at the City.
As you know, the appropriate mechanism for evaluating a proposed EV charging infrastructure project—and whether to apply any associated use conditions—is through the health and safety review process we’ve discussed. Under Government Code section 65850.7, applications to install EV charging infrastructure must be administratively approved through a nondiscretionary building permit, and the City’s review is limited to determining whether the proposed installation complies with objective health and safety standards under local, state, and federal law. A use permit or project conditions may be required upon a written, evidence-based finding of a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and any conditions imposed must represent the lowest cost mitigation necessary to address that impact.
Please feel free to reach out if it would be helpful to discuss any of this further. We very much appreciate your continued partnership.
Sincerely,
Hannah
Hannah Goldsmith (she/her)
Assistant Deputy Director, Legal Affairs
office: (916) 447-7942
1325 J Street, Suite 1800 | Sacramento, CA 95814
Follow: LinkedIn | YouTube
From: Hannah Goldsmith
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 3:30 PM
To: 'Jing Yeo' <[email protected]>; Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>; Michelle M. Hugard <[email protected]> Cc: Gia Vacin <[email protected]>; Heather Hickerson <[email protected]>; Jessie Denver <[email protected]>; Elsa Alves-Wright <[email protected]>; Van Nguyen <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: GO-Biz Concerns Re: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance - City Council Meeting Item
12.A.
Dear Director Yeo, City Attorney von Tongeln, and members of the City Attorney’s Office and Community Development Department,
Thank you again for speaking with us on June 4th about the draft emergency interim zoning ordinance, and for the thoughtful work your team is doing to address the community’s concerns regarding autonomous vehicle (AV) fleet operations in Santa Monica. (Please feel free to forward this email to the folks on the call I missed/that were not on the initial meeting invitation.) After reviewing the draft in detail, we wanted to provide more focused feedback and a suggested path forward. We initially indicated that we’d put together a red-line for your consideration. Given the number of interrelated changes needed to align the draft ordinance with Government Code section 65850.7 and the Attorney General’s legal alert, we determined a GO-Biz red-line is not the most workable approach. We believe it will be more helpful to clarify the core state-law principles that need to be preserved, and outline a path that still enables you to meet your land use and public health and safety objectives.
Additionally, we plan to circle back with conditioned permit examples, as requested, very soon.
1. Regulate the intended use separately from the EV charging permit From a state law perspective, the changes we’re recommending (in item 4) are intended to ensure compliance with the state’s electric vehicle (EV) charging streamlining laws.
EV charging infrastructure must be processed and approved ministerially, with review limited to objective health and safety standards, consistent with Gov. Code § 65850.7. As included in the Attorney General’s legal alert, Gov. Code §§ 65850.7 and 65850.71 prohibit jurisdictions from preemptively limiting EV charging stations to certain zones and these laws apply to all EV charging installations, regardless of whether the infrastructure is used for personal, public, or fleet use. (OAG2025-01, pages 4-5.) We believe it would be more consistent with Gov. Code § 65850.7 to regulate large light-duty fleet operations—or regulate light-duty AV fleet operations, if more appropriate in this case—wholly separately, such as through a fleet operation permit, not through the EV charging infrastructure permit.
2. The fleet definition should be narrowed to the actual target: high-intensity AV fleet depots As drafted, the “Light Fleet-Based Service with Electric Vehicle Charging” definition is much broader than the type of land use Santa Monica appears to be targeting. From the use standards in the ordinance, it seems clear that the City’s primary concern is high-intensity, likely AV, fleet operations.
However, the current definition includes “businesses that rely on fleets of 3 or more vehicles with rated capacities less than 10,000 lbs.” This threshold and phrasing will capture low-intensity, conventional businesses that do not necessarily require the same use standards for on-site staffing, queuing, dispatch, noise and light control, or other permit conditions included in the ordinance.
We recommend narrowing the definition, so it targets the intended use case (or cases), which appears to be—based upon many provisions of the current draft ordinance—high-intensity AV fleet operations.
3. Examples of fleets that will be unintentionally captured Because of the breadth of the current definition, we believe the ordinance will unintentionally apply to a number of uses where the proposed conditions are not appropriate or proportional. For example, it will apply to businesses such as commercial cleaning or janitorial services, local courier services, catering, construction, and landscaping businesses with three or more vehicles. And, it will seemingly apply to small home-services businesses (like pest control, pool maintenance, plumbing, HVAC repair, landscaping, etc.) that keep several light-duty vehicles on site but do not generate the kind of arrival surges or continuous operations that are the target of the ordinance.
The state would like to see these kinds of businesses electrify their fleets, even if they are small, and state regulations may be moving toward requirements in this regard (e.g., the California Air Resources Board is considering capturing private fleet vehicles, that are contracted by public entities for services, in its Advanced Clean Fleets regulation).
For these types of uses, requirements such as continuous onsite staffing, detailed dispatch coordination plans, and monitoring/reporting are unlikely to be justified by actual impacts, or aligned with state law if preemptively tied to the EV charging infrastructure permit approval (e.g., Gov. Code, § 65850.7, subd. (d) requires that any “conditions imposed on an application to install an [EV] charging station shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety at the lowest cost possible”).
4. Recommended path: separate the high-intensity AV fleet permit and add an EV checklist question
To reconcile these concerns and still give you the tools you need, we recommend the following structure:
In Santa Monica’s EV charging station checklist, add one mandatory question to determine whether a proposed project will include AV fleet operations.
For example, something like “Will this site include autonomous vehicle fleet operations (e.g., dispatch, staging, storage, or maintenance of multiple autonomous vehicles)?” This would allow staff to identify when a project includes AV fleet use that may trigger a separate review/permit.
Create or use a separate fleet operations (or similar) permit for high-intensity AV fleet operation. Apply your desired use standards, as appropriate, through that permit, not through the EV charging infrastructure permit. With this, however, we recommend revising the fleet definition to focus on high-intensity AV fleet depots, as previously mentioned, rather than the three-vehicle general fleet threshold.
5. Concern about jurisdictional replication risk and degradation of AB 1236 / AB 970 As discussed on our June 4th call, and mentioned above regarding proposed statewide regulations, we are also looking at the potential for replication of this ordinance in other cities and counties. If this draft ordinance is adopted and used as a model by other jurisdictions, there is a real risk that EV charging approvals will increasingly be tied to broad, operationally-focused conditions. If that occurs, the intent of AB 1236 and AB 970 (Gov. Code, §§ 65850.7 and 65850.71)—to ensure local governments streamline, expedite, and avoid imposing unreasonable barriers on the installation of EV charging infrastructure so that California can meet its zero‑emission vehicle, air quality, climate, and economic development goals—will be eroded.
Our concern is not with your desire to manage high-intensity AV fleet operations; that is a legitimate local land use objective. The concern is that, if EV charging infrastructure permits become the vehicle for regulating those operations, other jurisdictions may follow suit and, in aggregate and via a patchwork, undermine the streamlining purpose of these California laws.
In conclusion, we believe the approach we recommended in this email is consistent with the requirements of Gov. Code § 65850.7 and the Attorney General’s legal alert, preserves the integrity of the state’s streamlining laws, and allows Santa Monica to address the real impacts you are seeing on the ground from high-intensity AV operations.
We would be happy to review a revised draft definition or a separate AV fleet operations ordinance if that would be helpful, and otherwise continue to coordinate with you. Thank you again for your leadership on EV infrastructure and for engaging so thoughtfully on these issues.
Sincerely,
Hannah
Hannah Goldsmith (she/her)
Assistant Deputy Director, Legal Affairs
office: (916) 447-7942
1325 J Street, Suite 1800 | Sacramento, CA 95814
Follow: LinkedIn | YouTube
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Jing Yeo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:07 PM
To: Jing Yeo; Hannah Goldsmith; Gia Vacin; Jessie Denver; Van Nguyen; Heather Hickerson; Heidi von Tongeln; Michelle M. Hugard
Subject: GO-Biz Concerns Re: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance - City Council Meeting Item 12.A.
When: Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting
________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting
Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/298088649380271? p=uqcSaMGddl7W62ihPJ
Meeting ID: 298 088 649 380 271
Passcode: dq7wh7Ss
Need help? | System reference
Dial in by phone
+1 310-883-7522,,119652129# United States, Santa Monica Find a local number
Phone conference ID: 119 652 129#
For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN
________________________________________________________________________________