A 2024 city-approved plan for an EV charging hub at 29 Wildwood Avenue has been upended thanks to state laws that limit local control over EV charging station permits.
The project, which consists of fast-charging kiosks to serve up to 14 electric vehicles at a time, was initially approved by the City Council last November. At that time, Shell, the applicant, agreed to limited hours of operation and other modifications. Residents who live near the site largely supported the EV charging destination but objected in particular to the 24/7 operation plan, expressing concerns about noise, traffic, and crime in the overnight hours at what would be an unattended site.
Shell recently withdrew that permit and submitted a new application that, under California Government Code Sections 65850.7 and 65850.71 (two laws designed to speed up the installation of EV charging stations in the state) essentially limits the city’s ability to exercise any discretion over features such as the canopies, fencing, landscaping, benches, or an air compressor that were part of the 2024 approved plan. Most notably, there are now no restrictions on the hours of operation.
The permit application is also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Cities have some discretion over the permitting process if there is an adverse impact to public health or safety, but the city says no such impact has been identified for this application.
The city sent notices to neighbors on Sept. 22 to alert them to the change.
Neighbors of 29 Wildwood Avenue rightly did not want 24/7 operation given all the negative impacts on their quality of life including increased nighttime activity, lights, crime and noise. Shell was not including restrooms or water which raises some obvious questions given how the human anatomy functions. Cal. GC 65850.7 and Cal. GC 65850.71 were enacted in 2015 and 2022 respectively. By these State laws Shell can have all night operation and pull the previously agreed upon air for tires.
Was City Council made aware that whatever action they took concerning Shell’s EV Hub request could be ignored by Shell’s subsequent filing for State permits? There is no reference to GC 65850.7 and 65850.71 in the 10/28/24 Staff report. Should Staff have advised Council to require a binding agreement with Shell concerning the hours of operation and exclude 24/7 operation?