Laserfiche WebLink
Reason: The State Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) issued an <br /> interpretive opinion (Planning Department Exhibit 5—DCAB 2012-01) relating to the <br /> requirement of EV charging stations to be accessible for all public buildings, facilities <br /> and sites constructed by, or on behalf of the State or any county. According to this <br /> opinion, "Where EV charging stations are provided, 5%, but not less than one of each <br /> type ofEV station shall be accessible. "In addition,the opinion articulates design <br /> requirements for an ADA accessible EV parking stall. <br /> Recommendation #10 <br /> Under Section 25-4-54.1 (h),consider defining what is considered a `reasonable' fee. <br /> Reason: The qualifier `reasonable' is subjective and difficult to enforce. Consider adding <br /> a fee cap or a fee schedule based on KWh charged. <br /> Recommendation #11 <br /> Under Section 25-4-54.2 (a), consider including a ratio, formula, or equivalency table to <br /> compare the charging capacity between alternating current Level 2 charger and a direct <br /> current fast charger. <br /> Reason: This tool will help the Planning Director determine charging capacity between <br /> the different charger types. <br /> Recommendation #12 <br /> While Section 25-4-54.2 (b)(1) allows for an exemption to the requirements of 25-4-54.1 <br /> if the location does not have established electrical service or lacks adequate infrastructure <br /> to provide sufficient electrical current for vehicle charger implementation, there is no <br /> similar exemption if internet access is unavailable. <br /> Reason: The bill requires both the alternating current Level 2 charger and a direct current <br /> fast charger to be `networked' or `network-capable' respectively,but there is no <br /> requirement in the bill for an internet connection to track charger use or be remotely <br /> accessible. Consider clarifying whether an internet connection is a requirement for <br /> implementation of this proposed bill. <br /> For the reasons detailed above,the Planning Director recommends that the Planning <br /> Commissions send a favorable recommendation of Bill No. 120,to the County Council with <br /> the suggested revisions recommended by the Director. <br /> -9- <br />