2022-05-05 Windward Exh C (Item 3 County Council Initiated PL-CCI-2022-001)

Home

corresponds to the required number of plugs. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation 96 under Section 25-4-54.1(b). Change the term "plan review"to "Plan Approval" and clarify the reference of an additional two (2) years to comply with subsection (a). The reason is there's no such reference in our Zoning Code to "plan review", however Plan Approval is the process through which parking requirements are reviewed by the Planning Department. Additionally, the reference to an additional 2 years is somewhat confusing. The intent of the provision should be clarified. So, in Section 1. A and 1. B of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments it still references "plan review", so the Director maintains his request to change this to Plan Approval and under Section 1. B of Councilmember's proposed amendments she clarifies that the reference to an additional 2 years or she clarifies that reference by including similar installation schedule to account for the additional 2-year timeline. So, the Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends that the Commission adopt this change. Under recommendation 97 under 25-4-54.1(c). There should be a trigger identified for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval requirements. For example, within a certain amount of time from the code change or based on public complaints or what have you. The reason is the requirement for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval to comply with the requirements of State law has no time compliance trigger or other enforcement mechanism so, it's unclear how existing places of public accommodation meeting that size criteria will come into compliance. So, the Director's recommendation is to add some language on how those places will come to compliance. Recommendation 98 is to clarify the apparent conflict between the number of parking stalls required for each EV charger versus each plug on an EV charger. We talked about this a little bit before but there's another section of the Code where there's a disconnect or a conflict. So, the recommendation here is to clarify that. So, under Section 25-4-54.1 (a), it appears that the number of dedicated parking stalls corresponds to the number of plugs available and that's what Councilmember Kimball's change actually proposes. However, there's another section of the bill 25-4-54.1 (e), that requires a dedicated parking stall for all chargers which can include several plugs. So, the Director is recommending that subsection (e) be amended to match the proposed changes to subsection (a) that require the number of dedicated parking stalls match the number of required plugs. Recommendation 99 states that Section 25-4-54.1 (f), does not allow EV designated spaces to displace or reduce ADA accessible parking stalls, but it does not address the requirements for ADA accessible electric vehicle stalls. So, the Director wanted the Council to consider adding a section referencing ADA requirements for electric vehicle stalls. The reason for this is in 2012 the State Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) issued an interpretive opinion relating to the requirement of EV charging stations to be accessible for all public buildings, facilities, and sites constructed by or on behalf of the State or any County. According to this opinion, where EV charging stations are provided a minimum of 5%, but not less than one of 6 EXHIBIT C