<strong>CAI</strong> GreAter <strong>Los</strong> AnGeLes ChApter • www.cai-glac.orgCharging Up in The parking LoT: The new eLeCTriC vehiCLe Charging sTaTion Lawcontinued from page 6stations (including on common are<strong>as</strong>) by homeowners. The billwould permit <strong>as</strong>sociations to impose re<strong>as</strong>onable restrictions,such <strong>as</strong> architectural guidelines, and if the EVC is to be installedon common are<strong>as</strong>, the bill requires the installing owner to payfor installation, maintenance and repairs, <strong>as</strong> well <strong>as</strong> electricity,and to compensate <strong>as</strong>sociations for costs of any damage. TheEVC station (which may supply one or more electric vehicles)must meet all applicable safety standards and all local permittingand similar requirements. The bill also requires any ownerwishing to install an EVC on common are<strong>as</strong> to carry liabilitycoverage to protect the <strong>as</strong>sociation. An <strong>as</strong>sociation that violatesthe law faces damages and a $1,000 civil penalty, <strong>as</strong> well <strong>as</strong> attorney’sfees.The bill is similar to the recent solar energy system legislation(e.g., Civil Code Section 714) in structure and effect. The statedpurpose of SB-209 is to “remove obstacles to the use of electricvehicle charging stations,” and its author cites the example of an<strong>as</strong>sociation in Hawaii that denied an owner permission to installan EVC. The law provides that any covenant, condition, orrestriction that “effectively prohibits or restricts” installationof an EVC is void and unenforceable. However, there is anexception for “re<strong>as</strong>onable restrictions” — placing the “burden ofproof ” on the <strong>as</strong>sociation to show that any restriction regardingEVCs p<strong>as</strong>ses the re<strong>as</strong>onableness test: that the restriction does“not significantly incre<strong>as</strong>e the cost the station or significantlydecre<strong>as</strong>e its efficiency or specified performance.” Any <strong>as</strong>sociationapproval process must also move quickly: except for “re<strong>as</strong>onable”delays for information gathering, any application not deniedwithin 60 days is deemed approved.But to further eliminate resistance, the law states that <strong>as</strong>sociationsshall approve the installation <strong>as</strong> long <strong>as</strong> the installing owneragrees in writing to do the following: comply with architecturalstandards, use a licensed contractor, provide insurance coveringthe <strong>as</strong>sociation, and pay for the electricity. Once the EVC isinstalled, the owner (and his or her successors in title) becomesresponsible for any damage to the station, surrounding property(including common are<strong>as</strong>, exclusive use are<strong>as</strong>, and separateinterests) caused by the installation, repair, removal, or replacementof the EVC. The owner is also responsible for maintenance,repair, and replacement of the EVC, and the cost of electricityfor the EVC, and for carrying a million-dollar liability insurancepolicy, in perpetuity.continued on page 98 •July/August 2011
<strong>CAI</strong> GreAter <strong>Los</strong> AnGeLes ChApter • www.cai-glac.orgCharging Up in The parking LoT: The new eLeCTriC vehiCLe Charging sTaTion Lawcontinued from page 8Unfortunately, the law also h<strong>as</strong> the effect of granting exclusive use of the EVC location to <strong>as</strong>ingle owner, which interferes with the rights of all other owners and conflicts with the 67%membership approval requirement of Civil Code Section 1363.07. It may also cause a raretype of “regulatory taking,” in which the regulation expressly requires one property owner toallow another the use of his or her real property. In such c<strong>as</strong>es, for example, the SupremeCourt h<strong>as</strong> found that building codes compelling property owners to permit installation ofcables required compensation for property owners; airports have also been required tocompensate landowners for noise, risk, and other inv<strong>as</strong>ions. Therefore, the very foundation ofthe law itself is questionable.Nevertheless, the future is here, and beginning January 1, 2012, EVCs may begin to transformcommon area driveways and subterranean garages into power stations — and enterprising<strong>as</strong>sociations can also profit by amping up their parking are<strong>as</strong>. At le<strong>as</strong>t one leading EVC vendorsells “subscriptions” to vehicle owners, allowing them to charge up at any participating EVC,anywhere in the country, with the swipe of a key fob. But simultaneously, the owner of theEVC receives up to 80% of the subscription fees! Forward-thinking <strong>as</strong>sociations may catchlightning in a bottle, and improve their bottom lines. But in any event, the future h<strong>as</strong> arrivedand <strong>as</strong> they say, resistance may be futile.Jeffrey A. Beaumont, Esq. is the managing partner and Russell Higgins, Esq. is an attorney atBeaumont Gitlin T<strong>as</strong>hjian in Woodland Hills. They can be reached at jbeaumont@bgtlawyers.comand rhiggins@bgtlawyers.com, respectively.July/August 2011 • 9
Change language