CBC Chapter 11B accessibility provisions for EVCS apply when a project consists of one or more electric vehicle charging spaces served by an electric vehicle charger or other charging equipment. Where the project does not provide charging equipment the code does not require the provision of accessible routes or other vehicle space accessibility requirements. However, it is good practice to notify the owner or owner’s representative of any additional code requirements that will be triggered by the later installation of charging equipment. The owner can use this information to determine the sequence and extent of work to be included in each phase of the project.

Many properties do NOT have enough electricity available to support significant charging installations, so for now, utilities and others are doing “make ready” spaces (upgrading the supporting infrastructure in a parking space for future use without adding the actual charger). How would make ready spaces comply with the ADA standards? Additionally, consider a site with 10 make ready spaces. Would the standards apply differently if that site has no chargers presently installed versus having one active charger installed?
Heather is a regular speaker on hot topics in Internet law, technology, cyber security, and IP law. She has been named a Super Lawyer Rising Star and Top Attorney. Heather is currently serving as the Program Chair for the California State Bar Intellectual Property Section's Technology, Internet, and Privacy Interest Group. Heather can be reached at [email protected]
Tags: 2.0, 2019, AB 434, accessibility, Assembly Bill, blind, California, deaf, Department of Justice, Director of Technology, Government Code, Government Entity, Governor, hard of hearing, Inactive List, Jerry Brown, July 1, legislation, Rehabilitation Act, Section 11546.7, Section 508, Section 7405, State Agency, State Entity, Visually Impaired, WCAG, WCAG 2.0 AA, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, website
If those together don’t make the opening big enough, it might be possible to reconstruct the whole doorway and door, depending on the construction of the building. I rebuilt one doorway in my own home and it only cost around $1,000-$1500 – and that was using a very high end contractor. It was also wood frame construction and drywall, in a non-bearing wall; you’ll have a different scenario, of course, with steel, or with masonry, and/or plaster and lathe, and if it’s a bearing wall.

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) rulemaking to create new website accessibility regulations is now officially dead, as we recently blogged. The lack of clear rules will lead to more litigation and inconsistent judicially-made law.  In fact, it appears that the DOJ will not be issuing any new regulations under Title III of the ADA about any subject, according to the agency’s December 26 announcement in the Federal Register repealing all pending ADA Title III rulemakings.
I am opening a new business in CA, and the city is requiring us to install a new egress door. The problem is, this egress door leads out to nothing but dirt and grass. I was told by the cities chief building official that we have to have a 5′ x 5′ landing pad outside the door, and that’s all. However, one of his inspectors is telling me that he is wrong, and that we must connect that pad to an existing walkway, 15′ away. Who do I listen to?
In 2002, the Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect submitted the 2001 edition of the California Building Code along with a side-by-side analysis of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design to the United States Department of Justice. The side-by-side analysis contained proposed revisions and additions to California Building Code regulations that were considered necessary in order to establish equivalency with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
Prior to making a preliminary certification determination, the Department often provides written technical assistance to the submitting jurisdiction. In its technical assistance letter, the Department could point out provisions of the submitted code that raise concerns or questions about equivalency with the ADA, and may suggest possible changes or revisions to achieve compliance with the ADA. Once a preliminary determination is made that a submitted code meets or exceeds ADA requirements, the submitting jurisdiction is notified, members of the public, including persons with disabilities, are notified, and the public is provided an opportunity to comment. If the preliminary determination of equivalency is sustained, the Department will issue a certification of equivalency.
SDG&E is refusing to approve my new residential solar installation because they require a 24″ clearance in all directions for their gas meter located on the side of my house. They refuse to grant a 4″ variance for one of the solar meters which is located about 3 feet above and to the right of gas meter. The encroaching solar meter would have to be moved 30 feet over a fixed stucco wall which would require me to walk all the way around the house instead of 10 feet to the current location. I would also be required to allow 24hr/7 day a week access to the Solar Company, SDG&E and City workers into my side and rear yards which is an unnecessary invasion of my privacy. If they trip and fall or have any accident as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of my property they can sue me outside of their workers comp plan and my home owners insurer will be required to pay and then raise my rates or drop my coverage. Can I ask that SDG&E grant the 4″ variance based on the ADA and the severe osteoarthritis I have in my hips and knees? I have had 4 surgeries so far and soon will need double knee and hip replacement surgeries.
At IPWatchdog.com our focus is on the business, policy and substance of patents and other forms of intellectual property, such as copyrights and trademarks. Today IPWatchdog is recognized as one of the leading sources for news and information in the patent and innovation industries. In January 2014 we were honored to be inducted into the ABA Blawg Hall of Fame after being recognized for 3 years as the top IP blog on the Internet.
CDI will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities so they can participate equally in CDI's programs, services, and activities, including qualified sign language interpreters, documents in Braille, and other ways of making information and communication accessible to people who have speech, hearing, or vision impairments.

No formal government standards exist for private businesses to follow to ensure their websites comply with the ADA, although a consortium of web innovators has created guidelines, known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, to make websites more accessible to disabled people. Government websites already follow those guidelines, but private business websites, which are typically loaded with images and video, tend to be more difficult to overhaul to meet the guidelines, experts say.


Accessibility requirements for all point-of-sale devices have been a part of the CBC for many years and allow people with vision impairments to conduct automated transactions in a secure manner. These requirements apply to point-of-sale devices in public buildings, public accommodations commercial buildings and public housing, including restaurants, stores, banks, theaters and DVD rental kiosks – just about anywhere the public conducts automated transactions.
The California Labor Code requires separate facilities whenever there are more than four employees. Where separate facilities are provided for nondisabled persons of each sex, separate facilities shall be provided for persons with disabilities of each sex also. Where unisex facilities are provided for persons without disabilities, at least one unisex facility shall be provided for persons with disabilities within close proximity to the non-accessible facility.

The ADA defines a covered disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a history of having such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was charged with interpreting the 1990 law with regard to discrimination in employment. The EEOC developed regulations limiting an individual's impairment to one that "severely or significantly restricts" a major life activity. The ADAAA directed the EEOC to amend its regulations and replace "severely or significantly" with "substantially limits", a more lenient standard.[42]


Many members of the business community opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines stated that the act had the potential to "deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their only link to the outside world." The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be "enormous" and have "a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive."[35] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small business."[36] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was "an expensive headache to millions" that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.[37]
Accessibility to buildings or portions of buildings shall be provided for all occupancy classifications except as specifically modified by the building code. Individual occupancy requirements in the code may modify the general requirements for accessibility, but never to the exclusion of them entirely — unless the requirements for an individual occupancy specifically overrides a general requirement. Multistory buildings must provide access by ramp or elevator, with elevator exceptions available for some buildings. Generally, two story office buildings are not required to have elevators, although all other accessible features are still required on upper floors.
The ADA, as you obviously know, is all about, “goods and services to the public”. On one hand, as a private residence, you are not required to comply w/ the ADA. If you are making changes to your residence, however, you will most likely need a building permit, which, coincidentally uses the California Building Code & has essentially the same requirements as the ADA. I’m perplexed about why your deck builder says the new deck needs to be 2″ lower to meet current code standards.
We are also being asked to show the future space for the 1 Van accessible EV space that would be required in the future, if the equipment was installed. And due to the requirement for the access aisle beside this space, in the future it would be converted to an access aisle resulting in the loss of one parking space. As this project is right at the required number of parking spaces per zoning, it is not acceptable to the zoning reviewer to sign off on a plan that shows a “future access aisle for future EV van accessible charging space,” as they are approving the loss of a parking space, even though this would not happen until a future condition, upon which I assume there would be some review process for installation of EV charging equipment. What is the appropriate path forward in this situation?

Since the introduction of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, physically impaired individuals have been taking advantage of this civil law to protect their rights to receive the same quality of services and products as every other individual. Website accessibility standards were set forth, and it was not long before the first lawsuit regarding accessibility of web services was filed.

The lack of regulations here has led to the absolute worst-case scenario. People with disabilities have not been served since most companies are unaware this is an issue. Most don’t even realize this is something they have to consider until they receive a demand letter. That has certainly been the case for some of my clients. This leads to a scramble to get compliant. Unfortunately, it can take up to a year to do so depending on the complexity of the site. Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ attorneys across the country are taking advantage of the confusion. More than 260 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in 2016, and significantly more were filed by the end of 2017. But these numbers do not even begin to cover the cases that are settled pre-litigation.

×