The condo is deeded to me and the 2 parking spaces are designated as exclusive use common areas for my unit. I am sure the CC&Rs provide for the HOA's modification of the common areas including those designated as exclusive use. They also provide for homeowner modification to common areas needed to service the exclusive use areas. In addition to the 60 day limit for disapproval, the Davis Sterling act also specifies
For purposes of this section, "reasonable restrictions" are
restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the
station or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified
I just don't want them to interfere with the installation.
Thank you for your follow-up, John.You just mentioned the spots as 'exclusive use common areas'. That makes the parking spots the property of the HOA, and not your property. because the spots are their property, they can designate the spots based on the 'underlying scheme or plan' for the whole HOA and deny building on that basis alone. Since they have a property interest that is vested, their interest to the property is much stronger than yours.The only potential argument that I see that may be able to work if you seek a restraining order is on under public policy, specifically that private property and HOAs should permit such installations based on the claimed benefit to the environment. If you get an environmentally friendly judge, then your prior restraint order can be granted. But as the courts tend to be far more deferential to HOAs than to individual association members, I see it as an uphill struggle since they can claim that the building of such a station could lower property values (even if that is not really true).Good luck.
I have complied with the provisions in section 1353 of CA code as follows:
(e) If approval is required for the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station, the application for approval shall be processed and approved by the association in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed. The approval or denial of an application shall be in writing. If an application is not denied in writing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information. (f) If the electric vehicle charging station is to be placed in a common area or an exclusive use common area, as designated in the common interest development's declaration, the following provisions apply:
(1) The owner first shall obtain approval from the association to install the electric vehicle charging station and the association shall approve the installation if the owner agrees in writing to do all of the following:
(A) Comply with the association's architectural standards for the installation of the charging station. (B) Engage a licensed contractor to install the charging station. (C) Within 14 days of approval, provide a certificate of insurance that names the association as an additional insured under the owner's insurance policy in the amount set forth in paragraph (3). (D) Pay for the electricity usage associated with the charging station.
(2) The owner and each successive owner of the charging station shall be responsible for all of the following:
(A) Costs for damage to the charging station, common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the charging station. (B) Costs for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the charging station until it has been removed and for the restoration of the common area after removal. (C) The cost of electricity associated with the charging station. (D) Disclosing to prospective buyers the existence of any charging station of the owner and the related responsibilities of the owner under this section.
(3) The owner and each successive owner of the charging station, at all times, shall maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000), and shall name the association as a named additional insured under the policy with a right to notice of cancellation. (4) A homeowner shall not be required to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy for an existing National Electrical Manufacturers Association standard alternating current power plug.
Read more: Civil Code §1353.9 http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/Statutes/CivilCode13539/tabid/3372/Default.aspx#ixzz2e5m0nIJ1 from Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC. If your association needs legal assistance, call us at (XXX) XXX-XXXX.
John,Thank you for your follow-up. This is part of what I was referring to as a 'public policy' argument. The statute that you described is very important toward requesting a station, but going purely from the opposing point of view, if you were both in negotiations for proper terms, that could be considered a 'reasonable request for additional information' under the statute. Since the parties are still actively negotiating, the claim that the 60 days has passed can be deemed to have been 'stayed'. I do see your point, and I do believe that you stand a good chance of obtaining the order. But at the same time I have to be realistic and state that the HOA has a legitimate basis to claim that as your negotiation has not yet concluded, neither are they required to currently acquiesce to the modification. And to be frank, I do not see the order as necessary other than if they do attempt to interfere or cease construction, something that their attorney would likely advise them against not because they have a weaker position but because it would ultimately be a waste of money and your request to build would still be ultimately denied. Currently, if built, the default conditions under statute are utilized for the contractual terms for the charging station.Good luck.
John,As an addendum, I do not as yet see any case law pertaining to this statute, meaning that as yet nobody published an opinion as to what the courts would end up ruling upon, or whether it was ever challenged or heard in court. I can only surmise that as it the law of the land, the courts should side with your position unless you get a judge who is more traditional in legal outlook and would grant more rights to the HOA under the Davis-Stirling Act. But I still stand by my initial answer that I see no reason to seek an order for pursuing something that is not barred under law--it should only be pursued if they end up interfering with installation, and then pursuing them for additional costs stemming from their delays would be a proper approach also.Good luck.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).