Proposal · Draft for discussion · August 2026
The CurbsideALX proposal, drafted both ways
Allow residents without usable off-street parking to safely route an EV charging cable to the curb. This page gives Council two complete ways to say yes — Option A, a published-guidance approach with whitelisted equipment and no permit program to administer, and Option B, a full permit pilot with applications, inspections, and insurance — each with draft resolution language and the code revision it needs. The goal is to make adopting this as easy for the City as possible.
Why two options
In early conversations, City staff have indicated that a permit program — applications, inspections, renewals, complaint response — would strain limited resources. That is a fair operational concern, and it should not be a dead end: "the requirements are too onerous to administer" is an argument for lighter requirements, not for prohibition. Seattle and Washington, DC manage exactly this risk with published guidance and zero permits (details). Option A brings that model to Alexandria. Option B remains fully drafted for Council's consideration if it prefers the administrative version — including, as a fallback, the most conservative variant staff have described.
| Feature | Option A — guidance (recommended) | Option B — permit pilot |
|---|---|---|
| City workload | Publish guidance once; enforce on complaint | Applications, inspections, renewals, tracking |
| Resident process | Buy whitelisted equipment, follow the rules | Apply, schedule inspection, carry documentation |
| Equipment | Whitelisted: certified EVSE + approved protector types | Same, verified by inspection |
| Insurance | Residents' existing homeowners/renters liability applies | Proof required; $500k if a minimum is stated |
| Peer precedent | Seattle (CAM 2119), Washington DC (2022 guidance) | Cambridge, MA annual permit |
| Enforcement | Noncompliant setups are simply violations — clear standard to cite | Permit suspension / revocation |
| Resident's penalty exposure today (either option fixes this) | With no compliance standard, every filing invites a judgment call under two possible tracks: current law (§ 1-1-7 — judicial, up to $2,500 and/or 12 months per proven offense if it applies, high enforcement friction, no automatic accrual) and a proposed administrative ladder (warning → $200 → $200 → $500 → $1,000; vote deferred by Council). Details: Enforcement & Penalty Exposure. | |
The penalty question sharpens the case for acting: Council has already debated (and deferred) an escalating civil-penalty ladder for these very code sections, and the code's general penalty may reach the same conduct today through the courts. Attaching penalties — current or proposed — to a rule no resident can lawfully satisfy is enforcement without an exit. Either option below pairs any penalty with a standard a careful resident can actually meet (the two-track analysis).
Option A — published guidance with whitelisted equipment (recommended)
The City publishes a short guidance document: a resident without usable off-street parking may route a charging cable across the sidewalk to a legally parked vehicle without a permit, if and only if every published condition is met. The conditions do the work a permit would otherwise do:
- Whitelisted equipment only. Certified EVSE (UL 2594 / UL 2231 listed, SAE J1772 coupler) installed per NEC and manufacturer instructions, with ground-fault protection; and a cable protector meeting the published performance standard below (the City may additionally list known-compliant products).
- Deployment rules. Protector spans the crossing perpendicular to the path of travel; cable fully enclosed across the walking surface; equipment deployed only while actively charging and stored on private property otherwise.
- Right-of-way rules. No reserved parking, signage, or cones; immediate removal for snow, ice, sidewalk work, emergencies, or City direction; sidewalk clearance maintained at all times.
- No improvisation. Bare cords, household extension cords, and unlisted devices remain violations, exactly as today.
| Component | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Charging equipment | EVSE certified to UL 2594 and UL 2231 (or equivalent NRTL listing); installed per NEC Article 625 and manufacturer instructions; ground-fault protected. Level 1 or Level 2 — certification, not voltage, is the safety variable. |
| Cable protector | Commercial pedestrian-rated cable protector: high-visibility (safety yellow or equivalent), slip-resistant surface, beveled edges traversable by wheelchairs and strollers, fully enclosing the cable; length sufficient to span the walking surface. |
| Placement | Perpendicular to the path of travel where feasible; flat and stable on the walking surface; no vertical displacement or gaps. |
| Duration | Present only while the vehicle is actively charging; removed and stored on private property otherwise. |
Draft Council resolution — Option A
City Council directs the City Manager to publish, within 120 days, guidance under which a resident without usable off-street parking may route an electric-vehicle charging cable across the public sidewalk to a legally parked vehicle without an individual permit, conditioned on the exclusive use of equipment meeting City-published specifications (certified EVSE and an approved cable protector), deployment only while actively charging, maintenance of an accessible pedestrian route, no reservation of public parking, and immediate removal upon City direction or during snow, ice, construction, or emergency conditions. Council further directs the City Attorney to prepare any amendment to Chapter 5, Title 5 of the City Code (including §5-2-16 and §5-2-29) necessary to except compliant temporary charging-cable crossings from sidewalk-obstruction and encroachment-permit requirements. Noncompliant installations remain violations subject to existing enforcement.
Code revision needed: a narrow exception clause in §5-2-16 / §5-2-29 for "temporary electric-vehicle charging cable crossings compliant with published City guidance" — parallel to how compliant construction MOT setups operate under Memo 04-18 today.
Beyond the ramp. The removable protector is the baseline because it costs hundreds of dollars, needs no excavation, and is evaluated as a temporary facility. For households that want a permanent, flush crossing, a recessed cable channel — the most common solution in the UK's national cross-pavement program — is the natural second option, at a provisional $1,250–$2,250 planning cost. Either option should be authorizable under the same guidance or permit; the crossing-options analysis compares all four technologies and drafts the permit design.
Option B — the full permit pilot
If Council prefers individual authorization, the fully drafted alternative is a limited, revocable, inspected permit program — 25 to 50 permits citywide over 24 months, followed by a formal evaluation report. (And if staff conclude that only the most conservative version is administrable — 1:12 ramp geometry, inspections, $1,000,000 insurance — that variant is workable too, though the DC experience and the insurance analysis both counsel against deriving residential requirements from permanent-infrastructure and commercial standards: the predictable result is equipment nobody can buy and near-universal noncompliance.)
Eligibility
- Applicant resides in Alexandria; residence lacks usable off-street parking.
- Applicant owns or leases an EV and has an approved charging source on private property.
- Proposed crossing can meet accessibility, sidewalk-clearance, safety, and visibility requirements.
- Applicant agrees the permit reserves no public parking space.
Permitted methods & safety requirements
- Approved cable ramp/protector (per the performance standards); an approved recessed cable channel cut flush into the sidewalk; an overhead swing arm; or other engineered solution approved by T&ES — see Crossing Options & Costs.
- Equipment approved before use; inspection before the permit becomes effective; GFCI or equivalent protection; compliance with electrical, building, fire, and accessibility requirements.
- Perpendicular crossing where feasible; high-visibility covering; removal when not actively charging; no storage in the right-of-way; no reserved parking; immediate removal on City direction.
- No improvised extension-cord arrangements.
Administration & evaluation
- Revocable, site-specific, non-transferable; renewable annually during the pilot; complaint investigation and reinspection; suspension or revocation for noncompliance.
- Evaluation after 18–24 months: applications, geography, complaints, accessibility issues, incidents and claims, staff time, resident satisfaction, and effect on public-charger reliance.
Draft Council resolution — Option B
City Council directs the City Manager to develop a Residential EV Charging Access Pilot Program for residents without usable off-street parking. The pilot shall allow eligible residents, subject to approval, inspection, and permit conditions, to safely route electric vehicle charging cables from private property across the public sidewalk to a vehicle parked on the street. The program shall be administered as a revocable right-of-way permit or equivalent authorization; staff shall develop eligibility standards, approved equipment specifications, inspection requirements, accessibility requirements, electrical safety requirements, enforcement procedures, permit fees if appropriate, and reporting requirements. The pilot shall not reserve public parking spaces, shall not authorize permanent private control of the curb, and shall require all temporary equipment to be removed when not actively charging. Staff shall return to Council with proposed implementation materials, including any necessary ordinance, administrative regulation, permit application, inspection checklist, and evaluation plan.
How this relates to the City's curbside charging program
The City's February 2026 curbside charging license authorizes a vendor to install publicly accessible chargers. CurbsideALX addresses the complementary case the EV Readiness Strategy itself identified: a resident using their own equipment and electricity to reach a car parked at the curb. The two are mutually reinforcing — every cross-curb household removes routine demand from the public network, shrinking the build-out the public program must achieve (capacity analysis).
| Program type | Primary purpose | Ownership / access model |
|---|---|---|
| Public curbside charging (existing) | Install public chargers in the right-of-way | Vendor or public infrastructure, for general public use |
| Residential cross-curb access (proposed) | Allow a resident to safely reach a curbside vehicle from private property | Resident-owned equipment, residential electricity, no reserved parking |
The long-term strategy this fits into
Cross-curb access is the immediate fix, not the whole plan. The capacity analysis recommends a portfolio: home charging wherever safely feasible; serious investment in DC fast charging as the high-throughput shared backstop (Alexandria currently has roughly eight fast ports at two sites); and public L2 where vehicles naturally dwell for hours. Every household enabled to charge at home shrinks the public infrastructure requirement for everyone else.
The question is not whether Alexandria should allow unregulated cords across sidewalks — it should not, under either option. The question is whether safe, standardized residential charging access should exist at all. Two drafted paths say it should.