Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates EV-readiness draft: 20% parking readiness target, incentives and exemptions remain unresolved
Summary
Commission discussed a draft EV-readiness ordinance for multi-family housing — proposed 10% EV-capable, 10% EV-ready (20% total) for new multi-family developments — and directed staff to refine thresholds, exceptions, and incentives after questions on transformer costs, permit-fee incentives, and 'substantially modified' parking triggers.
The Planning Commission held an extended discussion on May 8 about a draft ordinance to require electric-vehicle (EV) readiness in multi-family housing. The item was a briefing and discussion; no vote was taken. Staff asked for direction on several key thresholds, incentives and exemptions before returning with a more-complete draft.
Staff framed the proposal around Moab’s community greenhouse-gas goals and the higher emissions associated with gasoline vehicles. The draft would apply to new multi-household dwellings (three or more units) and would require 10% of parking be EV capable (electrical capacity and conduit provided) and an additional 10% be EV ready (outlet provided), for a total of 20% EV-capable/ready parking as a baseline. Installed chargers were not required; the draft distinguishes three preparedness levels: EV-capable, EV-ready, and EV-installed.
Commission discussion focused on how to manage costs and where to place exemptions. Staff proposed an exemption where an EV-related transformer upgrade would make a project financially infeasible, using a percentage threshold (staff suggested ~5% of project cost as an example) to trigger the exemption. Commissioners debated whether exemptions of that type should be handled by a written threshold in the code or through the ordinance’s exceptions process. City staff recommended starting with an exceptions process while collecting data from early cases and then considering a by-right exemption if consistent patterns emerge.
Commissioners also discussed incentives for single-family and duplex properties undergoing electrical upgrades. Staff proposed waiving certain plan-review or permit fees for applicants who are already submitting electrical work so the city does not create a disincentive. The building-permit workload and revenue implications were discussed; one staff estimate put the waived permit-fee value “just south of $200” per application as a neutral approach that would remove a small disincentive without creating a large budgetary subsidy. Commissioners suggested a variety of alternatives, including a simple flat-rate, a partial waiver tied to in-house review only, or a larger incentive if resources and capacity allowed.
Other technical issues raised included: whether conduit terminations should be within 3 feet (as in the draft) or 6 feet (as used in some other jurisdictions), how to manage ADA-accessible EV spaces proportionally, whether load-management systems should be allowed to reduce upfront electrical capacity needs for multiple chargers, and how to treat fast-charging equipment (staff proposed counting a fast charger as replacing up to three level-2 chargers; commissioners discussed lowering that ratio to 1-for-3 instead of 1-for-5). Staff proposed the ordinance exclude short-term parking (example threshold discussed: 15 minutes) from counting toward EV-ready requirements.
A separate, frequently discussed procedural threshold was whether a parking area must be “substantially modified” before EV requirements apply. The draft used two triggers: (1) 50% or more of a parking area’s change by area, and (2) a numerical threshold (substantial modification of 10 parking spaces). Commissioners asked staff to add example language ("including but not limited to…") that clarifies what qualifies as a substantial modification to provide predictability for property owners while retaining administrative discretion and an exceptions pathway.
Staff said they will take the commission’s direction, consult further with the building official and city attorney, test several numeric thresholds (e.g., 10%/10% split, transformer-cost percentage), and return with a revised draft. The commission did not take formal action.
