Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lafayette keeps its current EV-permitting approach, citing existing code and capacity
Summary
After a staff presentation on House Bill 24 11 73 options, Lafayette city staff and council agreed the city's 2022 EV code and building-code approach already achieve the bill’s goals; council adopted Resolution 2025-74 to continue its existing permitting review process for EV chargers.
City planning staff told the Lafayette City Council on Nov. 18 that state legislation intended to streamline permitting for electric-vehicle charging stations is primarily aimed at municipalities that have not yet adopted EV regulations. Lafayette adopted EV requirements in 2022 that require EV infrastructure in new and major redevelopment, and staff said the city already processes EV-only permits administratively through the building code.
Planning & Building staff reviewed three options in House Bill 24 11 73: adopting the model EV code, using a checklist-based streamlined review, or continuing existing local processes. Staff recommended retaining the current approach because Lafayette’s building-code-based electrical review and existing land-use requirements already provide streamlined administrative review while ensuring electrical safety and coordination with utilities such as Xcel Energy.
Councilors generally supported the recommendation and asked staff to track permit turnaround times and report back. Council approved Resolution 2025-74 to maintain Lafayette’s current permitting process.
Staff noted that Lafayette’s prior code resulted in many chargers being delivered through development requirements (examples cited: Collegiate Grill, Carl’s Jr., local restaurants) and that only a few stand-alone EV-only permitting applications had been processed in recent years. The staff presentation acknowledged the state reporting requirements in 2026 and 2027 and recommended targeted land-use code updates for clarity rather than transferring permitting to land-use review.
