Mesa debates electric vehicle code measure

Sept. 20 — Mesa lays the groundwork to require developers to install the infrastructure needed to charge electric vehicles in single-family homes, multifamily buildings and, eventually, commercial buildings.

According to staff, the electric vehicle building code could come before the council for action in October.

“The financial burden of building (a single-family home) initially is really quite modest,” Mayor John Giles said at the Sept. 5 study session. “You’re talking about an electrical outlet and extra wiring. I’ve heard it would cost about $100, give or take.”

The proposal calls for single-family homes to have the infrastructure necessary for the owner to add an outlet for a Level 2 charger, which can fully charge an electric vehicle overnight.

For multifamily projects, staff recommended that 5% of required parking be equipped with infrastructure and a charging station and that 10% of required parking be suitable for electric vehicles. Staff is still considering a future code change for commercial buildings.

Scottsdale and Flagstaff have electric vehicle building codes in place for single-family and multifamily residences, while Avondale and Tucson have them for multifamily, according to staff.

Single-family developers who tend to build in Mesa are already making it an option for electric vehicles, where a 240-volt outlet is ready to go, said John Sheffer, deputy city manager and building official.

“In some neighborhoods, the electrical outlet will be an option,” he said. “In others, it has become the norm.”

“Blandford, Taylor Morrison and Toll Brothers have indicated that some neighborhoods have already installed it everywhere. Lennar has already taken steps to make all of its homes electric vehicle compatible.”

In cities where there are no such requirements and demand is market-driven, multifamily developers typically allocate 5 to 10 percent of parking to electric vehicle stations and another 5 to 10 percent to electric vehicle-compatible stations, Sheffer added.

Giles said the need for multifamily parking spaces appears low, arguing that electric vehicles could eventually become a dominant mode of transportation.

“Is it good urban planning to say we’re only going to require 15 percent of multifamily parking spaces to have electric vehicle chargers when we know that in a few years, more than 15 percent of the vehicles in that parking lot will be competing for those few chargers?” he asked.

Sheffer said developers have indicated that when the requirement exceeds 20 to 25 percent, it would require additional equipment just for the chargers, which would result in a “massive increase in costs.”

The proposal before council strikes a balance between costs and what is installed today, he said.

Giles has pushed to increase the requirement to at least 20%, which he says will not require additional investment.

“The adoption of these vehicles is happening,” Giles said. “Some manufacturers like Volkswagen are saying, ‘We’re going to produce exclusively electric vehicles in the short term.’”

Nana Appiah, Director of Development Services, said that according to the development community, demand and trends have not really met expectations.

He added that the percentage required for electric vehicles could be increased so that in the future, if there is a need for modernization, it would reduce costs.

“We’ll look at increasing that number and then we’ll come back and have a really good discussion with (the developers),” he said.

Appiah said developers did not see the need for an electric vehicle mandate as they provided it based on demand.

Giles remained determined to increase the requirement to 20-25%.

“I think whatever number we set in this process over the next few years, the city council will come back and increase it because that’s just the trend,” he said. “Five or 10 years from now, the city council will look back and say, ‘These backward people in 2024 only imposed this amount, but the vehicle fleet is at 60 to 70 percent,’ and we have a crisis that we have to deal with.”

He cited the example of Scottsdale, which already requires multifamily development projects to reserve 20% of required parking for electric vehicles.

“I think we should push the envelope and go to 20 or 25 percent if we know that’s a number that’s not going to require a lot of investment in infrastructure for the development community,” Giles said.

Councillor Scott Somers asked if the market was the cause of this situation and why the city needed a mandate.

Appiah responded that the electric vehicle construction code would provide a standard for Mesa.

He said sometimes developers are very far along in a project and realize that people are looking to rent apartments with electric vehicle charging stations and they end up having to adjust parking, which becomes a problem.

“I think establishing a baseline is an important aspect,” said Vice Mayor Francisco Heredia, adding that “everyone has a fair share in having a station in their multifamily building.”

Somers wanted to see numbers on how the mandate would affect rents, if at all.

“It might only cost $100 to put in pipes for a single-family unit,” he said. “That’s nothing in terms of a mortgage. But when you start putting in more infrastructure for multi-family buildings, you’re going to start driving up rents. That worries me a little bit.”

“I would like it not to have an impact on the rents of people who do not have an electric vehicle.”

City Manager Chris Brady said the information would be “really hard to understand.”

“As far as multifamily buildings go, if we stay below the 20 percent that the mayor is looking for, we’re not going to ask them to add another electrical service through this facility,” Brady said.

“If we stay below what they’re already bringing in that infrastructure by 20%, then I don’t think they can claim that we’re adding significant additional costs, especially if they’re doing it up front.”

Appiah said multifamily developers “basically told us that this was not something that was going to, or did, add additional costs because they were already doing it. If that was the case, we would have heard it loud and clear.”

Giles said he doubted it was a cost that would be passed on to low-income tenants.

“It’s a revenue stream for these multifamily complexes,” he said. “They’re not going to give away free electricity in these parking lots. They’re going to sign a lucrative contract with a contractor who’s going to come in and love charging people to charge their cars.”

Giles called for the proposal to be considered quickly.

“Every time we have a zoning application for a multifamily project and I ask the question, ‘How many electric charging stations are in this parking lot?’ I get a blank stare,” Giles said. “I shudder to think about approving these apartment complexes. It’s because they’ve been outdated since we built them and we’re creating this problem that’s going to have to be retrofitted in a much more expensive way in the future.”

City Councilwoman Jenn Duff said the mandate would help combat pollution in Maricopa County, one of 30 counties nationwide with poor air quality.

“A lot of multi-family homes don’t have charging stations, so renters are very reluctant to own an electric vehicle if they live in a place that doesn’t have electric vehicle charging stations,” Duff said. “I just want to encourage us to be prepared for the future, not prepare our city for the past, and think about our commitment through our Climate Action Plan to improve our air quality.”

“We need to be a city that is ready for electric vehicles.”