The Olympia City Council approved an ordinance relating to electric vehicle parking requirements to ensure infrastructure and accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging for residents on Tuesday.
The ordinance, which introduced a new chapter to Title 16 of the Olympia Municipal Code, provides EV parking standards, including the number of EV charging infrastructure required in residential and non-residential buildings.
Non-residential buildings are required to allocate 10% of their parking space for EV space equipment (EVSE) parking spaces, 10% for EV-ready parking spaces, and 10% for EV-capable parking spaces.
In residential buildings with up to two dwelling units, one EV-ready parking space is mandated for each dwelling unit. For dwelling units equipped with private garages, one EV-ready parking space is required for each dwelling unit.
For other types of residential developments, the requirements are as follows:
The ordinance also outlines guidelines for installing EV charging infrastructure in new buildings, parking lots, garages and significant improvements to existing structures.
According to the ordinance, an ESVE parking space is equipped with electric vehicle supply equipment that can provide electric current at 208/240 volts. This can be achieved through a direct connection to the parking space or adjacent electric vehicle supply equipment capable of simultaneously serving multiple parking spaces.
EV-ready parking space has wiring through conduit with an outlet or terminal box.
EV-capable parking space has electrical panel capacity and conduit infrastructure.
Olympia Climate Programs Director Dr. Pamela Braff highlighted the city's climate commitments in recent years. Olympia joined the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan, aiming to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050.
Braff added that the city set a goal of net zero emissions by 2040. The city also joined the Race to Zero and Race Resilience campaigns, actively participating in climate mitigation and adaptation action at the international level.
"A big piece of this is supporting the transition to electric vehicles. It is important to reduce how much we are driving. It is not possible to do that overnight. It is a slower, longer transition, and one of the key steps towards getting there is adopting electric vehicles," Braff said.
Braff said one key factor in encouraging the transition to electric vehicles is identifying where vehicles are parked most frequently, indicating where charging is likely to occur.
Braff said residential charging is predominant, with over 80% of charging taking place at home when available.
Workplace charging also plays a significant role in supporting drivers who lack access to dedicated home charging and extending the range for those with longer commutes.
Destination charging, which includes public charging stations at grocery stores, movie theaters, and retail stores, further enhances accessibility and convenience for EV owners.
"When people start to see chargers going everywhere…that helps people transition to an electric vehicle," Braff commented.
Community Plan and Development (CP&D) Principal Planner Joyce Phillips discussed a provision in the ordinance that allows for reductions of required EV parking spaces. It aims to provide flexible standards to address project expenses and affordable housing issues.
For instance, Phillips said new requirements may not be imposed if a smaller redevelopment project is undertaken.
Reductions may be allowed when changes are needed on the utility provider side for apartments with 50% or more units designated as affordable housing.
In assembly and educational building occupancy developments, reductions may be considered if the requirements increase costs by more than 10%. Retrofits that don't involve substantial improvements or modifications to parking areas may also be eligible for reductions.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JW
"We need more housing!"
"We need to make building housing even more burdensome and expensive!"
"Why is housing so expensive?!"
Wednesday, August 9, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
@JW Nailed it!
Thursday, August 10, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
"Producing electric vehicles leads to significantly more emissions than producing petrol cars ... which is mostly from the battery production."
-Florian Knobloch
CAMBRIDGE CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE
Thursday, August 10, 2023 Report this
wolfmanner
Just gets worse and worse in Olympia due to a Marxist City Council. Oh well, you get who you voted for residents. Don't be crying.
Thursday, August 10, 2023 Report this
TonyW33
Once again, Yeti1981 is cherry picking the data. The quote is taken out of context. Check the link for the complete background on EV's and fossil fuel production costs in the world. The writer that Yeti1981 quoted and several others.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/electric-cars-better-for-climate-in-95-of-the-world
Friday, August 11, 2023 Report this
ConservativeHippie
Science! She blinded me with science!
“I think doing science with (and for) communities is critical to repairing and adapting to our current environmental challenges and restoring public trust in science.” – Braff
https://thrivingearthexchange.org/thriving-earth-exchange-launches-first-cohort-of-community-science-fellows/
Saturday, August 12, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
Once again, the point flies by TonyW33. The quote is one of the very scientists from the study they touted saying that there is much work to do on EVs before they become as efficient as they need to be. In fact, it is the intensive manufacturing process that produces significant amounts of carbon. It is the irony inherent in this that gets me. I have nothing against EVs. In fact, I think there's some really cool models. However, I am also a big advocate of letting people decide on their own. And for the government to "nudge" people's decisions to favor one market over another without acknowledging the need for better technological improvements in that market as well is simply dishonest. Also, much is sacrificed currently in the name of the environment. Specifically, affordable housing. These mandates will almost certainly not make building housing during a housing crisis easier. I posted the quote to point out that we're sacrificing housing for a push that isn't quite as perfect as some would say. Wouldn't we be more wise to focus on things that would both make housing less expensive and reduce GHGs? Perhaps better public transportation and investments in other forms of multimodal transportation? Where getting more people moving, but less cars on the road is the goal. I'm quite sure a much larger impact on the environment is the presence of acres upon acres of asphalt.
Monday, August 14, 2023 Report this