CCP 05042026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 2 159 activated. She noted that although the electrical infrastructure would be in place, there is no 160 requirement to ensure that those additional stations would be brought online, meaning the 161 approval could effectively result in only eight active charging spaces. 162 Mr. McKinney confirmed that the electrical infrastructure and capacity for the additional 22 163 charging stations would be installed upfront. He explained that the actual installation of those 164 stations would occur later and would be driven by on-site demand. 165 Chair Aspnes asked for confirmation that the necessary electrical capacity would be installed 166 upfront, so that additional charging stations could be added later without requiring further 167 upgrades or approvals. 168 Mr. McKinney confirmed that the project would include the required electrical capacity up 169 front, allowing additional charging stations to be added in the future without further major 170 upgrades. He noted that meeting the full ordinance requirement would present significant 171 technical and cost challenges, particularly related to electrical capacity and infrastructure, 172 which could involve substantial expenses. 173 Chair Aspnes asked whether it would be possible to install an additional transformer to 174 support more charging capacity. 175 Mr. McKinney explained that installing an additional transformer would be extremely costly, 176 likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He noted that this level of expense raises 177 significant concerns about the project's overall financial feasibility. 178 Mr. Dan Gleason, representing the prospective tenant, explained that the facility will be an 179 employee-focused operation and not open to the public. He noted that most employees who 180 drive electric vehicles are expected to have home charging, meaning on-site charging would 181 be a supplemental convenience rather than a primary need. 182 Mr. Gleason stated that the tenant typically does not provide charging stations at its other 183 facilities and initially did not believethey were necessary for this site. He emphasized that 184 the facility’s primary focus is supporting its medical operations, including managing 185 electrical capacity for core functions. He added that while the parking supply is strong, actual 186 usage may vary due to shift changes, and the proposed number of charging stations reflects 187 anticipated employee demand rather than broader public use. 188 Chair Aspnes asked Mr. Paschke whether the ordinance considered differences between retail 189 uses, which tend to have more transient users, and private commercial or employee-based 190 uses. She specifically inquired whether that distinction was discussed during the development 191 of the ordinance. 192 Mr. Paschke stated that the ordinance did not specifically distinguish between retail or 193 transient uses and private, employee-based operations. He noted that, at the time the 194 ordinance was developed between 2022 and 2023, there was limited data and few 195 comparable examples available to guide the development of those distinctions. Qbhf!46!pg!299