BOARD_OF_ADJUSTMENT_REGULAR_MEETING_1820_MINUTES_PACKET_2_25_2026_6_00_00_PM.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
53406 characters
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment, of the City of Tempe, which was held in Council Chambers
31 East Fifth Street, Tempe, Arizona
Present:
Staff:
Chair Mary Foy
Jeff Tamulevich, Community Development Director
Vice Chair Sean McCarley
Ryan Levesque, Comm Dev Deputy Director
Board Member Kevin Morrow
Diana Kaminski, Comm Dev Principal Planner
Board Member Katie Cross
Chris Jasper, Comm Dev Senior Planner
Board Member Richard Dalton
Jennifer Daniels, Comm Dev Administrative Assistant
Board Member Robert Miller
Eddie Garcia, Media
Board Member Andrea Somishka
Absent: Board Member Lily Drosos
1) CALL TO ORDER: Hearing convened at 6:00 p.m. and was called to order by Chair Foy.
2) CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES
2A) Board of Adjustment – 01/28/26 Study Session
2B) Board of Adjustment – 01/28/26 Regular Meeting
Motion by Board Member Dalton to approve Meeting Minutes from Study Session and Regular Meeting
from January 28, 2026; second by Vice Chair McCarley.
Ayes: Chair Foy, Vice Chair McCarley, Board Members Morrow, Cross, Dalton, Miller and Somishka
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vote: Motion passes 7-0
3) VARIANCE REQUEST: NONE
4) ABATEMENT APPEAL: NONE
5) ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION APPEAL:
Minutes of the
Board of Adjustment
REGULAR MEETING
February 25, 2026
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
2
5A) Request for an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s Similar Use Ruling that a proposed autonomous vehicle
charging facility is analogous to a “vehicle-based service (dispatch)” in the PCC-1 zoning district. The appellant is
Dukes Law PLLC. (PL250401).
APPELLANT PRESENTATION:
Ms. Heather Dukes of Dukes Law PLLC. Ms. Dukes is the attorney for the appellants Mr. and Ms. Todd Smith. Ms.
Dukes gave a presentation for the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s similar use ruling. Ms. Dukes is asking the
board that they find the similar use ruling was issued in error and the decision be erroneous because it allows a use
that is inconsistent with the defined uses in the PCC-1 zoning district and it allows a use which is more detrimental
than the uses permitted in the PCC-1 zoning district. Her presentation included images showing the surrounding uses
and circulation points accessing the site on a neighborhood residential street. She stated that residential streets are
intended for residential use, not for commercial use. Ms. Dukes provided photos showing the proximity of single-
family and multi-family residences near the site. Her presentation referred to Section 3-201 B.4. Planned Commercial
Center One for neighborhood needs and two for general commercial uses and the listed uses allowed in PCC-1.
Reviewing uses not allowed in PCC-1, data centers are not allowed in this district, it does not serve the
neighborhood, it is not open to the public, it does not generate employment, it takes more energy, it has a greater fire
risk, this use is similar to a Data Center which is considered an industrial use. Uses permitted in Industrial districts
that are not permitted in PCC-1 include dispatching, fuel distribution, auto body repair and towed vehicle storage,
uses similar to the Terrawatt use; there is an element of risk, there is more energy used, there are chemicals stored,
nuisances associated with the use and not open to the public. The proposed use is private, not open to the public.
Service means useful labor, but there is no service being provided on site. Vehicle service means consumer services
for their vehicles, but there is no vehicle service provided on site; there is no public point of sale or service here.
Service station is a retail use. The proposed use is more of an industrial use and does not fit in the PCC-1 Zoning
District for neighborhood uses.
Mr. Todd Smith and Ms. Cheryl Smith, the appellants, gave a presentation on the fire danger that this site represents.
The Smith’s home is four houses away from the proposed site. This site will have the ability to simultaneously charge
30 electric vehicles and draw upwards of five to six megawatts of power. Five or six megawatts is enough to power
4000-5000 homes. The power infrastructure is on the scale of industrial uses, imagine the hum from the large
transformers needed on this site. This type of facility belongs in an industrial area and not a residential area. He
provided graphics comparing energy consumption to residential uses. Mr. Smith reviewed fire safety concerns with
proximity to houses and apartments and environmental concerns from putting out the fires. He stated that the use
belongs in an industrial area not in a neighborhood. Ms. Cheryl Smith gave a presentation showing schools and a
church in the area; there are children and bicyclists and persons who are hearing and sight impaired in the
neighborhood. The streets in the neighborhood are very narrow. Adding this facility adds a lot more traffic to the
neighborhood. Terrawatt has promised to not enter the neighborhood unless picking up a customer, but we do not
believe this is a promise that can be kept. The intersection on Terrace is difficult to exit currently; there will be excess
spill over traffic finding a less crowded way to exit. Their company will not have control over future tenants of the site
or the operations on site. Ms. Smith expressed concern about the safety of the autonomous vehicles in the
neighborhood.
Board Member Dalton asked Mr. Smith, you have stated a lot of fire and environmental concerns, that is my
wheelhouse. Where did that information come from? Mr. Smith stated it comes from his experience in attending fire
meetings and presentations. I also did a lot of research on electric vehicles to learn about the types of hazardous
materials that are given off during a fire and what happens when the batteries have a meltdown. Board Member
Dalton asked staff, has the fire department or environmental services weighed in on this? Ms. Kaminski stated that
when the City does a site plan review the fire department reviews the applications with us. Mr. Smith stated that the
codes for electric vehicles are lagging behind especially with fleet vehicle charging stations. There are no good
electric codes yet for this type of facility. If it were put under existing fire codes that would be a major mistake.
Board Member Morrow asked Mr. Smith, if the City had two bids for this land, one being the Terra Watt charging
station and the other was a medical marijuana dispensary, which one would you as a neighbor prefer? Mr. Smith
stated that neither one would be a good fit for the neighborhood. A reasonable answer would be a business that
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
3
benefits the neighborhood. Board Member Morrow stated that the problem he has with the concerns is that land is
zoned commercial, which would allow a gun shop, tattoo parlors and marijuana dispensaries, things that you may not
like in the neighborhood. The question we have is, does the commercial zoning allow it? That is why I ask that
question.
Board Member Miller stated I do not believe they could place a medical marijuana business there due to the
proximity of the high school and church. Ms. Dukes stated that marijuana establishments are not allowed in PCC-1
zoning district. Board Member Morrow stated that on the chart it states that medical marijuana dispensary without
cultivation is allowed in PCC-1. Mr. Smith stated that the risk is off the scale with all of the homes in this small area.
Chair Foy asked Ms. Dukes, under the vehicle-based usage they list things like taxis, ambulance dispatch and
delivery services the Zoning Administrator is saying the use is similar. What is the difference and if they are not
different what is the detrimental impact? Is it more detrimental than these other uses such as taxi dispatch. Ms.
Dukes stated that the Smith’s presentation goes through the detrimental aspect with the energy source being used at
this site. The main use is that the vehicles stay there for hours to charge. Service in the zoning ordinance is defined
as useful labor. Labor is a human element that is not here. There is no employment, there are not dispatch people
employed here. Chair Foy stated that her understanding was that there would be a couple of employees there for
service and cleaning. Ms. Dukes stated that is correct but not related to dispatch like a taxi service. Chair Morrow
asked, isn’t the service being provided to the neighborhood when calling for a Waymo? Ms. Dukes stated that she
does not disagree with that, but when you have it in a PCC-1 zoning district it is located along a residential street,
PCC-2 general district is located on arterial streets. With service uses that are industrial in nature, the amount of
vehicles coming in and out of the site appears to be more of an industrial use than the actual service of people calling
for a vehicle. Mr. Smith added that just because a Waymo has a charging station in an industrial area does not mean
there is a longer wait time, the cars don’t return to the station each time, they pick up one rider and then go to the
next call. Chair Foy asked Ms. Dukes, you are saying that this use is not similar to a taxi or a dispatch. If it is, there is
another angle that we can look atis it more detrimental than those things because of the power. Ms. Dukes stated
you are correct. It is the autonomous nature of the vehicles as well, we do not know the end user of the site, it is not
similar to the allowed uses and it is more detrimental than those uses.
Board Member Miller asked are there examples that show a service station in a similar location in a neighborhood
that could be cited as saying that they are the same? The zoning extends up to the corner of Terrace and Broadway.
If I was putting a service station in, I would place it on the corner of Terrace and Broadway. Are there examples of
service stations being located on residential streets or are they typically located on arterial or collector streets? Mr.
Smith stated that a service station would be of use to the immediate residents.
Board Member Somishka states that Ms. Wendy Ridell has been in contact with SRP and it looks like SRP has
confirmed that there is sufficient capacity. Does sufficient capacity mean is the maximum number of vehicles that
need to be charged there? My interpretation is that wouldn’t require that level of power at all times. Mr. Smith stated
that TeraWatt has said the site would typically operate at about 1 ½ megawatts of power on average, but if all of the
charging stations were in use it would take the 6 megawatts. I don’t know how much excess power the neighborhood
has but by putting this in it would go down to zero.
Board Member Dalton asked has anything like this been placed anywhere else? Was there any impact and did it
work out? Mr. Smith stated that there is a similar facility in Santa Monica. There are a couple of videos in the
pamphlet I handed out. Santa Monica told Waymo they could not operate the facility at night due to noise. There is
now a lawsuit between the city and Waymo.
ORIGINAL APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Ms. Wendy Riddell, of Barry Riddell law firm, representing TeraWatt gave a presentation on the similar use ruling.
This hearing is not specific to our site; you need to look at this how it would apply anywhere in Tempe, which is what
the ruling comes down to. The city interpretation is that a charging center for a private fleet of autonomous vehicles
providing ride hailing services is similar to and not more detrimental than a vehicle-based service (taxi dispatch) or
comparable vehicle related uses located in PCC-1 district. Ms. Ridell reviewed the city code land use table with
vehicle dispatch requiring a Use Permit in PCC-1 and what a taxi dispatch service is. A charging center for
autonomous vehicles providing rideshare services is similar to a taxi dispatch because you can book rides, it has
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
4
automated dispatch from the closest vehicle, it has GPS tracking, it has driver management of the vehicle and report
generation on ride volume, customer feedback and driver performance. These things are the same for both, and
there are employees on site. It is not more detrimental than other uses allowed, service station, vehicle repair, these
uses are more detrimental, similar automotive uses permitted in the PCC-1 with a Use Permit such as a fueling
center, car wash, vehicle repair are more detrimental and more intense than this use. Ms. Ridell reviewed uses
permitted in the Industrial Districts, and stated this was not an industrial use. Vehicle charging stations can be
anywhere, including in people’s homes. By having autonomous vehicles close to communities reduces vehicle trips in
Tempe, which is a goal of the City.
Board Member Dalton stated we are bound by a rule of the law and an application of code but the fact of the matter
here is the purpose and applicability of this never intended driverless cars. I don’t know if I agree or disagree with its
similarity to a taxi. We have to look at the situation holistically because these things don’t exist everywhere.
Board Member Miller stated that he is intrigued that the decision that is made today has to be generalized across the
entire city. It is precedent setting in a sense but this ties to a decision of a particular body and particular decision
made by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, we are not asked to make a general decision regarding PCC-1 district
across the city. We are asked to make a decision about this particular similar use. Ms. Riddell stated that she
disagrees. You are not being asked whether or not a Use Permit at this specific site is appropriate. You are being
asked whether or not what category is appropriate for vehicle fleet charging. Where does it make more sense in the
zoning ordinance? It will be used in the future on other sites.
Board Member Morrow stated that he is more hung up on the concerns raised by the appellant about noise and car
fires. My concern is being a 24-hour station unlike a gas station with less traffic in the early mornings or a nightclub
that has to stop selling at 2am. Isn’t this going to be busier with noise pollution in the evening hours? Ms. Riddell
stated that things that you are talking about is, are they going to be beeping at each other or making noise. Those are
specific commitments and stipulations that we’ve put into our Use Permit. They talk about what they are allowed to
do on site and how they have to operate. As for the noise at night, there is no carwash. We have specifically
stipulated in the Use Permit that we cannot exceed the ambient noise level.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
Mr. Chris Jasper, Community Development Senior Planner, gave a staff presentation on the request for an appeal of
the Zoning Administrators similar use ruling that a proposed autonomous vehicle charging faciality is analogous to a
“vehicle-based service (dispatch)” in the PCC-1 zoning district. He presented the history leading to the appeal and
what the Zoning Administrator’s Opinion evaluated in making the determination. Mr. Jasper reviewed what the
appellant’s statement of the appeal, that the autonomous charging facility was incorrectly determined and is more
similar to a PCC-2 or Industrial district use. Mr. Jasper then reviewed the Board’s role of hearing the appeal, and
what the resultant outcome of their decision would be. The decision is not specific to a site, this would be applied to
all PCC-1 districts, in other words this decision is location agnostic. This hearing is not about the Use Permit that the
Development Review Commission approved, which has been appealed. Although some of the discussion has been
about the use characteristics, this hearing is not about the Use Permit, and needs to be contained to the similar use
ruling of the Zoning Administrator.
Board Member Somishka asked what is the overall goal of the PCC-1 zoning? My understanding is that it is similar to
mixed use. Mr. Jasper stated that PCC-1 zoning is intended to serve and provide employment services, offices and a
wide range of retail uses; the land use table is extensive. Mr. Ryan Levesque, Deputy Director Community
Development stated that PCC-1 zoning is a planned commercial center. It requires a planned or phasing of
commercial development within a concentrated areas that shares parking and uses in a similar area. PCC-1 is
typically a smaller site and PCC-2 is larger. Land uses are the same. PCC-1 has a 30-foot rear setback and PCC-2
has a 40-foot rear setback.
Board Member Dalton asked how would 44 spaces for autonomous vehicles promote economic social vitality,
encourage trip reduction and pedestrian circulation as an alternative to driving? This is being referenced from Section
3-201A, the purpose of the PCC classification; Board Member Dalton read the code description of Planned
Commercial Center from the code. Mr. Levesque stated that what you are reading is a generalization of what the type
of land use is allowed within those zoning district classifications. Within the land Use Permit category there is a list of
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
5
uses that are permitted by right, meaning there is no need for a public process. There are land uses that are subject
to a Use Permit. There is also a list of land uses that are not permitted within that zoning district. We have a specific
list of allowed uses with different characteristics that are evaluated when a use is not listed in the code, to determine
what use it is most similar to within the code.
Board Member Morrow stated that he is convinced this is a similar use but the decision did not spend a lot time on
the second prong of the test, why it is not more detrimental than any of type of use. Mr. Levesque stated that he
would find it as not more detrimental than the land used found under the surface category for vehicle-based service,
courier, delivery service, taxi or ambulance dispatch; all those share similarities in providing distribution of vehicles
from a site, which do not have a point of service on the site. Board Member Morrow stated that he agrees that this is
similar to a taxi service but there are additional detriments that have been identified that would be different from a taxi
service. Massive amounts of electricity, danger of lithium fires and the noise from the cars. Is that extra detriment part
of our process of evaluating whether or not this should be considered a similar use? Mr. Levesque stated, you are
looking at doing an analysis of whether or not the Use Permit criteria and the site location is appropriate or not. Board
Member Morrow stated that he is not as concerned with the specific site as he is about the commercial or mixed-use
zoning. This is a vehicle-based service that has more nuisances than other vehicle-based services. Mr. Jasper
stated, I believe that the concerns you have identified are associated more with the type of vehicle rather than the
actual use characteristics because a taxi dispatch service is staffed by a human 24/7 utilizing electric vehicles with
charging stations would be the same as what is proposed by an autonomous vehicle charging facility.
Board Member Miller stated that he can understand the similar use to a limited degree because I am not convinced
that it is in fact a similar use. Autonomous vehicles are not taxis in the same sense that taxis are driven by humans.
They act differently, they perform differently and they operate differently. A taxi dispatch center is operated by
humans. Most of the ride sharing services are app driven and autonomous, there is no dispatch, you pull up the app
on the phone and order the ride; this is not a dispatch service. This service is industrial use in my opinion, vehicles
are being prepared for going out to do a service; if the vehicle is not charged it is not going anywhere. That is an
industrial use.
Chair Foy stated she believes it falls under the taxi use it is a similar use. I am more concerned with the detrimental
side of it. Why is it not more detrimental than a repair shop or service station? There are concerns with autonomous
machines. It drives by computer, what if there is a glitch? That is not the same as a car or taxi driven by a person. Mr.
Levesque stated, the other aspect of looking at this is the ancillary components of this is question. Rather than the
charging station itself but the act of autonomous vehicles, we do have charging stations that are permitted by right in
public facility locations. The Tempe Public Library and The Arizona Mills Mall has charging stations. We look at the
autonomous element of the factor that is something that is currently controlled and regulated by the State of Arizona.
The City of Tempe has allowed it as a legal land use that is allowed to drive safely within our community streets. We
have had the site reviewed through our internal process that includes Building Safety and the Fire Department. There
were no major concerns with the parameters of the site plan proposed. Chair Foy asked, in PCC-1 you’re allowed to
have public parking lots with charging stations. For example, if someone wanted 30 charging stations in the parking
lot, they could. Mr. Levesque stated yes, by right. Someone could set up operation to have vehicle charging stations
open to the public. Same equipment and same serviced provided.
Board Member Dalton stated, as I read more of this the first line for Planned Commercial Centers is that PCC-1 and
PCC-2 is for neighborhoods for PCC-1. Vehicles and service centers fall into that zoning classification, but then none
of those have lithium batteries that could explode or burn for days. How does this benefit or enhance the
neighborhood and is it required to? Mr. Jasper stated that as Mr. Levesque noted the primary difference between
PCC-1 and PCC-2 is basically the amount of land allocated to that zoning district and the size of the parcels they are
in. PCC-2 tends to larger strip centers. PCC-1 tends to have smaller lots. The similar use ruling is not necessarily
capturing these sort of philosophical component of it so much as it a strict one to one comparison or as one-to-one as
possible of the proposed land use that are allowed within that zone.
Board Member Morrow stated, someone could put a parking lot there, charge by the hour and that is a permissible
use, and they could put 35 electric charging stations there. This comes down to itis going to be robot cars instead of
just open to anybody with a Tesla who wants to park there.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
6
Board Member Cross stated, the vehicle-based service is downstream in a way TeraWatt is providing a service to
Waymo. Waymo is providing the vehicle-based service. The dispatching service technically is taking place out of
state. I am getting caught up in the service element as it orients to the public in the neighborhood itself rather than
out of California. Mr. Jasper stated that the service itself is what a citizen of the City of Tempe could request and
utilize the site for which is a ride hailing services. That is the service at hand.
Board Member Miller stated this isn’t actually a vehicle-based service for the benefit of the public. This is a vehicle-
based service to benefit Waymo. If Waymo provides an indirect benefit by virtue of the fact it can provide rides, then
maybe one could say this particular facility provides an indirect benefit in that regard. It was mentioned that this
decision impacts the whole concert of PCC-1 zoning district. Yet in reading through Mr. Levesque’s findings there are
specific mentions in a number of places to the address 2105 S Terrace Rd. I think to try and tell us we can’t consider
the site as part of the decision, we have to think of it globally, is a misrepresentation. Mr. Levesque stated that he
disagrees.
Mr. Levesque stated he wants to make one more clarifying statement. In reiterating the Zoning Delevopment Code
Section 6-301, in order to identify and identify a similar use only, I have to find a similar use within the categories of
the land use identified within here. If the argument is it should be industrial land use then I have to look to the
industrial land use categories and find what is similar to this land use. Is it an adult business, auto body repair, data
center, manufacturing factory, bio research or a large recycling center? And none of those land used are similar to
the land uses identified in PCC-1 zoning district. Board Morrow stated he would point to fuel distribution. If we grant
the appeal does the board have to identify where it belongs? Mr. Jasper stated that is correct. Mr. Levesque stated
what you are referring to is fueling station, liquid fuels in a bulk plant situation, not typically open to the public.
Chair Foy asked could you please explain the difference between what we’re addressing today and what is going to
be addressed in the City Council appeal? Mr. Levesque stated that are two appeals. There was an appeal to the
similar use ruling and an appeal on the Use Permit decision made by the DRC. We are having this meeting first
because we need to know what the appropriate land use is for this first. If there is no similar use, then there is no Use
Permit and then there is nothing to be appealed to the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Talia Wolfe, Tempe resident. She stated that she worked in dispatch and the vehicles rarely came to the dispatch
center, they would go to service stations, repair sites, the dispatch center was an office with staff where calls were
sent out to vehicles off site. Expressed concern about the noise levels. Residents in Santa Moncia have already filed
numerous complaints about the same type of charging stations and the noise as much as 97-112 decibels similar to
a concert venue. Why would we allow a 24-hour a day industrial charging depot with potentially 44 vehicles an hour,
1,000 vehicles per day? Similar to a data center, this is a parallel use.
Paul Wolfe, Tempe resident. He is concerned with the issue that this is more detrimental than other uses. Struggles
to see how this provides an additional service to the rideshare community, when there are already an abundance of
these vehicles available now. Another issue is safety, the autonomous vehicles are unpredictable, they give up in the
middle of the roadway. Expressed concern about energy consumption, summer blackouts and the noise pollution. It
identifies more as a fueling center. The fire hazard of fueling batteries, when vehicles may be recalled for faulty
batteries catching fire.
Joe Forte, Tempe resident. I am asking you to reject the Zoning Administrator’s similar use determination. I worked
for Discount Cab in Tempe and know exactly what a taxi dispatch station looks like and how it operates. It is a brief
low intensity turnover. This proposal is nothing like that. This is an industrial size charging depot design. Commercial
uses have peak periods and hours of operation when they are closed, this is 24-7 365 days a year, this facility never
sleeps. This is more akin to an industrial fueling center.
Samantha Boehringer, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and does not feel like the proposed autonomous vehicle
charging facility is analogous to the vehicle-based service dispatch. Terrwatt’s website states what their business is,
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
7
they are a fuel distribution company, not vehicle dispatch. This is more analogous to retail fuel sales except it is not
open to the public.
Jana Lynn Granillo, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal. The primary customer is TeraWatt not the people. This will
negatively impact the Meyer Park neighborhood. If they say they will not enter the neighborhood, then it will impact
the neighborhoods with all of the traffic. Using GPS will take the vehicles on wherever the fastest route is as a work
around and there are parks and schools in the neighborhood.
Victor Aronow, Tempe resident. Expressed concern that staff did not discuss the question of whether no greater
harm this project will bring to the neighborhood.
James Mooney, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern over the
possible fires from the car batteries.
Kathleen Mooney, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concerned over
the additional traffic this project will bring to the neighborhood, the ingress and egress is on Terrace Road and if there
are power problems the automated vehicles may stop in the road and not allow emergency vehicles to do their job
efficiently. There is an indoor charging station for Waymo on Broadway Road, they do not need another charging
station in the neighborhood.
Justin Rucker, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. He has a deaf daughter and
lives near the site. This is not a neighborhood service, this type of project belongs in a industrial area. This facility is
private and does not serve the neighborhood, it is a 24/7 high-capacity charging station and cannot be compared to a
taxi dispatch. The service station comparison is flawed because this facility does not serve the public. The technical
requirements of the project make this an industrial use; this will set a dangerous precedent if approved.
David Rainey, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal. This project causes detriment. This is not the right fit for the
neighborhood. None of the similar uses fit this project. The large transformers are a concern, this takes a massive
amount of power, this is for an industrial area.
Candy Lesher, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal. Concerned that the board was asked not to look specifically at
the site but the code. That pulls the humanity out of what we are talking about, the residents. This is not
complimentary to the area, it brings nothing to the residents except risks of fires and the traffic. The residents do not
benefit from this.
Rebecca Davis, Tempe resident. This project will be in the neighborhood. Please do not allow this in the
neighborhood. It is a few feet away from houses and apartments. There are already Waymo circulating in the
neighborhood, it does not take a long time to get one. It does not bring anything to the neighborhood.
Connie Vickory, Tempe resident and lives in the neighborhood. Supports the appeal. 24/7 operations 365 days a
year is a concern, the noise will not stop. Expressed concern over the sound and safety for people this project will
bring. Terrace is a narrow street with lots of students, scooters, bikes, pedestrians, there is a lot of traffic on Terrace
today and the autonomous vehicles will stop in the middle of the road and more traffic issues.
Julianna Rucker, Tempe resident and lives within view of the site. Expressed concerned over the detrimental aspect
of safety of the people around the autonomous vehicles where children play.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
8
Cathrine Menifee, Tempe resident and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern over the property values and
noise.
Michelle Pyde, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern over the
increased traffic this will bring to the neighborhood.
Daniel Suber, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern over the traffic
in a very dangerous intersection of Terrace and Broadway. This does not benefit the neighborhood.
Janelle Van Brunt, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern that the
residents living in the apartments near the site did not receive any notification about this item because they are not
property owners, they are renters. 22 of the units have bedroom windows 10 feet away from the proposed charging
station. This type of project belongs in an industrial park not a neighborhood.
Mark Van Brunt, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Spoke with the businesses
across the street. Expressed concern of the increased traffic that will tie up the Terrace Road intersection that
connects the businesses to the neighborhood.
Donna Aguilar, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and live in the neighborhood. Expressed concern over why that
lot was chosen. Isn’t there somewhere they can go that would not have these issues. This does not belong in the
neighborhood.
Daniel Jacobs, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern that the
vehicles come and go more often than a taxi service. This functions more like a factory. Please consider this use to a
more intense zoning district, looking at the upgraded zoning of PCC-2, there are lots of those sites around rather than
the neighborhood (commercial) zoning.
Vincent Martinez, Tempe residence. Supports the appeal. Stated he does not think it is the responsibility of the board
to come up with a similar use. We need professionals to address this. Recharging stations were not around when the
codes were written.
Andrea Martinez, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal. Expressed concern over the safety for the pedestrians
walking and on scooters and the danger from the increase in traffic. As a PCC-1 zoned property as a commercial use
there would be regular business hours. This is not a benefit to the neighborhoodand there is no public access or
service.
Elizabeth Baker, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern that this is
not a good use for a small parcel of land. While the industrial uses are moving out of the Smith Hub area for
gentrification of mixed-use development with residences; none of us moved here to live by a nuisance, the nuisance
is coming to us, we do not want industrial uses in the neighborhood.
David Huizingh, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Agreed with all previously said
points. The site is zoned with the intent of being a use for the neighborhood, but this is not a benefit to the
neighborhood. Concern of fire hazard and smoke from fires. Since Terrawatt is not the operator of the dispatch of
vehicles, can they rent to other companies, can this serve Tesla or other manufactured vehicles? With conditions of
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
9
approval, how would we have control over any other services or users that may use the facility in the future besides
Waymo?
Beth Marcotte, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives directly across from the proposed site. Terrawatt is not
the end user. Concerned about transformer noise humming all the time, sheexpressed concern about the increased
traffic, lights and noise levels this would bring. Concern about safety of high school drivers in the area and
interactions with vehicles from the site. We need a neighborhood friendly business not a charging station.
Bridget Humphrey, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern that the
vehicles don’t have a home to go to once they are charged. They create a nuisance in the neighborhoods by driving
through the neighborhoods all day and park in front of people’s houses. The vehicle never shuts off and continue to
run while waiting and there is no way to ask the driver to turn off the car. The promise to not have vehicles go into the
neighborhood is an unenforceable promise, how do you enforce a car sitting in front of your house running with no
one inside to cite? Ingress and egress into the site after turning off of Broadway into Terrace, with existing traffic will
be difficult.
Stanley Odell, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. Expressed concern that the
similar use decision states “dispatch” but there is no dispatching sited at the facility. The only function here is
charging. This is not a vehicle based service, it is a charging facility, there is no passenger embarking on site. It is
like a fueling center. It is not analogous to a substation because of the traffic generation. Is there a traffic assessment
of this use for this site?
Anna Biava, Tempe resident. Supports the appeal and lives in the neighborhood. The zoning and ordinances in place
encourage the current neighborhood experience of pedestrian access to schools, churches and parks without
crossing a major road with traffic. Expressed concern that this facility will disrupt the purpose of the neighborhood
and quality of life experience where Meyer Park Neighborhood residents can get to most places without needing a
rideshare to get there.
APPELLANT RESPONSE:
Ms. Dukes stated that she is in agreement that we need to look at the zoning ordinance. We need to look at the
similar use and figure out if this could be more detrimental rather than focusing on the particular use. Th purpose of
PCC-1 zoning district is a neighborhood use and is often close to neighborhoods. If we allow this in this PCC-1
zoning district you are allowing it in all PCC-1 zoning districts. It would also be allowed in all PCC-2 districts. This is
vehicle fleet charging not a taxi service. The charging stations in the large shopping centers are not generating new
traffic. Those are the people shopping inside the store and charging while shopping. That is the difference with this
facility. Terrace is not a collector street, it is a residential street, and not appropriate for this type of commercial traffic.
I proposed that the appeal be granted and the use found to be similar to fuel distribution station. Which is a use
allowed in the HID zoning district. An industrial district more similar to that type of use because it is energy being sold
to a private party in bulk. It is not being sold directly to the public. Rather than interpreting this to open it up to all
zoning districts, take a narrow determination to allow it in industrial zoning until the zoning code can be updated to
include this use in the code.
Mr. Smith stated that there is no similar use. This is such a new technology. It is what you run up against with data
centers. There is no use currently in Tempe code for this. Someone needs to define it. It does not belong in this
area;it belongs in an industrial area.
ORIGINAL APPLICANT RESPONSE:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
10
Ms. Wendy Riddell stated that the board should review to determine if the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation is
either supported by credible evidence or incorrectly applies to the law. We have made significant commitments in
front of the DRC that include things like not exceeding the ambient condition, the noise condition on the site and how
the traffic circulation is going to flow. We have had discussions with Fire. All of that discussion belongs in front of the
City Council on whether that Use Permit would be appropriate. There was discussion on whether this serves the
neighborhood. Section 3-201 is for all zoning districts. Not just PCC-1. Under #4 it sates to serve the needs of the
neighborhood, community or the metropolitan region; I would suggest that is what is occurring here. It is similar to a
taxi dispatch station, it is similar to a gas station, it is not an industrial use. It is not a giant tank farm. The discussion
about having to pick a category of where we fit, we would be willing to take a continuance and come back and talk
about detrimental use and why this is not detrimental use. We comply to the test and are not more detrimental that
other uses allowed by use, as a result the city’s interpretation should stand.
Board Member Morrow asked please tell me why this is not like a fuel distribution center? Ms. Riddell stated that fuel
distribution is a large tank distributing mass liquids in large quantities. It is significantly more industrial use. We put
these battery packs in homes to charge cars. We could place a charging center here that was not for fleet vehicles by
right. That is very different than a large fuel distribution center, which is significantly more detrimental to the area.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Mr. Jasper stated that the Board’s role tonight is to determine whether this use is similar to and not more detrimental
than other uses allowed. We have heard a lot about the numerous operational characteristics of this specific site.
Traffic safety, fire safety, crime prevention, noise and energy. Those are matters that are relevant in the
consideration of evaluating a Use Permit. Through the Use Permit process any nuisances can be mitigated or
ameliorated through the conditions of approval for that Use Permit, and that is what we endeavor do to. It was
mentioned that this sets a precedent that it will be allowed in PCC-1 zoning districts. But again, it is caveat that it is
subject to a Use Permit. What is this use most similar to? What we call or classify a vehicle hub that is primarily
intended to facilitate ride hailing activities? That is the question we need to answer this evening.
Chair Foy stated, it was mentioned by other members that the primary owner of this facility is TeraWatt. It is not a
service to the community. It is a service to a private company. What is your response to that? Mr. Jasper stated that
there does not need to be a one-to-one comparison. What is it similar to? Is it similar to comparable uses located and
allowed in the zoning district, subject to a Use Permit? I would say the service is the ride hailing aspect. Chair Foy
asked if I bought the land and I decided I wanted to put in a parking lot for my business and only my employees can
use the charging stations, would that be allowed? Mr. Jasper stated that as a project comes through site plan review,
they identify the parking configuration, we look to see if it meets its minimum parking obligations, then the answer is
yes, dedicated parking with charging stations for employees would be allowed. Mr. Levesque stated that if an office
had charging stations for their employees there would be no Use Permit process. Chair Foy asked, so anyone could
go in there even if it’s not TeraWatt and place charging stations? Mr. Jasper stated that is correct, commercial
parking is allowed by right.
Board Member Morrow stated that the customer and land developer are detached. It is irreverent that it’s going to be
Waymo and is not customer dependent. The issue is can they put the charging station in the parking lot. Mr.
Levesque stated that this is similar to when we get requests for a cell tower Use Permit. The cell tower providers
build the infrastructure for the tower. They own the tower elements, but they don’t own the antennas and service that
it provided by them. Those companies sublease to the phone providers. It takes the two businesses to complete that
service. Chair Foy asked if cell towers are allowed in PCC-1? Mr. Levesque responded, yes, cell towers are allowed
with a Use Permit. Board Member Morrow asked if they could put in a gas station, but only use it to fill taxis, could
that be allowed? Mr. Levesque responded, with a Use Permit, yes, gas stations would be allowed. A coffee shop with
a drive through would require a Use Permit, without knowing who the business is. Board Morrow asked if the
infrastructure is built, in the future the site could be opened up for charging to the public, human or robot driven
vehicles.
Board Member Miller stated we should come back to the issue before us. How did the Zoning Administrator make his
decision? I tend to agree that it is not similar to any of the suggestions made by the Zoning Administrator. It is an
industrial use similar to a fueling depot because it’s provided in bulk, 24 hours a day with 40 stations. Hypotheticals
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
11
aside, we need to decide whether the Zoning Administrator made the correct interpretation or not based on the
rationale.
Board Member Dalton stated that Ms. Riddell stated that TeraWatt would make commits to noise and lighting
concerns. I have seen in the past where companies do not abide by these. What would the recourse be if they made
these commitments and that is not how it played out? Mr. Jasper stated that we are processing a Use Permit which
does contain specific stipulations of the approval that if the property owner is found to be in violation of those the Use
Permit can be revoked and/or brought back before the Development Review Commission.
Chair Foy stated, even if we say that it is a similar use as a taxi it’s the impact on the neighborhood that is different
than a taxi place. My issue is the traffic and being more detrimental to other uses. Mr. Jasper asked, what is this most
similar to? And then the actual scale and impact of the specific nuisances can be addressed through the Use Permit
process. We have addressed all nuisances, which traffic and crime with the Use Permit process. We have had our
transportation staff look at this site. We have had fire look at this site. Chair Foy clarified asking if the nuisances
raised and discussed were related to the Use Permit, and were not considered as part of the Zoning Administrator’s
Opinion on the similar use decision. Mr. Jasper said the criteria for evaluating the Use Permit were evaluated as part
of that process, but the determination of similar use was a separate evaluation.
Board Member Morrow asked, so the fact that these are autonomous vehicles, which was mentioned in Mr.
Levesque’s decision is not the basis for granting the decision because that is part of the use as opposed to the
development of the land? Mr. Levesque nodded in agreement.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Chair Foy stated there were many things brought up today and they obviously mean a lot to the neighborhood. So
many of the things brought up tonight were about the use, but that is related to the Use Permit, not what is before us
tonight, which has a narrow scope of evaluation. My biggest issue is detrimental analysis. That is part of making this
decision. The two prong test, if you say this is similar to a taxi service but that it is more detrimental than other uses,
that part doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
Board Member Dalton stated he would disagree with the narrow scope. There is a lot of disagreement here in the
interpretation. One side says this is great and the other side says this is terrible. Isn’t that the essence of a public
board, to hear the arguments and make an interpretation where the disagreement exists? When these codes were
written nobody thought of lithium batteries and high charging 24-hour driverless cars. As a public board our focus
isn’t so narrow. Chari Foy stated we do have a narrow purpose; we are the Board of Adjustment; we are not hearing
the Use Permit appeal. We are hearing the appeal on is it similar and is it detrimental, those two things and that is it.
Board Member Somishka stated that she feels the opposite of Chair Foy. The City of Tempe and others in the metro
area are doing their best to try and figure out how ebikes and autonomous vehicles fit in our city and what kind of
infrastructure do we have to accommodate it, what kind do we need to build? As far as the autonomous vehicles go,
it’s still a growing field and a lot of research is happening, but they are quite safe. I am more referring back to what
Board member Cross said earlier, is this a vehicle-based service? My interpretation of a vehicle-based service is that
you’re serving a person first. It is servicing a particular company. The comparison to a cell phone tower is not similar.
The amount of land it takes up is a lot lower than what a vehicle charging station would be.
Mr. Jasper wished to clarify that the analysis of being more detrimental is related to comparing the use to other uses
allowed in the PCC-1 zoning, not in comparison to the surrounding area. This evaluation is location agnostic.
Boad Member Morrow stated that the evaluation needs to be both location agnostic and customer agnostic in this
situation, since most of his concerns relate to the robot cars. This is an electric service station, then the use that they
need to Use Permit for is their contract with Waymo. Board Member Somishka asked, so it wouldn’t be a vehicle-
based service then? You just said it offers electricity. Board Member Morrow stated that a service station is a place of
business having storage tanks for liquid fuel dispense in retail. Here instead of liquid fuel it’s electricity. Board
Member Morrow said the Zoning Administrator’s Opinion reviewed the other vehicle based services allowed in the
PCC-1 district, not just taxi dispatch and gas station and listed other uses from the code..
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
12
Chair Foy stated she still thinks this is a taxi service, but I’m still on the detrimental part of this. Board Member
Morrow stated he did not want this built but is not prepared to say it cannot be built in a commercial zoning district.
Board Member Miller stated if you talk about services, reviewing all the services listed, this does not provide service
all this does is charge. It doesn’t provide couriers, it doesn’t deliver, it doesn’t dispatch, it doesn’t coordinate
rideshare.
Board Member Dalton stated he is hung up the word neighborhood being bracketed next to PCC-1. This does not
benefit the community, neighborhood or people. It benefits TeraWatt and Waymo. The people in the neighborhood
have no ability to use this commercial service. Its not the same as building other commercial uses that people could
patronize. Chair Foy stated that the city code just isn’t made for this. Board Member Miller asked if we approve the
appeal, we then have to state where we think it should go, right? We are not committing it there; we are simply using
our best judgment. Chair Foy asked I want to know why we have to do that. Mr. Levesque stated that when there is
a reversal of a decision, there is a clear direction. If there is a decision of approval of the appeal, we need a clear
direction as to where does this land use fall. Chair Foy asked, so you could choose to use our direction or find
something that is more applicable? Mr. Levesque stated that is correct.
Board Member Cross stated she does not think this belongs in PCC-1. Board Member Morrow and Chair Foy agreed.
Board Member Dalton said reading the code PCC-1 neighborhood, PCC-2 general, that is referenced throughout, it is
more general than neighborhood use. Board Member Cross does not think it is a vehicle-based service because of
the B to B to C nature of it of having something downstream of it. Maybe that at least pushes it out of PCC-1. Board
Member Miller suggested that it might fit in light industrial but certainly in general industrial because of the industrial
nature of it. Board Member Somishka stated that a gas station or service station could theoretically be built here; I
think that is strange. Chair Foy agreed, this is a situation where this is a really unique use, which has not been
addressed in the code in the past, and needs to be updated, but this is what we have. Does it fit as a similar use.
Board Member Morrow added that excluding the users and the Use Permit criteria, the question is, can a charging
station be built here and the answer is yes. This is not about customers or the business.
Motion by Board Member Morrow to deny the appeal and affirm the opinion of the Zoning Administrator; second
by Board Member Miller.
Ayes: Board Member Morrow and Chair Foy
Nays: Vice Chair McCarley, Board Members Somishka, Dallton, Cross and Miller
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vote: Motion fails 2-5
Motion by Board Member Miller moved to approve the appeal of this case and make the recommendation that it
be placed in the General Industrial zoning category. The uses in that category could include fuel distribution
station and vehicle service. Board Member Somishka second the motion.
Ayes: Vice Chair McCarley, Board Members Somishka, Dallton, Cross and Miller
Nays: Chair Foy and Board Member Morrow
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vote: Motion passes 5-2, the appeal is approved.
6) CHAIR/STAFF UPDATE(S) AND ANNOUNCEMENT(S):
Chair Updates: None
Staff Updates: Ms. Diana Kaminski stated there will be BOA Meeting on March 25th.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
February 25, 2026
13
7) ADJOURNMENT: Hearing adjourned at 9:41 p.m. by Chair Foy
Next meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2026
Prepared by: Jennifer Daniels, Administrative Assistant
Reviewed by: Diana Kaminski, Principal Planner