Tempe Board of Adjustments Meeting: Appeal of Terawatt EV Charging Station Similar Use Ruling - February 25, 2026

The Tempe Board of Adjustments convened on February 25, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. to hear an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's November 21, 2025 similar use ruling that classified a proposed autonomous electric vehicle (EV) charging facility at 2105 South Terrace Road as a "vehicle-based service" (specifically, taxi dispatch) permitted with a use permit in the PCC-1 (Planned Commercial Center Neighborhood) zoning district. The appellant, represented by Heather Dukes of Dukes Law PLLC, argued the ruling was erroneous because the use is not similar to permitted uses and is more detrimental. The board ultimately voted 5–2 to approve the appeal, overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision, and recommended the use be classified under the General Industrial (GI) zoning district as a fuel distribution station or vehicle service.

Consent Calendar

• The board unanimously (7–0) approved the minutes from the previous meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• In-person speakers (approximately 30 residents and stakeholders) uniformly opposed the proposed facility, citing concerns about:
  • Fire and public safety risks from lithium-ion battery fires (e.g., thermal runaway, toxic smoke, difficulty extinguishing).
  • Noise pollution from 24/7 operations, including transformer hum and autonomous vehicle sounds.
  • Traffic congestion on narrow residential streets (Terrace Road) and increased danger for pedestrians, cyclists, and schoolchildren.
  • The facility's private, non-public nature (not serving the neighborhood).
  • Precedent of setting a dangerous precedent for industrial uses in neighborhood commercial zones.
  • Property value declines.
• Online speaker Paul Wolf expressed concerns about energy consumption, blackouts, and fire risk.
• Online speaker Talia Wolf, a former dispatcher, argued the facility is not comparable to a taxi dispatch office, noting dispatch centers do not house vehicles.
• Joe Forte, a Development Review Commission member who voted against the original use permit, urged rejection of the similar use ruling, calling the facility an "industrial-sized charging depot."
• Jenna Lynn Gorillo (Meyer Park Neighborhood Association chair) stated the code does not match the proposal and the primary customer is Terawatt, not the community.
• Several speakers (e.g., James Mooney, Kathleen Moody, Bridget Humphrey) shared personal stories of emergency access concerns and negative interactions with Waymo vehicles.
• Todd Smith, a 30-year resident and public safety expert, detailed fire hazards and said the facility would consume 5–6 megawatts of power—enough to power 4,000–5,000 homes.
• Cheryl Smith noted the intersection near a school and the presence of vulnerable residents (deaf child, visually impaired adult).
• Multiple speakers emphasized that the facility does not serve the neighborhood and belongs in an industrial area.

Discussion Items

• Appellant's Argument (Heather Dukes):
  • The similar use ruling is erroneous because the primary use is vehicle fleet charging, not a service to the public. The PCC-1 district is intended for neighborhood-serving retail, services, and entertainment, not private fleet operations.
  • The use is not similar to taxi dispatch, courier, or ambulance dispatch because it lacks human labor (service defined as "useful labor by humans") and has no public point of sale.
  • The use is more detrimental than permitted uses due to the high electrical load, fire risk, and 24/7 autonomous operations. Appellant proposed the use be classified as a fuel distribution station (industrial).
• Applicant's Argument (Wendy Ridell for Terawatt):
  • The facility is analogous to a modern taxi dispatch (ride-hailing service). Autonomous vehicles provide the same service as taxis, and the site includes employees for cleaning and oversight.
  • The use is not more detrimental than permitted uses like service stations, vehicle repair, gun shops, or liquor stores, which involve liquid fuel, public traffic, and potential nuisances.
  • The similar use ruling is location-agnostic and should be upheld; the specific impacts should be addressed through the use permit process, which includes commitments on noise, traffic, and fire mitigation.
• Staff Presentation (Chris Jasper, Senior Planner):
  • The Zoning Administrator's opinion found the use is similar to vehicle-based service (taxi dispatch) and comparable vehicle-related uses. The ruling is definitional, not site-specific.
  • If the board overturns the ruling, it must identify what the use is similar to within the zoning code. A denial would allow the use permit process to proceed to City Council.
  • The use permit process can address nuisances (noise, traffic, fire safety) through stipulations.
• Board Deliberation:
  • Members debated the two-pronged test: (1) Is the use similar to a permitted use? (2) Is it not more detrimental?
  • Some members (e.g., Board Member Morrow) initially found it similar to taxi dispatch but struggled with the detriment prong, considering fire, noise, and 24/7 operations.
  • Other members (e.g., Board Member Dalton) argued it is not similar because the primary activity is charging, not dispatching, and there is no direct public benefit.
  • Board Member Cross questioned whether the service is to the public or to a B2B customer (Terawatt serving Waymo).
  • Several members acknowledged the zoning code has not kept pace with EV and autonomous vehicle technology.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Affirm the Zoning Administrator's Ruling: Failed (2–5). Board Members Foy and Morrow voted to affirm; Dalton, Cross, and others opposed.
• Motion to Approve the Appeal: Passed (5–2). The board voted to approve the appeal, overturning the similar use ruling.
• Board Recommendation: The use (charging facility for a private fleet of autonomous vehicles) should be classified under the General Industrial (GI) zoning district, with potential similar uses including fuel distribution station and vehicle service. This recommendation is not binding but provides direction to the Zoning Administrator.
• Next Steps: The Zoning Administrator will reconsider the classification based on the board's recommendation. The applicant's separate use permit appeal pending before the City Council may be affected by this decision.
• The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.