Call to order the meeting.

Welcome to the City of Tempe Board of Adjustments meeting for February 25th, 2026.

The time is now six o'clock.

The Tempe of the City of Tempe Board of Adjustments is authorized by Arizona's revised statutes and the City of Tempe zoning zoning ordinances.

Its function is to grant relief where literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary property hardship to interpret provisions of the zoning ordinances variances and to hear appeals from any person or city official aggrieved the decision of a person responsible for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance, zoning administrator or hearing officer abatements.

The board has the City of Tempe Community Development Staff Summary Reports on the items being considered at this meeting, and will use this report in their deliberations.

At this time, I will do roll call, um, starting with Andrea.

Please announce your name.

Mary Foy here.

Kevin Morrow here, Richard Dalton here.

Katie Cross here.

All right.

And from staff, we have Jeff Tamalovich, is that correct?

Timmy Levitic.

Timilevich.

Orion, I can't pronounce this last name.

Levesque, Eric Anderson, Diane Kaminsky, Chris Jasper, Jennifer Daniels, and Eddie Garcia will be handling our media.

At this time, I'd like to see if we have a motion to adopt the mining the meeting minutes from last meeting.

Is there a motion on the floor?

I'll make a motion to um pass the meeting minutes.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Seven to zero.

Seven passes.

All right.

So we are here today for an appeal of the zoning administration's decision regarding similar use interpretation.

Um all applicants and interested citizens when your request is called or when you wish to address the board, please make sure you have filled out one of the citizens' request forms located on the table by the doors.

Please submit the form to staff before you begin speaking at the microphone.

So make sure that you fill out those cards and let uh our staff know.

Did I do that right?

The minute meetings, I can just do them together.

All right.

All right.

At this time, we will uh accept presentations from the appellate's attorney, Heather Bukes.

Is it Bukes or Dukes?

Dukes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good evening, uh, Chairwoman Foy, uh, members of the board.

My name is Heather Dukes of Dukes Law PLC, and my address is 5527 North 25th Street in Phoenix.

I'm here this evening on behalf of the appellants in this matter, and this is a similar use ruling that was issued by the zoning administrator on November 21st with regard to the terawatt development proposal for the property at 2105 South Terrace Road.

Tarawatt is attempting to build an electrical vehicle charging station for 44 autonomous vehicles on a small vacant parcel less than one acre in size and zoned PCC one planned commercial center neighborhood zoning district.

In a nutshell, we are here today asking that you find that the similar use ruling was issued in error.

And that decision is erroneous because it allows a use that is inconsistent with the defined uses in the PCC one zoning district, and it also allows a use which is more detrimental than the uses permitted in the PCC 1 district.

And so that is basically what we are asking you to decide here today whether the similar use ruling is an error.

I also want to give a little bit of context as to how we got here today.

In the fall, there was a DRC hearing where a use permit was approved for this use.

And we noticed when we went back through the record that this use is not actually allowed in the PCC one zoning district.

It's a rather new use, and so it's not contemplated in the zoning district.

And when that happens, you're you're supposed to ask for a similar use ruling from the zoning administrator.

And so the zoning administrator gave that similar use ruling in November, and that's why we appealed to the Board of Adjustment.

From our perspective, technically, the use permit should have never been approved at this stage because we're still deciding whether this use is even allowed or requires a use permit.

So that's just a little bit of history on the matter.

So I want to go through really quick just the area in general before I address the defined uses in the zoning ordinance.

This is just a context of the area.

On slide two, I'm showing an aerial photograph of the property and its surroundings.

The terawatt parcel is marked with a yellow star, and as you can see, the parcel of buttons are residential street with several single family homes and schools directly to the south within a square mile of the area.

On this slide, we've zoomed into the property and its surroundings a little further.

And again, the terawatt property does not have direct access to the main arterial street of Broadway Road.

Its only vehicular access point is on a residential street, which is specifically designed to be narrower, narrower.

That's a hard word to say, narrower than collector or arterial streets, and to serve the sole purpose of connecting residential neighborhoods in the area.

Residential streets like Terrace Road are not intended to be used for commercial or business purposes.

I want to go through Tarawatt's context plans and some of the photos just because these were submitted as part of the use permit, and they show how close this property is to the residential uses in the area.

And so we're going to start at the southwest corner of the Tarawatt property.

This context photo seven is a viewpoint of the single family residences located directly south of the property when standing at that southwest corner.

And then we're going to go to the southeast corner of the Tarawatt property.

And this is context photo nine, looking north from the southeast corner.

I've added the yellow arrow pointing down to the real uh the condominiums to draw attention to how close those residences are to the shared property line.

In this slide eight, this is context photo 11 looking south from the same southeast corner of the property, and you'll see the adjacent single family residences there.

Finally, we're moving to the northeast corner of the site, and this is context photo 14 looking east directly towards the condominiums, which are just a few feet away.

And then this is a context photo 15 looking south from the northeast corner of the Terawatt property, demonstrating demonstrating again the close proximity of the abutting residential uses on two sides.

So, with all that being said, I want to go to the zoning map, and you can see the terrace road.

Um, and then there's the planned commercial center neighborhood on both sides of the terrace road.

And that's consistent with the general area.

So you have this residential road that's coming off of Broadway, and they put the neighborhood commercial type uses on either side of that roadway.

And then as you go farther east, that's when you have more of the multifamily residential uh zoning districts and the planned commercial center general.

So PCC2 is for more general commercial type uses.

PCC one is for this neighborhood type uses, and that's what this property is designated as along that terrace road.

So when you look at uh the permitted uses in commercial and mixed use districts, this is chapter two from the zoning ordinance.

Section 3-201 talks about the purpose of those commercial and mixed use districts, and those districts are intended to encourage trip reduction, encourage pedestrian circulation as an alternative to driving.

And so in this location, we're actually increasing trip generation by having these autonomous vehicles parked to be refueled and then to be dispersed from that area.

So that's that's one problem that we're not satisfying that that purpose and applicability.

And then with regard to section 3-201B, subsection four, it talks about that the PCC districts are for neighborhood, PCC one, and that includes retailing, services, and entertainment uses oriented to serve the needs of the neighborhood.

So when we move forward, you're going to notice that this isn't retailing, this isn't an entertainment use, but the staff is treating this as a service type use.

And so we'll go through those definitions.

These are some of the zoning, I'm sorry, some of the uses that are permitted in the PCC one neighborhood district, and all of these uses are for the benefit and in support of neighborhoods.

They again are those uses that create social and economic vitality.

There's a lot of employments that's generated by these uses and they serve the community.

With regard to the uses that are not permitted, so these are the ones that are marked with an N in that table 3-202A.

You'll see that data centers are not permitted, some of the marijuana uses, large recycling centers, and auto bottom repairs.

And I want to go to the data center for just a second.

So it's interesting that this use is not permitted in PCC one because it's a use that's um, it's not open to the public, it requires a lot of energy, it doesn't generate a whole lot of employment for the benefit of their surrounding neighborhood, and there's a certain fire and safety hazard that's usually associated with that type of use.

And so that's very similar to what's going on here with this particular use, those factors.

In addition, some of the uses that are permitted in industrial zoning districts, but that are not permitted in the PCC one zoning district are dispatching when it's associated with a weighing station, a fuel distribution station, gasoline and petroleum bulk storage tanks, auto body repair, and towed vehicle storage.

And these are industrial uses that are not neighborhood oriented, they're more similar to the type of use that's being proposed for this terawatt site.

There's an element of risk due to the energy and chemical sources being stored.

There may be nuisances associated with it in the form of odors or noise, and they're typically not open to the public.

So this is the language of from the similar use ruling of what's being proposed at the site.

So this is taken directly from the zoning administrator's letter, and it says that it's going to be covered parking spaces to charge a private fleet of electric vehicles.

The autonomous vehicles will enter the site for charging, cleaning, routine inspections.

The proposed use is not intended for public use, and the cars are fully autonomous and do not have a human driver.

They will be dispatched to conduct customer ride sharing services and return is needed to charge and be cleaned by the on-site operator.

And so this is a copy of the site plan.

There's 44 spaces on site with the recharging stations.

And again, you can see the access points off of the residential road.

So I want to go through the there's three conclusions.

Three, let me just double check it.

Yeah, there's three conclusions in the letter from the zoning administrator.

And the first one is that the use is more similar to a vehicle-based service under the service category in that table 3-202A.

And specific examples under this category include courier, delivery services, taxi, and ambulance dispatch as similar uses.

And so again, we're looking at service, and service is defined in the zoning ordinance.

It's this is the definition from our zoning ordinance.

It says it means useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity.

Now, what is not defined in the zoning ordinance is label, labor or useful labor.

And so when you go to any dictionary online, labor usually means an expenditure of physical or mental effort, services performed by workers for wages, human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy.

And so this concept of service is people providing a service to a neighborhood to a community.

This is basically cars charging.

There's no service being provided on site that's human related, where the services are being performed by workers for wages or any type of uh expenditure of physical or mental effort.

There's also they say the zoning administrator says that vehicle service and commercial surface parking facilities are also permitted uses in the PCC one, and that this use could be analogous to those.

So again, we've already addressed what service is defined as in the zoning ordinance.

Um it's it's usually entails useful labor by humans.

Uh vehicle service means a use with minor automotive services.

So again, labor by humans, and it entails detailing, windshield replacement, battery replacement, audio accessory installation or similar uses.

And so those are when people come and they need their vehicle repaired.

This is a private fleet of vehicles.

That's not that's not what's occurring at this site.

The garage commercial that's defined in the zoning ordinance, and it talks about how you can store motor vehicles or park them for compensation, meaning the members of the public, they go, they park their vehicles in a commercial garage, they pay to park there.

That also is not occurring at this site.

And then commercial use in general.

So when the zoning administrator talks about commercial surface parking facilities, commercial uses usually provide consumer products or services, and commercial uses shall have a public point of sale or service.

So again, this is a private flea of vehicles that are being charged.

There's no public point of sale or service occurring at the site with the neighborhood type uses that are usually allowed in the PCC one zoning district.

The zoning administrator also has stated that both service station and repair in the vehicle category in table 3-202A are all permitted in the PCC one with a use permit.

And so service station talks about this is a defined term in the zoning ordinance where there's liquid fuel or lubricants are dispensed at retail.

So again, nothing's being dispensed at retail at this location.

Vehicle repair talks about retail sales and vehicle service uses, and there's an and between those two, where it's both retail sales and vehicle service uses.

So again, both of those, neither of those are occurring at this site.

I am going to turn it over now to Todd and Cheryl Smith.

They so I have talked about how this use is inconsistent with the definitions in the zoning ordinance that are allowed in the PCC one district.

It's our contention that this use is more appropriate for an industrial type zoning district, or at a minimum a PCC2 general um zoning district category, not a neighborhood type use.

And so the neighbors that are here tonight are going to talk about how this use is more detrimental than the uses that are allowed in the PCC one district, particularly at this location as well.

Thank you.

Um Heather, I just wanted to make sure that you are you will be available for questioning after Todd and Wendy present.

Yes, I will be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Todd Smith.

Hi, how are you?

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm Todd Smith.

This is my wife Cheryl.

Um see how this works here.

Um I've been a resident in Tempe for over 30 years.

My home is only four doors down from this proposed site.

I'm going to be speaking to you about the fire danger and public safety danger that this site represents.

Um I have 20 years plus of experience in public safety working closely with Phoenix Fire Department.

Uh the alerting system my company developed is in all the stations in Maricopa County.

It's now in 500 other cities and services 57 million people currently.

Um, bringing this up is that I'm well acquainted with fire risk and fire technology.

Um the site we're talking about is a 2105 South Terrace.

It's just south of Broadway between Ruel and McClintock.

It's a little smaller than a football field.

And as you can see, it is surrounded by homes, apartments, schools, and churches.

Um the site will have the ability to simultaneously charge up to 30 electric vehicles and draw upwards of five to six megawatts of power.

Uh that five or six megawatt of power may not mean much.

It's kind of like me saying my computer has two terabytes of memory.

Uh, a lot of people are gonna go, well, is that a lot?

Um, a lot of people don't know.

So to give you an idea of how much five or six megawatts is uh take a look at this image.

Uh five or six megawatts is enough to power four to five thousand homes.

Um this photo includes approximately that many dwellings.

Every home and every apartment in this photo can be powered by the amount of energy that that little yellow square is taking.

Uh so that should that should give you pause.

I mean, this is industrial infrastructure.

This is not a donut shop.

Um just imagine the noise, the hum, even from the big power transformers that are going to be on this site.

Uh, you can even take the cars out of the equation.

I think we've all walked by a transformer and hear it humming, and these are megawatt transformers that are in place here.

Um, gives you another idea of the amount of power that's going into that site.

Uh, on the left is a typical home.

It doesn't even show up on the chart.

A convenience store or a hundred unit apartment building barely shows on the chart.

The average power the terawatt is predicting that they're going to be using is shown in the fourth column.

And then the maximum powers on the right.

So again, we're talking about an absolutely enormous amount of power.

You could have 50, 60 apartment buildings and not even hardly register on this chart compared to a terawatt is going to pump into this site.

Umlect vehicles do catch on fire, sometimes from an accident, and sometimes they just spontaneously ignite.

And typically, this is due to a defect in the batteries.

A Waymo car spontaneously ignited in a Phoenix warehouse two years ago.

Uh it took 50 firefighters and almost all day to bring that under control.

Uh that's one car.

Um, when they do catch fire, they burn at extremely high temperatures on the order of 2500 to 5,000 degrees.

That temperature is hot enough to melt aluminum, to melt steel, to melt anything that's in the vehicle.

Uh, the fire is caused by a thermal runaway reaction inside the batteries.

Basically, the hotter the battery gets, the faster the reaction proceeds, and the more the reaction proceeds, the hotter the battery gets, and it just continues on and on.

An EV fire is very difficult to put out.

It requires thousands of gallons of water in hours, if not days, to completely extinguish it.

Um the Waymo fire in Phoenix, they ended up lifting the car and putting it into a dumpster full of wet sand, and it took three days for it to burn itself out.

Um while the car is burning, it will release dense toxic smoke, and the prevailing winds will immediately blow that smoke into the apartment buildings that's next door.

The prevailing winds in Tempe are west to east, so that apartment complex is going to immediately get inundated with the thick toxic smoke from the fire.

Um car on fire could easily lead to a cascade reaction where you get multiple cars on fire, in which case you've got your situation is much worse.

Uh the handouts that I gave you, if you want to see there was a cascade fire event, brand new vehicles uh that were manufactured, and they caught on fire while they were charging.

These hadn't even been on the road yet.

Um because of the security aspects of the Terawatt site, the fire department is going to have limited access to this to this facility.

Um it has block walls, fences, and automatic gates.

Remember, this is a secure public site.

It's designed to keep people out.

This is not a donut shop or an auto repair center.

Um the fire department will have a limited amount of water.

The fire hydrants in this neighborhood were designed for fighting fires in ranch-style homes built in the 1970s.

They weren't designed to fight a five megawatt charging station full of electric vehicles.

The typical fire hydrants can provide between 500 and 1500 gallons per minute of water, which is enough to fight a single electric fire.

Multi-vehicle fires would most likely overwhelm the available water supply.

This charging station belongs in an industrial area with better facilities and infrastructure, not by schools and homes.

While the fire department's trying to bring this fire under control, the water that's being poured on it will be contaminated with melted metals from the electric car.

These metals include things like lithium, lead, nickel, cobalt, copper, organic cam organic compounds and acids.

All of this material will end up in the runoff water that will go right into the storm trains.

These are the same storm drains that you have to get a permit from Timpee if you want to empty your swimming pool.

These issues are not a concern with an auto repair shop or a donut shop.

It should be clear that this facility should be located in an industrial area with proper containment for the runoff water in the event of a fire.

From an earlier from an earlier hearing Terrawatt in the city of Timpee stated that this site would not be any more detrimental to the neighborhood than an auto repair shop or a fab fast food place.

Let's make one thing very clear.

It does not operate 24-7 and generate noise night and day.

The auto repair shop simply does not represent the potential for generating the very hazardous conditions that the Terawatt site represents.

No one in 20 years has built an auto repair shop or a fast food place on that location.

And the reason is simple because it's a residential neighborhood.

The terawatt facility does not benefit the neighborhood in any manner.

It's a private gated security secured facility that's only a benefit to terrawatt and its customers.

It's detrimental to the neighborhood in all regards.

This project represents an industrial level risk in a residential area.

I'm not opposed to autonomous self-driving vehicles.

I understand technology.

I actually enjoy technology.

I believe these types of vehicles are the wave of the future.

My key point, and really my only point is that this facility belongs in an industrial area and not a residential area.

Fire and public safety concerns need to be given a lot of consideration.

And my wife Cheryl is gonna speak next.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Cheryl.

Good evening.

My name is Cheryl.

I live the same place, four place, four houses away.

Um there is an intersection at Terrace and Palmcroft.

Um there's a map that we could could you pull up the map for me.

Yes.

Um just across the street where there's a high school.

Okay.

So I don't know if this mouse works.

Okay.

Do you want to use the pointer?

Anyhow, I just want to emphasize that um they have a neighborhood uh rear access into Our Lady of Mount Carmel School Church preschool where hundreds of people attend.

And so um let's see.

Uh I don't know if you can see it there.

Is it working?

Okay.

So here is the facility.

Can you speak things in the microphone?

I'm so sorry.

Here's the facility right here.

And what you don't know is this intersection at Terrace and Palmcroft is a key gateway into a horseshoe here where many of us live.

And there's a moat that provides public access to a rear alley to Mount Carmel School and Church, and two neighbors on Benard, and historically for the last 40 years and probably for the next 40, have kept their back gates open.

So one uh several risks in this neighborhood.

We have bicyclists and children crossing terrace, uh, not always safely because you know adults and children in a hurry make risky choices.

Um we have a child who's deaf here.

We have a man with visual impairments down the street.

We have an adult with a developmental disability all on this street.

Um children walk around this area to school through back exits.

They cross the street, they chase dogs.

Um it's a highly populated area.

Uh, besides the 10 or 15 children living in this area uh during the weekends, um, the area swells with another 20 or 25 children with extended family gatherings.

Um the streets are extremely narrow, they're local streets, they're double parked often, and there's a lot of chicken going on where you have to pull over to let people pass.

Um, so it's a pretty uh populous neighborhood, and we believe that the addition of a facility that will generate traffic into our neighborhood is of great detriment.

Which brings me to my next point.

Uh, terawatt has promised in past in the past that no autonomous vehicles will travel south of the facility.

Essential that no essentially no vehicles will enter the terrace palmcroft intersection except to answer a call in the neighborhood.

We predict that this is a promise that is impossible to maintain.

Um, I'm so sorry.

Um when the vehicles enter here and exit there, they are supposed to turn around and go back up to Terrace and Broadway, which is a treacherously crowded congested intersection.

It is our neighborhood's main exit into this area.

And whether or not the vehicles that are autonomous clog this area, or whether it's our own traffic having to get out here, there's going to be excess spillover of traffic in all of these local streets, particularly right here.

This is the first turn right they can make after the facility.

So we predict that they'll either turn uh to the west here to seek alternate routes or to the east there and could possibly be lined up circling our really narrow streets, posing great risk and detriment to our families.

Um they have not yet divulged the future AV occupant of the facility, and I use AV for autonomous vehicles.

They will have no direct oversight of this company's operation, and no city or public safety entity will be able to help enforce this.

Um we again um maintain that this will be much more detrimental than a standard auto detailing store or a battery replacement area.

The last thing I would like to do is to refute Terrawat's claim that autonomous vehicles are safer than human-driven autos.

This is a claim which is not substantiated by research.

We have been privileged lately to communicate with Dr.

Jeffrey Wishart, PhD.

He supported us at the Moxie community meeting in December.

He was traveling and not able to join us tonight, but he has submitted a very um a very relevant statement uh to the Board of Adjustment.

He is the manager and lead authority on autonomous vehicles at General Motors Company in Tempe, as well as adjunct faculty at ASU and a national and global expert on autonomous vehicles.

His resume is extensive.

I can provide a copy if you'd like it.

It was mind-numbing.

He has been highly involved at every level with the development and safety of autonomous vehicles.

He does say that we have accumulated lots of research, in facts, millions of miles and hundreds of scenarios experienced by autonomous vehicles, but it is still not enough.

To quote him, their impact on public safety remains to be seen.

To quote him, this technology holds promise, but it is in the early stages of maturity.

According to him, we cannot make blanket generalizations about the safety of any AV technology.

The unending variation in different types of AVs, types of software, and new scenarios which each vehicle needs to encounter before it quote learns what to do, make it impossible to make broad judgments about the safety of AVs.

Regarding this proposed facility, he states for this proposed Terralot depot, any claims to safety cannot and should not be evaluated unless and until the particular AVs that will be serviced are named.

He also acknowledges the fact that some of us have claimed that AVs are safer than humans.

He says AVs are very good at nominal driving, which is expected situations.

Conversely, humans can be prone to failure and nominal failure in nominal scenarios.

However, AVs to quote, do not extrapolate well for scenarios that are not included in their training or deployment of these vehicles.

And otherwise, in other words, they are not good at assimilating the data they get and making a quick and rapid accurate response.

While, to quote, humans are very good at extrapolation because they have a world model that can be used to discern what is happening in a scenario they have never seen before.

To summarize, he says, as the proposal does not name the manufacturer or AV that will be serviced by the depot.

I do not believe that this depot should be placed in a residential neighborhood and in such proximity to multiple schools where children and other vulnerable road users are common.

In summary, I'd like to maintain that our very rich neighborhood is happily teeming with humans and our ever changing new scenarios.

Please leave us to enjoy our quality of life and continue to forge the neighborhood ties which are at the heart of our Tempe neighborhoods.

Let this developing as yet unproven technology continue to evolve and make its mistakes in an industrial setting where it belongs, where it can function without seriously endangering this residential neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for Todd or Cheryl?

I have a question for Todd.

You had cited a lot of the environmental concerns.

You've excited a lot of the environmental concerns, fire concerns and stormwater concerns.

Yeah.

And that's kind of my wheelhouse.

Like all those words were very familiar to me.

Okay.

And I know a lot about them.

And uh where did that information come from?

Uh it comes from my experience and going to a lot of uh fire meetings over the years, different, you know, I said in a lot of different fire um uh presentations, that sort of thing.

I also did quite a bit of research on electric vehicles when this was proposed to learn about you know the types of hazardous chemicals that are given off in the fire.

Um and you know what happens when those uh batteries have a meltdown.

Okay.

And then this one is to supplement to that to this might be more directed at staff.

Does the fire department um or the city's environmental services have they weighed in on this at all?

When we do a site plan review, the fire department does review the applications with us and to the police department also.

Okay.

Yeah.

I I will say the um you know the the codes are lagging for electric vehicles, especially fleet vehicle charging stations, the codes are lagging way behind.

Uh the that there's really no good electric codes yet for this type of a facility.

Uh and if it was put in place under existing fire codes, that would be a major mistake.

I would I would not grandfather terawatt into existing fire codes.

I would require at a minimum that any new codes that were passed, let's say over the next five years that they are required to bring the facility up to that new standard.

Um, because again, everyone acknowledges that the the codes, I mean, it's it's just such a new technology, the codes are lagging behind.

And that's that's normal.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Smith, since you live in the area, I'm gonna ask you uh a somewhat abstract hypothetical question.

If the city had two bids for this land, one was for the terawatt charging station, and the other was for a medical marijuana dispensary.

Which one would you as a neighbor prefer be put on the land?

Assuming you would want neither, but which one seems less obnoxious to you?

Um yeah, I I would I would have to say neither one.

I mean, neither one of them is a good fit for that for that neighborhood.

Um I get that the reason why I'm I mean that that's you know that that's not a re reasonable question because we need to maintain control in the audience.

No clapping, no clapping during the presentation, please.

Yeah, I mean, uh a reasonable again.

If somebody wants to, you know, uh chiropractor wants to build a shop there, or they want to build another small condo there.

I mean, there's all types of things that would be a benefit to the neighborhood uh that belong in that area uh that I would be happy to uh you know.

The problem I I had with a lot of the concerns, which while I share the um land is zoned commercial, which would allow gun shops, tattoo parlors, marijuana dispensaries, things that you might not like in the neighborhood and maybe shouldn't belong in the neighborhood, but the question we have is is does the zone the the commercial zoning allow it?

Um which is why I asked the question that I did.

Um I'm gonna ask um Heather to come up because I I think I know I have some questions for her, and uh I'm sure some other people do, and then looking at the map, I that's a really good question.

I don't think they could put a medical marijuana dispensary in there given the proximity of the high school and the proximity of the church.

We already had to we had a business that was near a marijuana facility, it got defeated because of a church.

But that again that goes to setback that goes that doesn't go to zoning uh I I know, but it's a distinction with a difference.

Board member Maryland, if I may if I may point out marijuana establishments are not allowed in the PCC one zoning district that we're talking about here tonight.

Yeah, and I don't know any rezoned.

I mean, nothing else represents the the risk of all of that incredible.

I want to say I have the table up.

Which I I have been struggling to read.

Right.

I'm going to remind everyone that during the presentation, please do not clap.

Um this is a hearing.

So um while I appreciate what people feel and that they're excited about certain comments, it does distract from what we're doing here.

Thank you.

And distract from the recording abilities.

Yeah.

Um but yeah, I'm seeing medical marijuana dispensary without cultivation is allowed with special restrictions in the PCC one.

Uh again, just look at this image.

The amount of power to power every single home in this image, every single apartment is focused into that little square.

I mean, the the risk is just off the scale.

I I don't know how to put that any other way.

I mean, that it that's that's was my that's been my focus for my entire working career is is risk mitigation, and this is this is just ridiculous.

So, and I I just want to add we our ability to rule tonight is very limited.

It's very specific.

And so I kind of want to ask Heather a specific question that has to do with the law.

And under the vehicle based usage, they list things like taxi and ambulance dispatch and um delivery services.

So when thinking about those things specifically, because that's really where the focus is.

The he's saying the zoning administrator is saying they're similar to this vehicle charging.

What's the difference?

And if there's no difference and it's similar, what's the detrimental impact?

Is it more detrimental to have this the terrawatt come in and have those zoning, the uh charging stations and the autonomous vehicles than a taxi business?

Correct.

And I think I think that's why it's it's difficult here tonight.

Is that um the Smith's presentation goes to that detrimental aspect of it with the energy source that's being used at this site for this particular type of use, it's a lot different than if you had a taxi service located there with humans, you know, taking the taxis in and out of the out of the parcel.

Um it's it's not purely dispatch, it's that energy source that's being proposed there, and that's that's the main use.

The dispatch is is incidental.

The main use is that they're staying there for hours on end charging.

Um, and it's this driverless aspect that the zoning ordinance hasn't caught up to either, and that is that service is defined in the zoning ordinance as useful labor.

And so labor is again that human element that's not here.

There's no employment on this site other than perhaps one person that might be cleaning the vehicles, checking on them.

There's not an actual dispatch per person there or or uh employees that are are servicing the types of vehicles that you would have at any of those other type of vehicle services where the public comes in, they bring their vehicle to be serviced.

Um there's labor that occurs, people pay for that labor.

That's not occurring at this site.

This is purely an energy re refuel type station.

My understanding was there would be not major, but a few at least a couple of employees there for the charging for the cleaning at the site.

So there'd be at least, you know, a couple.

Right, but not related to dispatch, like a taxi service would be or um any of those other type of vehicle-based type services.

Okay.

But but isn't the service being provided that the the vehicles are among the people who are going to be, you know, I live in the area and I want to call a Waymo to go to Mill Avenue, because I don't want to drink and drive, because that's bad.

I don't want to wait for the Waymo to come from the industrial park on the other side of the airport.

Don't I want that, you know, just like if I called a yellow cab, I would want the yellow cab to be nearby, so that it would, you know, not waiting forever.

Right.

So isn't that the service element to it?

It could be, and I I don't necessarily disagree with that, but when you have it in a PCC one zoning district, that's more of a neighborhood type zoning district.

If we if like if we go to the zoning map I had, can you pull up my slides one more time?

Sorry about that.

So the the red uh on this is the zoning map in the red area with the smaller area between the dots, so more dots on the screen.

That's the planned commercial center general district.

And similar with industrial type districts, those usually have arterial type connections.

Planned commercial center neighborhood type uses can be located on those residential type streets.

And that's why along Terrace Road you have these uh the PCC one zoning districts along that residential street.

With with service uses that are industrial in nature, which I I think we can all agree that this has an industrial element to it, with the main use being that charging element and all that electricity on site.

So with that and the amount of cars that are coming in and out of that site, it it appears to be more of an industrial type use than the actual service of people calling for it for a Waymo or whatever vehicle type is going to be on this site because the main use is the charging of it.

And I'd also like to make a comment.

I mean, I'm assuming a Waymo would have 200, 250 mile range.

So it's not like it's going to pick up one person and then immediately go back to the charging station.

It will be you know more like an Uber.

It will be staying in the neighborhood, and when you call it, you know, your chances of it being near you are fairly good.

Uh it's it's not having to come from a long ways away on every single trip.

And I have one more question for Heather.

So and I just because I want to understand what your argument is.

Um there's two things.

The first is you're saying it's not similar to a taxi, it's not similar to a dispatch business, you know, ambulance dispatch a courier.

That's not hold on.

That it's it's not different.

It's not similar to that.

If it is, if for some reason you make these concession that it is, there's also this other angle, which is the two things that we really can look at.

It's more detrimental than those things because of the power because of the charging and the danger.

You are correct.

It's the autonomous nature of the vehicles as well.

Where with the Smiths were discussing um the opinion from the gentleman who is with ASU and General Motors about how it's just too early to tell whether these types of vehicles are as safe as human drivers or not.

We don't know that right now, especially not knowing the end user of the site.

So the those are the two arguments we're making, and that's consistent when you look at section six-301 in the actual similar use um ruling in the first paragraph, it says that any use not appearing in this code, which is similar to and not more detrimental than.

So those are the two points we're trying to make is it's not similar to those service uses, and it is more detrimental than those uses.

Any other questions?

Go ahead.

Going to the concept of the of the one of the ruling, which cites the fact that amongst the other similar uses are things like service stations.

Um looking at the location of the site, which is essentially somewhat buried within a neighborhood, not completely, but certainly to a certain extent.

Um there examples, and I'd also throw this to Mr.

Lavac or any of the staff.

Are there examples that they can cite of a service station in a similar location in a neighborhood that could be cited as saying, here, this is the this is a service station, and this is the same ergo, it's the same, and we should approve it.

Because otherwise, I've been looking at it and going, well, the zoning extends up to the corner of Terrace and Broadway.

If I'm putting a service station someplace, I'd put it at the corner of Terrace and Broadway if I'm going to put it there, which I probably wouldn't because Terrace is not a good place to put it anyway.

But if you go quarter mile to the west, you've got two a couple of them.

Are there are there any that can be cited that would meet that criteria?

I can't think of any.

I'm I'm not aware of any.

Yeah.

I mean, and at least a service station would be of use to the immediate residents.

And I think that's probably this is but I think a private facility.

If they could find one, it would be nice.

And the only one I can think of actually is 68th Street north of McDowell in Scottsdale, about a half a mile north of McDowell.

That's the only service station I've ever seen in a in a neighborhood.

But 68th Street is a collector street and terrorists.

I'm not saying that we should cite that as a justification.

I'm saying that's the only one I can think of.

Andrew, you had a question.

Yeah.

I was for Mr.

Smith and also kind of staff.

So I'm reading here, it looks like that um Wendy Riddle or Riddle, sorry if I mispronouncing, has been in contact with SRP.

It looks like SRP has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity, which states the six megawatts that you pointed out.

I'm just curious, when you're saying that there is sufficient capacity, does this mean like if the facility is at the maximum number of vehicles that need to be charged there?

Because if so, my interpretation is that it wouldn't require that level of power at all times.

That would be at max capacity or potentially even beyond.

I'm not sure if that was outlined anywhere in the site plan.

I wasn't able to see.

Yes, uh, you taught, or even staff, I don't know if they have any insight on that.

Uh I mean, uh I believe Terawatt has said that they would that the site would typically operate at about one and a half megawatts of power on an average.

Um, but you know, if you did have autos and all of those stalls simultaneously charging, you would you would take the full six megawatt.

And you know, it uh I haven't been in contact with SRP, but you know, if they again, you know, you you think of that picture about how many homes you can run with six megawatts.

I don't know how much excess power they had available in that neighborhood, but I can be pretty much assured that if that facility goes in, the amount of excess power that's available is gonna go down to almost zero.

And that's could potentially lead, you know, to blackouts and who knows what in our neighborhood because you know, a minor overload, they will not have the capacity now to pick that back up.

Okay.

And just um Wendy hasn't had a chance to present, she's gonna present next.

So um, if there are any other questions, I have one quick question.

This would maybe be directed toward Heather or anybody or you guys if you know.

Has there been any of the there?

I know there's a limited amount of cities that Waymo operates out of.

And is there any impact that is known or that could be revealed as to how that worked out or where it was zoned under or anything?

Yeah, there's a similar facility in Santa Monica.

And uh if if you if you look in in this pamphlet that I handed out, there's actually a couple of videos that you can watch.

Uh the residents that are near that are just in an absolute uproar because of all the noise and the traffic that the site generated.

Uh it was operating 24 7, the people couldn't sleep, there was noise continuously.

Um Santa Monica told Waymo that they could not operate the facility at night.

So Waymo sued Santa Monica, and Santa Monica has a turn sued Waymo.

So that's what you're looking at with this facility.

Uh it's a it's a virtual rubber stamp of what Terawatt's proposing.

And I encourage you, you know, when when this is over, um, you know, go to this page, just scan those two QR codes, and you'll see the videos from Santa Monica.

And you can read all about the ongoing lawsuits that it's uh invoked.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And at that, I'm gonna have Wendy come up and present.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Chair, members of the board, Wendy Ridell with the law firm Barry Ridal 6750 East Camelback.

My pleasure to be here uh this evening on behalf of Terawatt.

I I do want to bring the conversation back.

You're hearing a lot about the specific proposal that we talked um to the DRC about, and then it's been appealed to the city council, but that's really not why we are here today.

I think, Madam Chair, you recognize that we are here regarding the similar use ruling.

It has nothing to do with our site, it is not specific to our site.

You need to look at this about how it would apply anywhere in Tempe, which is the ruling that was given.

And the ruling really comes down to a two-pronged test.

And a two-pronged test, the very first part is there any use not appearing in the code, which is similar to.

So here is taxi dispatch.

And frankly, when we originally started the application, the reason there wasn't a similar use ruling, is everyone assumed that it was taxi dispatch.

Um, the neighbors raised this issue, so we are here in front of you.

But city staff then determined that a charging center for a private fleet of autonomous vehicles providing ride hailing services, is similar to a vehicle-based service or a taxi dispatch, or comparable vehicle-related uses in the PCC one district.

This is what taxi dispatch looks like today.

This is the modern day taxi dispatch.

Oh, I have never been accused of being too quiet, but yes, I can do that.

Uh, and here again, you look directly in the city zoning ordinance.

This is what is there today when you talk about PCC one with a use permit, vehicle-based services, which include courier delivery services, taxi, and ambulance dispatch.

So the city interpretation, a charging center for a fleet of autonomous vehicles providing ride share services, operates much like a traditional taxi service.

But the cars instead are fully autonomous and don't have a human driver.

You have here this is Waymo, by the way, spoiler alert, it's Waymo that would ultimately be at this site.

I I can tell.

The world's first autonomous, they call it a ride hailing service, right?

Taxi dispatch.

By the way, there's other names, there's other competitors out there.

You want to look at Tesla.

They call it a robo taxi, literally the word taxis in the name.

So then you say, all right, how is a taxi dispatch the same as a ride hailing dispatch?

And we really have broken it down in the most simple way that we can.

There's ride booking, a passenger orders a ride for a taxi dispatch, same as a ride hailing dispatch.

There's automated dispatching, happens with taxis, happies with ride hailings.

There's GPS tracking, there's driver management, there's analytics and reporting.

These things are the same for both.

And by the way, there are employees on site.

There are employees that oversee this facility as well, much like a taxi dispatch.

It is a taxi dispatch.

So then you say, okay, I have to look at the second prong of that test, that it's not more detrimental than the uses permitted herein.

So we looked at service station and repair permitted in PCC one.

Frankly, board member Morrow, you came up with some that are even better than we did.

I mean, gun sales, liquor sales, tattoo, all of those are permitted.

And I would suggest to you more impactful to this neighborhood than a fleet of vehicles charging.

And I would also suggest to you that when you look at a service station, would you look at repair?

These are even less intense use than those types of vehicle related uses.

You'll see that we're similar automotive uses permitted in the PCC district with a use permit.

Again, commercial parking structure, a car wash.

You've gone to a city council hearing, you'll see, I mean, hundreds of people showing up, concerns about a car wash, vehicle repair, Jiffy Lube, brakes, discount tire, indoor outdoor car sales and rental, service station.

Again, we are not more detrimental than those uses when you look narrowly at that test.

Again, not more detrimental than a service station.

Pumps, storage tanks, liquid fuel, lubricants dispensed directly in the motor vehicles.

It has tanks of gas.

I mean, we've heard of the environmental concerns, the concerns people have with service stations.

There's washing, polishing, inspections that occur there.

There's often a retail component where you have people that could loiter, you've got pedestrian traffic or additional traffic that would occur.

These gas stations, I would suggest to you are even more intense.

Again, you don't look at the specific site.

You look at what is the test that is within the zoning ordinance.

I would also respectfully suggest to you it's not more detrimental than vehicle repair.

In automotive parts, retail sales, vehicle service, you've got fluid changes, brake repair, brake service, replacement of parts, all of those I would respectfully suggest are more detrimental, more intense than the dispatch ride hailing service.

I would also suggest to you that this is not an industrial use.

This is a list I will show you of what the industrial uses are within the city.

You've got cement and paving material, gas distribution, junkyards, manufacturing, machine shops, marijuana establishments, marijuana testing, dispensaries, recycling, those are the industrial uses.

This is not an industrial use.

And then before I reach a conclusion, there were two other points I think that were focused on as part of Heather's discussion.

The first was the issue of power.

I think they're suggesting to you this is more intense because of power.

I would also point out to you that the same sort of car charging can go within everybody's homes.

Frankly, I have one in my own home.

They are everywhere.

That does not create a more intense situation.

They also she brought up the idea, and I want to read the quote actually, that it because this isn't a neighborhood service, which I initially would take dispute with because this is very much a service.

I say this as my son is being driven home from tutoring this evening by a Waymo, so thank you very much.

Certainly providing a service.

But I would also suggest to you when you read the rest of that PCC one, when you look at the overall purpose, she talked about encouraging trip reduction.

That's exactly what this type of facility does.

By having autonomous vehicles close to communities, it reduces trips throughout Tempe, an overarching goal of Tempe.

I would also would like to complete the quote where it talks about well, this needs to be neighborhood servicing.

You know, community, this needs to be servicing our neighborhood, and therefore it's inappropriate.

But if you look at the PCC one language, it says services and entertainment uses oriented to serve the needs of the neighborhood, community, or the metropolitan region, exactly squarely within what we are doing today.

So again, I would encourage you, Madam Chair, members of the board, to you bring yourself back to the quote to the to the test that's in front of this board today.

If you look at, I would suggest that you should side with staff and their interpretation that any use not appearing in the code, which is similar to here, we are akin to a taxi dispatch.

Again, ride hailing service, robo taxi.

It's just a modern day taxi dispatch.

And the second, that we're not more detrimental to the other uses permitted herein.

And I will tell you service station, vehicle repair, but take your pick, you know, gun shop, liquor sales, all of those are permitted.

And so I would conclude by respectfully suggesting you support the city's similar use ruling and that the appeal should be denied.

I'm happy to answer any talk any questions.

Any questions?

Um I do have a question on this.

And uh in both of both sides of this, you made excellent presentations, but I would say that yes, we are bound by a rule of law and an application of code, but the fact of the matter here is the purpose and applicability of this never intended driverless cars.

And we're talking about a technology that is that is so new that is unproven, that is completely untested.

And I I don't know that I agree or disagree with uh its similarity to taxi or if it uh does encourage trip reduction.

I mean, you know, Waymo's are parked there because they want to make trips and take people around, not necessarily um exclusive to the uh neighborhood.

But um I just wanted to kind of put that out there that while yes, we are bound by a specific interpretation of where this sits with the zoning code, there's also a responsibility to look at the situation holistically because the fact of the matter is, you know, these things exist like nowhere.

I mean, Arizona was one of the first test cities to uh to to drive these things.

So, you know, I think that we should all think carefully and you know, weigh all of the information in front of us before making a decision.

It would be irresponsible not to think about everything.

Um certainly, Madam Chair, um board member Dalton, of course, you've got to consider the information that's in front of you.

I'm just suggesting to you that your focus is rather narrow based on the test provided in the ordinance.

Fair enough.

Any other questions?

Um I'm in I'm intrigued by your idea that the decision that we make today has to be generalized across the entire city, when in fact it relates to a specific decision by the one of the the development rehabilitation, I believe.

Um let me certainly thank you.

Um yes, it it is a precedent setting in a certain sense, but this ties to a particular decision of a particular body and a particular decision made by a zoning administrator, and therefore we're not asked to make a general decision regarding the PCC one district across the city.

We're asked to make a decision about this particular similar use.

Um Madam Chair, board member Miller, respectfully, I disagree.

Um, you're not being asked whether or not a use permit at this specific site is appropriate.

You're being asked whether or not what category is appropriate for vehicle fleet charging.

What is most similar, where does it make most sense in the zoning ordinance?

And frankly, it will be used in the future, not just at this site, at other sites.

And and if you're concerned that what I'm telling you is inaccurate, you've got counsel here in the room.

I would encourage you to have staff and have counsel come up and share their thoughts on that same issue.

Any other questions?

So I'll tip my hand and say I think you've got part one of the step of the test.

The more detrimental part is where I'm I'm very hung up.

Um, and in addition to the concerns raised uh by the appellant about our transformer noise and car fires.

I've watched a lot of the videos of autonomous cars.

I've seen the video of the Waymo's in the parking lot in San Francisco where they all start beeping and honking at each other, then honking at the other ones.

And my other concern is being a being a 24-hour station, unlike a gas station, which is going to be less traffic at one or two in the morning, or um a nightclub that might have to stop selling alcohol at two in the morning.

Isn't this going to be more busy and have more noise pollution in the evening hours when it's going to be more annoying to people?

Thank you.

Uh, Madam Chair, Commissioner Morrow.

So I I want to step back a little bit because the things you're talking about is are they going to be beeping at each other?

Are they going to be making noise?

Those are actually specific commitments and stipulations that we put into the use permit that talk about you know what they're allowed to do on site, you know, how quiet they have to be on site, how they have to operate.

I have statistics that we can share with that.

Um and the noise that you have at night, again, there's no there's no car wash.

I mean, we've actually specifically stipulated in the use permit that we cannot exceed the ambient noise level.

That goes to those standards and the stipulations that are in that specific use permit.

Any other questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um, I believe we have Casper.

Yeah, Chris Jasper presenting for the city.

Good evening, Chair, members of the Board of Adjustment.

My name is Chris Jasper.

I'm a senior planner here with the city of Tempe, and I'll be presenting this evening's appeal.

So what you have before you is an appeal of the zoning administrators similar use ruling that a proposed autonomous vehicle charging facility is analogous to a vehicle-based service, parentheses dispatch in the PC one PCC one zoning district.

Uh you have some context for the site that the appellant and original applicant have brought up, have shown, so I'll kind of skim over that.

Um, but a little bit of history about how we got to this point.

So there were a series of uh rulings over the past few months.

The first of which was a decision by the Development Review Commission on October 28th of 2025.

Uh, they voted four to two to approve a use permit to allow a vehicle-based service at this location for the autonomous vehicle charging facility.

Uh, that decision was then appealed uh to the city council by Dukes Law PLLC.

That appeal is pending uh and anticipated to be heard later this month or next month, excuse me.

I'm getting ahead of myself.

It is still February.

Uh on November 21st, the zoning administrator issued this similar use ruling that did identify and confirm that it is analogous to a vehicle-based service uh that was issued on November 21st and then appealed on December 5th of 2025.

And that is the appeal before you today.

So just to kind of quickly go through the zoning administrator's opinion, um, again, that has been discussed uh a little bit by both the appellant and original applicant, but it was determined by the zoning administrator that this uh operation was similar to and not more detrimental than what our code calls a vehicle-based service, and it refers to, in parentheses, taxi dispatch, ambulance dispatch, et cetera.

And that et cetera, is actually in the code.

Um, or comparable vehicle-related uses in the PCC one zoning district.

Uh, operational characteristics that were taken into consideration with this opinion included the fact that there were no vehicle repair activities proposed, it was not intended for public use, and that the fleet vehicles were uh to provide ride sharing services to customers.

Um, and as noted by both the appellant and applicant, it does uh it was determined by the uh zoning administrator that it functions much like a typical taxi service, but with a fully autonomous vehicles and no human driver.

I provided the site plan for reference, um, although that is not necessarily the topic of discussion this evening.

Uh the appellant uh held that the similar use ruling was incorrectly determined and that the autonomous vehicle charging facility is more analogous to a regional service use or industrial use found in the PCC2 city center, RCC or industrial zoning districts, and is therefore not appropriate for the PCC one zoning district, in addition to the arguments that they made during their presentations.

So this was pulled from their letter uh when we received it.

So the board's role this evening is uh per Arizona revised statutes to hear and decide appeals in which it is alleged there is an error in an order requirement or decision made by the zoning administrator in the enforcement of a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to ARS.

Uh so what that means is that any decision uh that you make um, you know, if uh you choose to uh approve the appeal and overturn the similar use ruling, that would be based on a finding that there was a fact or error and with the finding that that use is not similar to a vehicle-based service in the zoning district.

If you do decide or vote to approve the appeal, the board must then determine what you the use is similar to and not more detrimental to as identified within the code.

So we are looking for that specificity.

If this is not a uh vehicle-based service, if it is not a taxi dispatch site, what is it?

We need that guidance.

Um the other hand, a denial of the appeal would uphold the zoning administrator's similar use ruling, thereby rendering that a use permit is required.

Any continuance would result in the board hearing this case at the next available hearing.

Um I did want to address some of the um discussion previously with the appellant and original applicant regarding the applicability of this ruling.

Uh, it is you know, the zoning administrators per view that uh when a similar use ruling is made, it is specific, not specific, excuse me, to a specific site, but rather to classifying a land use category within the zoning district at large.

So this would be used to this would be applied to all PCC1 sites throughout the entire city, regardless of context.

Um as such, the similar use ruling is itself location agnostic.

What we are looking at is solely the use characteristics as compared to what we have defined in our code.

So we have vehicle-based service, we have taxi dispatch called out in our code, and that was the point of reference when making the evaluation.

Um I would also note that um some of the use characteristics that have been discussed are pursuant to the use permit request that was submitted that was approved by the DRC and is being appealed to the DRC.

So we are trying to keep this particular hearing focused entirely on the definitional component rather than the specific use characteristics and surrounding context.

So that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Should you have any?

Uh Ryan Levake, Deputy Director of Planning, is also present.

He's the zoning administrator, and he can also answer specific questions about the opinion.

Any questions?

Any questions?

Yeah, I have one.

Um I'm just curious when I know we're talking about the appeal, but I want to zoom out just a little bit.

So for the PCC one, the uh planned commercial center neighborhood, correct?

Um so I understand that's the zoning.

What is the is there a kind of like an overall goal of this of this type of zoning?

Is it kind of like my understanding when looking at the Tempe zoning code?

It's somewhat similar to mixed use.

Am I interpreting that correctly, or would you say there's kind of a different goal of this type of zoning?

Uh thank you.

Uh Chair, uh board member Samishka.

Um the PCC one zoning district um is the you know planned commercial uh zoning district.

Uh it is intended to serve and provide you know a lot of employment services, offices a wide range of retail uh uh uses.

Uh the land use table is pretty extensive.

Um, and I think we've noted a lot of the uses that are allowed within that area.

Um, I I understand the land use.

I was just curious about uh the actual zoning, like what does the zone, what is the goal of a PCC one area?

Like a mixed use I can understand.

And again, my understanding was when reading through the code, it sounded somewhat similar to me as like a mixed-use zoning.

So I just wanted to make sure that I was interpreting that correctly.

Yeah, the other definitions we have for PCC uh PCC one and choose is a planned commercial center.

So it required a planning or phasing of commercial development within a concentrated area that shares parking and uses in a similar area.

BCC one is typically a smaller site, PCC2 is generally uh larger.

Um both zoning districts have very similar land use, share very similar land uses.

I don't think actually there's might not be one land use that's different from one another.

The only difference is PCC one has a 30-foot rear setback and PCC2 has a 40-foot rear yard setback.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Um do you have a question?

Um I have a question again.

I'm kind of hung up on the uh applicability here.

How exactly would 44 spaces for autonomous uh vehicles promote economic social uh vitality, encourage uh trip reduction and pedestrian circulation as an alternative to driving?

Like that's just something I'm trying to wrap my head around.

And where are you reading this reference is the uh three section 3201A?

It's the purpose of uh the uh PCC um class PCC one classification.

It says the commercial mixed use districts are established to provide a mixture of complementary land use, including retail offices, commercial services, public universities, public university related use, civic use and housing.

These districts are intended to create economic and social vitality and to encourage trip production and encourage pedestrian circulation as an alternative to driving and provide employment and housing options.

Yeah, so I mean what what you're describing and reading is a generalization of what the type of land uses that are allowed within those zoning district classifications within the land use permit category that are list of uses that are permitted by right, meaning there is no need for a public process.

There's uh land uses that are permitted subject to use permit, such as the one we're currently talking about that requires a public hearing to evaluate is it appropriate for the for the location and area, and then there are factors that have to be evaluated based on the use based on that location.

And then there are a list of land uses, obviously, that are specifically not permitted with within the zoning district categories.

Um in all those contexts that are taken into consideration whenever we have an a new land use, and I'll I guess I'll bring up the the data centers.

This was a new recent change in our code last year, where data centers are actually allowed in our commercial districts, um, and where we did some further research and discussions about bringing the data center process forward.

It did not determine through a similar use ruling, but we actually had to make a co-text amendment and justification to make changes in land use that had to be adopted by ordinance process and and and not the context of what we're talking about here, which is a similar use ruling where we have a specific list of identified land use categories and trying to find a land use that might have different different uses, different characteristics, and and to find a match that is more similar to that land use that is being discussed or evaluated today.

Thank you.

So as I said earlier, I'm pretty convinced this is a similar use, but your two-page decision didn't spend a lot of time on the second prong of the test, why it's not more detrimental than any of the and I guess one of my questions is is it more detrimental than any of the uses or more detrimental than the similar use you defined it as?

I maybe should have brought that up earlier.

I would find it as not more detrimental than the land uses we found under the service category for uh vehicle-based service, courier delivery service, taxi or ambulance dispatch.

All those share some similarities in providing um distribution of vehicles from a designated site and uh locations where vehicles can be stored, serviced um, and provided, which typically don't have uh a point of customer service at at those locations.

We do have um a on-site there there is requirements or or a portion of the process where the there is some service uh being provided at the location.

My understanding is in the building identified where there'll be a operator there for the site, um, but very similar to these services where there is a point of dispatch that where they they leave the destination site and then come back for for third service.

And that's the reason why we've identified those categories.

And the fact that there is a use permit process where there is an opportunity to evaluate the appropriate, whether or not you agree with the land use today or in that site or location is part of that public hearing process to get the public involved in that.

And that that'll be an item that's that has been discussed with the DRC and could potentially be discussed with city council upon the decision you render tonight.

And I and I appreciate that.

And I I think I agree with you that this is very similar to uh a taxi service, but there are some additional detriments that have been identified and that I can imagine that would be different from a taxi service.

Um, you know, uh massive amounts of electricity, danger of lithium fires, the noise from robot cars that still need need some work done on them.

Um you're gonna have a lot of small robot cars, or you're gonna have a lot of robot cars in a small space, and they as I've seen honk at each other, uh, which could be very annoying and I think different from a taxi service or a gas station with humans that sort of understand the subtleties that you don't smash your horn at three in the morning.

Um so isn't that extra detriment part of our process of evaluating whether or not this should be considered a similar use?

Chair uh board members or board member for um remember more.

I think what what you're looking at doing is you're looking at analysis of the whether or not the use permit criteria in the site certain site location is appropriate or not.

So we didn't go into that depth of detail and determine the land use because that were that's those are aspects of the use permit process that gets evaluated.

Is the does the use print have certain characteristics that might have concerns for how the use permit is being utilized at that site location?

I I kind of disagree.

I mean, I I really as I indicated earlier, I don't I'm not as concerned with this specific location as I am about the really the commercial or mixed-use zoning in general, but I think the the potential detriments of uh autonomous vehicle charging station would apply no matter who their neighbor was if they were in any of the PCC zoning districts in the city, or it if we identify an additional detriment, even if I agree if it's a vehicle-based service, this is a vehicle-based service that has more potential nuisances than other vehicle-based services.

That's why I'm hesitant to approve it.

Uh chair member or excuse me, uh, Chair Foy, board member Morrow.

I think the concerns that you have identified are associated more with the type of vehicle rather than the actual use characteristics.

Because a taxi dispatch service staffed by human beings 24-7 uh utilizing electric vehicles with charging stations would fundamentally be the same as what is proposed by an autonomous vehicle charging or you know, by this facility, insofar as it's fully, you know, you might have more humans fully staffed, you still have the same number of vehicles using the same amount of electricity conducting the same number of trips.

But if the primary difference is the autonomous vehicles, you know, I I think that's where the similar use ruling is intended to capture those characteristics, you know, what is fundamentally different between a traditional taxi stand with people versus autonomous vehicles.

And so uh that's why I think that's the genesis of the similar use ruling.

Yep.

I don't care.

Um that's a first of all you're making a dis you're making a determination that this is a similar use.

And I I can understand that into a limited degree, I can go along with it, but only to a limited degree, because I I am not convinced that this is in fact a similar use.

And I think we have to, despite what you're saying, Mr.

Jasper, it's autonomous vehicles are not tax are not taxis in the same sense that taxis driven by humans are taxis.

They are it's a and you say, well, it's a vehicle-based service.

Yes, well, they're all vehicles, so we that's a starting point.

But they are they act differently, they perform differently, they are operated differently, and the service itself is operated differently.

A taxi dispatch service is essentially operated by humans, even though some in New York City, for example, are largely app driven at this point.

But it's most of the ride sharing services that we're talking about are completely autonomous at this point.

You call up, call it up on your phone, they show up when they do, and it has little or nothing to do with taxi dispatching.

This service, on the other hand, um, is a an industrial use, in my opinion.

You are preparing vehicles to go out and perform a service, which if they are not performed, if they're not prepared, if they're not charged, they're not going anywhere.

That's an industrial use of in this facility.

I have felt that ever since I saw this, and I continue to feel it, and despite Mr.

LeVec's ruling, I think he's wrong on that.

I think it's a similar, it's not a similar situation.

And I am loath to support it.

Um I was gonna ask, um, so I kind of am like board member Merrill, I I think that it falls under the taxi.

I think that similar use is fine.

I'm more concerned with the detrimental side of it.

And so, what is your analysis with detrimental?

Is it more detrimental?

Like, I I don't understand what you're you're saying when you you've answered this question before.

Why is it not more detrimental than a repair shop or service station or a gun shop or anything like that?

I mean, there are some significant concerns.

It's an autonomous machine, right?

It drives by computer.

What if there's a glitch, right?

It's that's not the same thing as a taxi driven by a person, right?

Or car driven by the person.

So I kind of want you guys to address that, because that's for me the big issue here.

So yeah, um Chair Foy.

One other aspect of looking at this is uh in some of the ancillary components of this in question was rather than uh the charging station itself, but the act of of of the autonomous use of autonomous vehicles.

We do have charging stations that are permitted by right in public facilities locations.

We have the Tumpe Public Library, um other commercial facilities have the Billy, uh the Arizona Mills Mall has um charging stations there.

They're serviced to the public.

Uh very similar to how you call for a taxi.

I can pull up an app, have uh uh request for yellow cab to come directly to my house.

I can have a request to lift Uber come directly to my house the same way that I could have a Waymo vehicle come pick me up and provide that service.

Um we'll look at the autonomous element of the factor 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.

Um it's been evaluated.

Certainly there are questions as to what risk factors come into play.

We've had the site reviewed and vetted through our internal process that includes building safety, life safety, fire department.

Um, and no major concerns with the parameters of the site plan proposed for the site, other than what we typically are required to do and can and conduct that type of service for any other similar use that would require uh this location there.

I and that's where we feel comfortable with the decision that was made on that respect.

I have another uh question.

So in PC PBC one, you're allowed to have public parking lot services that have charging stations.

So for example, let's say there are 30 charging stations at uh a lot.

That could go there, right?

By right, yes.

Okay.

So it'd be the same issue as what the concerns are that were brought up, and that might be more of a use issue that would be the city council.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, someone could set up uh operation to have vehicle charging that's open to the public.

Same equipment, same services provided there.

It's just not being used for dispatch.

So the the real Yeah, um this is definitely a challenging uh call, and I'm certainly like you know, trying to wrap my head around it because I don't know that I would say that it should be zoned industrially, but uh I'm not saying that it shouldn't.

But then as I read more of this and I see like planned commercial centers, PCC one, PCC two, the first line is the PCC districts or for neighborhood.

And then it says in brackets PCC one.

And I don't know how 44 parking spaces for cars to be parked, charged, and used, they would clearly be outside of the neighborhood.

Like I don't know where that fits into the intent, but then as I scurried through the table, vehicles, vehicle service centers, they fall within that zoning classification, but then none of those have lithium batteries that could you know explode and burn in like landfills for three days either.

So it's definitely challenging, but yeah, I don't know how does this like how does this benefit the neighborhood?

Like, how is this presence here?

Because it says PCC one neighborhood, how does that really enhance the neighborhood in any way?

And is it required to uh Chair Board Member Dalton?

I think um to kind of go into the minutia of the language in our zoning code, the neighborhood uh sort of component is relative to the scale, right?

As uh uh as Ryan noted, you know, what uh the primary differences are between PCC one and PCC two are basically the amount of land allocated to that zoning district and the size of the parcels there in.

So PCC2 tends to see larger strip center um uh uh retail and commercial activity, whereas the PCC one tends to have smaller lots like this one.

And so, you know, that's the the primary distinction between those two particular zoning districts.

Um I know there were other components of your question, and I'm uh I'm not recalling them immediately.

So if you could remind me.

No, I mean that was the the general meat of it was how does 44 spaces, like how is that align with uh the neighborhood?

Like how is that how's that positively contributing to the neighborhood?

The uh the other part of what I said about the industrial use is that's more um I'm kind of conflicted, and I just acknowledge that this was a hard call to make.

Yeah, and and uh board member Dalton, what I would say is the similar use ruling is not necessarily capturing the sort of uh philosophical um component of it so much as it is a strict one to one comparison or as one to one as possible of the proposed land use as compared to other uses that are allowed within that zoning district, which have been um I think noted.

Yeah, okay.

I that I mean you answered my question.

Okay.

Um Kevin, you had a question.

Yeah, so something I think I realized is someone could uh put a parking lot there and charge by the hour.

Um that's that's a permissible use, and they could put 35 electric car charging stations there.

So what this really comes down to is it's going to be robot cars instead of just open to anybody with a Tesla who wants to park there.

Not open to the public, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Hmm.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I just wanted here.

Oh Katie.

I might come at this from a different direction.

In and maybe you can help me clarify this a bit in the sense that the vehicle based service that is being provided, which is what this is use is under, is downstream of terawatt providing its own services.

So, in a way, terawatt is providing a service to Waymo, Waymo is providing the vehicle based service.

And in such a way, maybe even the dispatching or the service itself is technically taking place in Mountain View, California autonomously out of state.

So I'm getting caught up in the service element as it as it orients to the public and the neighborhood itself rather than out of California in Terawatt instead providing the service to Waymo.

Uh Chair uh board member cross.

I think the response to that is the first the service itself is what a citizen of the city of Tempe could request and utilize the site for, which is ride hailing services.

So that is the service at hand that that we're kind of evaluating in this uh in this process and with the use permit itself.

Thank you.

And you're right, both both of the components of the terawatt service and the WAMO are are needed together to create this use function functionality that's being presented to us today.

I'm good.

Um yeah, just to follow just to follow up on that, because it's actually a very good point.

This isn't actually a vehicle-based service for the benefit of the public.

It's actually a vehicle, a quote, vehicle-based service for the benefit of Waymo.

And if Waymo provides an indirect uh indirect benefit um by virtue of the fact that it can provide rides, then one could maybe come back and say, well, this is this particular facility provides an indirect benefit in that regard.

But to say that it's a direct benefit or an actual vehicle-based service, uh, misrepresents it.

And then I I want to come back to one other thing really quickly because it's been made uh mentioned that this is this is a decision that impacts the how concept of the PCC one zoning district.

But yet in reading through um Mr.

Levesque's findings, he there are specific mentions in a number of places uh to the above address to the business located at 2105 South Terrace Road.

Um other specific mentions of this particular site.

And I think to try and tell us that we can't consider the site as part of the decision, we have to think of it globally is a misrepresentation.

And I'm not you're shaking your head, Ryan, but we're gonna disagree on that.

So I'll I'll gratefully disagree with you, Mr.

Miller.

Any other questions?

Cheerfully.

Just want to make one more clarifying statement.

So thank you.

And the zoning development code section 6-301.

In order to identify and identify a similar use ruling, I have to find a similar use within the categories of the land use is identified within here in order to create that similar use rulings.

If the argument is it's should be in an industrial land use, then I have to look to the industrial land use categories that what what is similar to this land use?

Is it an adult-oriented business?

Is it auto body repair?

Is it the data center?

Is it a manufacturing facility?

Bioresearch testing labs.

Fuel are similar to the land uses identified within the PCC one district.

I think that's I mean, electricity's kind of a fuel.

I remember having a tax case about this that I don't really want to think about right now.

Um so uh going back to what Jasper said at the Mr.

Jasper said at the very beginning.

Um if and I'll I'll tip my hand again.

I think I've now flip-flopped.

I think you've convinced me on the detrimental and and Dr.

Miller has maybe flipped me on the services.

But um, so I don't know where I'm if we vote to grant the appeal, or if the board votes to grant the appeal, what's the second thing we have to do?

Then do we have to then identify?

Okay, so we have to identify it.

Yeah, not Ryan.

Uh board member more.

I'll put that on the record, that is correct.

Okay, well, I would point, you know, if we go that way, I would point us towards fuel distributing station, but I'm open to alternatives if we get there.

All right, um, although Ryan, if if you have thoughts in the meantime, and we we come to that, you know.

Chair Floyd, Board Member Maher, I just want to identify that the classification you're referring to is fueling station gasoline bulk plant.

So in this case, we're talking about liquid fuels in a bulk plant situation, not not your typical gas station or this is uh concentrated bulk plant uh for fueling distribution that's not typically open to the public, but that's what I was imagining.

You know, a place where the tanker trucks get the gasoline and take it to the gas stations.

Um maybe not what the zoning code writers were thinking when we started talking about auto cars, but I I don't have a better one.

Do you got a better one, Dr.

Miller?

This is this is the carp way before the horse, but I'm just saying that's why we have similar use this sanctions.

There are any other questions at this point.

All right, I I have one question.

Just because I know that you know, we we have the public comment coming up.

Could you please explain the difference between what we're addressing here today and what is going to be addressed in the city city council with the appeal so what we have two appeals before you or not before you uh before us that was a filed appeal to the similar use rulings and an appeal on the use permit decision made by the DRC.

Uh we do first the reason why we're having this hearing before we're having the city council is we need to know what is what is the appropriate land use for this.

Um if if there is an approval for the use permit or overturning of the opinion and there is no use permit, there's no process with the city council to be heard um for that presentation.

We need to decide first and foremost what what is the use ruling.

If there is a use print process that's still in play, potentially, about another land use that still needs use permit, then we can still have that at here that appeal hearing with the city council.

If it's overturned and the use is not allowed within the sezoning district, say for example, then we don't have uh use permit process to proceed with.

Okay, so and I just and I want to clarify.

So if we decide that the zoning administration was wrong, then city council doesn't hear the appeal because it's moved.

Depending on what your what your direction for similar use ruling is, okay, what category that is and what where that's allowed to do.

But if we agree with the zoning administrator and deny the appeal, then it would go before the city council.

That would be the use of the move to the next step, which is the same thing.

That would be the actual use permit, and this is really just narrowly about the similar use decision that you made.

Correct.

Okay.

Any other thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and I think at this point we are moving on to online public comments.

And my understanding is Jennifer, you're gonna chair.

I am going to request that Paul Wolf unmute himself.

Paul Wolf, are you there?

I'm here.

Uh go ahead.

You have three minutes.

Thank you very much.

I have a few comments right at the same time.

Can you speak closer to the mic or your mics on?

Can you please speak closer to the mic?

If we're having difficulty hearing you, Paul.

They can't hear you.

Paul, are you there?

We'll come back to Paul.

Paul, if you could try to figure out what's going on with your mic, if we could go to the next online public comment.

Yes, the next person I will unmute is Talia Wolf.

Talia Wolf, are you there?

One second.

I am.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Go ahead.

We can hear you.

Go ahead.

Wonderful.

Good evening, board members.

I am a 20-year Tempe resident and an Arizona native.

In 2016 and 2018, I ran for Congress because I wanted to bring science into government.

I've always supported technology and scientific advancement.

But I first wanted to start with, I personally worked as a dispatcher in Tempe for multiple years.

And I need to be really clear.

Vehicles in service rarely came to the dispatch center itself.

They went to service stations or repair sites.

We had six to ten dispatchers working in in the office building.

And this is how most dispatching centers work.

Just like 911 dispatchers, the ambulances are not at the dispatch center.

They're found at the fire department and managing agencies.

The comparison between a taxi or a 911 dispatch office and a terawatt charging depot with hundreds of vehicles throughout the day is not a remotely realistic comparison.

And it's surprising to me that this continues to be used as a justification.

But I've been really fortunate to live all over Tempe, but I am now in this neighborhood between McClintock and Broadway and Verlia Drive and Terrace because I suffered a brain injury, and I need to be in a noise controlled environment.

I used to be more close to the university because I love that culture and that environment, but I needed to be where we recognize noise levels for the flights overhead, and really that we understand the how noise can impact human lives.

Now let's look at the complaints Waymo is already facing.

In Santa Monica, California, residents near one of the current sites reported non-stop noise at levels between 97 and 112 decibels.

These levels are comparable to loud concerts and nightclubs.

Where does this noise come from?

All electric vehicles require federal mandated sound that accompanies the vehicle.

They are not noiseless and far from it.

Tempe would never allow a concert venue or nightclub to run 24 hours a day inside one of the few remaining pockets of affordable housing in central Tempe.

So why would we allow an industrial charging depot to do the same?

If we have industrial zones available, then we should use them and not place an industrial operation in one of the safest and most stable neighborhoods in the city.

We keep hearing the number 44 parking spaces based on the actual operational pattern.

This is closer to 44 vehicles per hour, and this is nearly up to a thousand vehicles per day.

The question of difference comes up.

The question of the difference in zoning is kept up often.

Zoning has kept up with tech zoning has not kept up with technological advancements.

These battery systems are incomparable to anything zoning anticipated.

Even the city's own rules acknowledge this.

This zoning specifically limits data centers.

If we draw any parallel, that's where it should come.

Um sorry, your time is up.

No worries.

I tried.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I appreciate you.

I was opposed if that wasn't clear.

Yes.

Um and I just again want to remind everybody who's making public comment, whether online or in person, um, you only have three minutes to comment.

Please keep it brief and to the point.

Uh Jennifer, can we have our next person?

It's gonna be we're going back to Paul.

She's resetting the timer.

Okay.

Paul, are you there?

We can hear you.

Yes, I am.

Are you able to thank you very much for bearing with me and my audience?

Um, I feel like my comments uh are related to the zoning issue.

Um, and that it sounded like part of that zoning uh decision was that it's uh whether or not it was detrimental or of a service to the community.

Um one of the wishes is I struggle to see how this provides an additional service uh of for ride care to the community when there's already an abundance of these vehicles in our neighborhoods uh today without that additional station or resource for them.

Um another one is safety.

Um, as somebody that has recently started doing uh Uber as a um income opportunity.

Um I've witnessed uh the way some of these autonomous vehicles handle in um unpredictable situations that they're not programmed for, particularly recently at the airport where um maps indicated that there was an accident ahead and traffic was heavily backed up because it was a high volume time and the vehicle just didn't know what to do.

So it just kind of gave up in the middle of a busy roadway.

Um I'm also as a resident of this direct neighborhood concerned about its energy consumption, how that will impact um you know summer usage, potential blackouts.

Uh very concerned what uh terawatt, like what kind of assurances they can offer to ensure that uh the noise pollution or power availability will not be impacted.

Um as far as a public use, I definitely seem feel like it uh identifies more as a uh a fueling center as it is providing a fuel for those vehicles.

Um and then lastly, as far as uh, you know, it hit post film when uh the gentleman spoke about the fire uh risk to that using that uh type of energy and that amount of energy uh as an owner of an electric vehicle.

There's a pending recall that you know, due to fire safety to those batteries.

That terrifies me just with one vehicle to imagine uh 40 of them at one time.

Uh definitely has a potential risk of that uh community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's the unknown.

Um so at this time we will do in person.

I have a stack.

Um, and we'll start with the first person.

And again, just remember, we have three minutes.

Um I have Joe Forte.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Tempe Board of Adjustments.

My name is Joe Forte.

I'm a proud Tempe resident, and I currently serve on the city's development review commission.

I sat through the entire presentation of this proposed autonomous EV charging station, and I was one of the few commissioners who voted in opposition.

Tonight I'm here to respectfully ask you to reject the zoning administrator's similar use determination that this facility is akin to a taxi dispatch office.

After I graduated from ASU, I worked right here in Tempe for discount cab on Apache Drive.

I know exactly what a taxi dispatch station looks like and how it operates.

Drivers pull in, they drop off their paperwork, they wash the car, they gas up or swap vehicles, and they head back out.

That's it.

It's a brief low-intensity turnover.

No industrial scale equipment, no constant humming of high voltage chargers, no fleet of 30 driverless cars cycling in and out around the clock.

This proposal is nothing like that.

This is an industrial-sized charging depot designed for 30 autonomous vehicles operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

These are not the quiet home chargers you plug in overnight in your driveway.

These are high capacity, high heat, high traffic stations with vehicles arriving and departing non-stop.

That is fundamentally different intensity of use.

The zoning administrator ruled this use is not more detrimental than the permanent service stations or vehicle repair shops in this district.

With respect, this that ruling cannot stand.

Service stations and repair shops have predictable daytime peaks and close at night.

This facility never sleeps.

It will generate constant noise, constant light, constant traffic, and constant heat from banks of industrial chargers operating around the clock, right in the middle of a neighborhood adjacent commercial zone.

This is simply no true commercial comparative for this scale and intensity of autonomous vehicles charging in our zoning code, which is exactly why the similar similar use shortcut is inappropriate here.

Chair and members, I urge you to set aside the taxi dispatch analogy.

It does not hold.

This is new, heavier industrial use that exceeds the impacts allowed in this zoning district.

Please uphold the letter in the spirit of our code and deny the similar use determination.

Thank you for your time and service to our city.

Thank you.

I hope I didn't put your too bad.

Good evening.

Hi, my name is Samantha Boringer, and I'm a Tempe resident living in the Hughes Acres neighborhood.

I'm in support of the appeal being discussed as I do not feel that the proposed autonomous vehicle charging facility is analogous to the vehicle-based service dispatch that we've been talking about.

I Terawatt's primary good sold is fuel for the electric vehicles.

If you look on their website, their mission statement is they provide power and lots of it.

They're not doing the dispatching of these vehicles.

That's happening like I can't remember it's a board member or official terms.

She said it's happening at the level of Waymo, and it's not managed at this proposed facility.

So I think the similar use ruling is inappropriate.

But even then it's a stretch because it's not available for public use.

So with the retail sales there, I think, you know, maybe.

Um given those kind of considerations, I'd ask you to just take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Jenna Lynn Gorillo.

Good evening.

Good evening, Chair, board members.

My name is Janelyn Granillo.

The L's are like a why.

Um I am the Meyer Park Neighborhood Association chair, and I'm here here to speak in support of the appeal.

Um, and I've changed my words that I've previously prepared, and I just want to go back to the primary customer is terawatt, not us.

Uh, and the code simply does not match what we're proposing, what the proposal is here today.

And so I leave that to you, you're all's discretion for the next steps for that.

Um, I came to speak about how this build will negatively impact the Meyer Park neighborhood.

For those of you who don't know where Meyer Park neighborhood is, it basically surrounds Meyer Park and is adjacent uh to the Hughes Acres.

Uh specifically, the Meyer Park and the neighborhood, one of the thorough streets is Dorsey.

Dorsey goes through north and south through Broadway and Southern.

If this gets approved, and if, which I doubt, the uh contractor says that they're gonna stay out of our neighbor neighborhoods, they say they're gonna stay out of Hughes Acres and they're not gonna go on terrace, but that leaves the rest of our neighborhood up for grabs.

If you do a GPS of how to get to the 2105 without going through Terawatts, you're gonna go straight up Dorsey.

So putting a thousand cars uh onto potentially onto Dorsey will be hazardous to where we live.

There's a park there, there's a school there.

If you go at the end of Dorsey, there's uh Grace Community Church, there's Tempe uh prep that's there.

We have kids, we have soccer, we have pedestrians, depending on the time of day, there is a lot of traffic.

Adding the uh workaround traffic that's gonna go to terawatt through our neighborhood will be harmful to us who live there.

Um, if they go on the Clintock, you have McClintock and Alameda, also a high school traffic.

I just think adding all thousand uh over a thousand cars a day is a negative impact and is detrimental to our neighborhood, especially with all the humans and soccer balls and that sort of thing going across the park.

Um, I just want to echo my neighbors' concerns here in Solidarity, given the nature of the business.

It's not just Hughes Acres, it's all the surrounding neighborhoods around and the workarounds that will happen uh to try to get to 2105 South Terrace.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for serving.

Thank you.

Uh, next will be Victor Aron Arano.

Aaron Our sorry.

My students used to call me teacher Victor, because they could never get my name right.

Uh good evening.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Victor Arono, and I've been a resident on Terrace Road for 53 years in the same house.

You don't want to see what condition it's in now.

And I just have a couple of concerns with this question about whether or not the administrator's decision should stand.

There are two really separate issues here.

One of them is a question of analogy.

Is the proposal by Terawatt analogous to a taxi stand?

There's also a question of fact.

Is there a no greater detriment in that neighborhood from Terawatt as it would be from a taxi stand or a taxi business?

Now the commissioner has the administrator, sorry, focused his entire attention on developing the analogy.

And as far as I can see from his uh from his decision in order, spent almost no time whatsoever on discussing the question of the um the no greater harm, so to speak, that terrawatt would bring.

And I think that that's a question which is, as we say here, hear and decide what is your job to hear and decide appeals in which it is alleged there is an error in an order.

That to me is an error in an order.

There was no consideration of the factual basis that the taxi stand and the uh terawatt uh uh the and terawatt would be equally detrimental to the neighborhood.

I want to mention a couple of things, and some of it's been alluded to, so I just want to take my three minutes and mention one little item.

If I can just have the board's indulgence for a minute.

I haven't used one of these uh machines in a while.

What do I do?

I I don't know anything about computers, never been there, don't know it.

Oh, like this?

And where does it go?

Up there?

Come up.

Oh, okay.

Whoops, sorry.

Like this.

Oh, look at that.

How cool is that?

Let me go this way.

Okay.

Oh, I love it.

Uh so here's here's the situation.

The Terrawat is going to, this is Terrace Road here.

You can see that.

This is Terrace Road.

Terrawat is proposing that, and up here is Broadway, and this is the school right here, the school parking lot.

This is their proposal here.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, okay.

Oh, okay.

You're out of time, sorry.

Okay.

Uh next person is James Mooney.

Oh, question.

Can I enter this as part of the record of this proceeding?

No.

No?

No, you cannot.

But we appreciate it nonetheless.

Okay, so I just put this down.

Is there a James Mooney?

Oh, there it is.

Okay.

I didn't see him.

Okay.

And um Kathleen Mooney is on deck next.

Can we have like 30 minutes?

Honorable members of our wonderful council here in Tempe.

It's so nice to be here with you.

And uh I live four houses south of Cheryl and Todd.

And my wife's Catholic.

You can come up with me, honey.

Come on.

We'll use you can use both of our times together.

We both have just a few things to say.

We lived here for 45 years in the same house.

And uh I can see common sense is starting to take over at this meeting.

I really do.

And I the reason I say that is because we have come to I'm understanding this as a battle between the humans and the robots.

And basically, we're the humans that live in the neighborhood that live in this area.

And the robots are terawatt.

They don't have a mind or a brain, they're programmed by somebody else, so it's artificial.

But this is a very valuable neighborhood to the city.

And I was at Sam's Club, the new one over at Tempe Marketplace the other day.

And there were four EMTs from our fire department there.

And I told them about our what's happening in our neighborhood.

And he said, Well, above all, let me tell you this.

If there isn't ever a fire for one of those, get out of your house immediately.

And that's that was enough for me to realize if I don't come up here and speak out, shame on me.

That's the way I feel.

And uh my wife will really get after me if I don't include her.

She's her little regal here, and she was uh okay.

I'll I won't take up any more time.

Thank you for all showing up tonight.

That's what my husband always says when we go to the place showing up for work.

And this is a long day, I know.

Um I just want to stay alive when the emergency vehicles come to my house, and the ingress and regress is terrace road.

Now, this is all clogged up with cars being recharged.

I'm just kind of wondering.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, you're Kathleen Moody.

Yes, I am.

I'm sorry, I didn't introduce myself.

I'm just kind of wondering how these emergency vehicles, which I called three of in the past 10 months.

My son had a blood count of over 600.

He's diabetic.

He nearly died.

They got him to Tempe Hospital right here, and he made it.

And I got the E.

coli of the blood, and I just passed out.

I didn't even, I haven't been in the hospital since I had my kids.

But anyways, I found out when that shutdown happened in San Francisco, three weeks before Christmas.

The power went out in the city, and all the Waymo cars stopped in the middle of the street of the intersections, and the people who were riding in the cars couldn't even get out of them.

They just stopped cold because I guess the cars are recharged or catapulted ahead by the mapping of the street lights.

That's how they go forward.

Something to do with the connection of the street lights and how they map these Waymo cars.

And I thought to myself, oh my heavens.

If our emergency vehicles come into our house, and the fire department pushes the stop sign or the how they do that red sign so they can go through it, or whatever.

It's gonna hold things up.

And both times I had the emergency, it was life or death.

So how is that gonna help me in my neighborhood?

And there's a lot of elderly people in our neighborhood that need help.

And when they leave emergency, they need it right away.

And the fireman told my husband at the same time he thanked him for saving my life and coming so quickly.

He said they don't need to put that station in your neighborhood.

He said they have a facility in a building on Broadway and Price or Southern in Price that a thousand cars go in and out every day and recharge.

Waymo does.

And he told us that is not necessary for your neighborhood.

I just wanted to maybe you can check on that.

So I just want to stay alive and I want emergency vehicles to come expediently as fast as they can get us to the hospital.

All of us.

We thank you very much.

Thank you for voting against it.

Justin Rutker, you're next.

And then David Rainey, you'll be next after Justin.

And please, before you start speaking, say your name.

Hi, I'm Justin Rucker.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board.

I'm here in support of the appeal.

My family and I live on Terrace within a few hundred feet from the proposed site.

We have four young daughters, and one of whom is deaf.

The comparison to a traditional taxi service is a gross misclassification.

This is not a neighborhood service.

It's an industrial scale logistics hub being shoehorned into a planned commercial center, PCC one.

I'm not against the technology, but I believe it belongs in an industrial area like GI uh GID commercial, perhaps would be a good one, or create a new one for charging vehicles less than seven, say 750 kilowatts or a megawatt.

First, the comparison to a vehicle based service fails on function.

The facilities are private fleet depot exist solely to refuel fleets of commercial autonomous vehicles.

You cannot equate a taxi depot with a 24-7 high capacity commercial EV charging terminal.

Second, the service station comparison is flawed.

While a service station is permitted under PCC one with a use permit, its defining characteristic is dispensing fuel at retail to the public.

This facility is private, does not serve the neighborhood.

Instead, it consumes the neighborhood's piece and infrastructure to serve a third party.

Regardless, regarding it being less detrimental.

The zoning administrator claims it's less intense than a repair shop.

I ask is a 24-7 cycle of unmanned vehicles operating right next to a school in a residential area truly less intense.

A repair shop closes at five facility creates a conveyor belt of autonomous traffic and noise.

Allegedly not greater than ambient, so they say.

A taxi dispatch center doesn't require large transformers, cooling systems for rapid charging or constant vehicle movements.

The technical requirements alone for this site make it more detrimental.

Leveraging the unlisted use clause of the D CDC effectively bypasses the intent of the PCC one district.

This is clearly industrial use.

We asked the board to overturn this ruling and to protect the integrity of our neighborhood and the safety of adjacent schools.

Finally, on precedent, if you allow this industrial use in PCC one under a similar use ruling, you set a dangerous precedent for other inappropriate industrial uses to move into the neighborhood commercial zones across the city.

I'll say this is serial number one for this type of facility in Tempe.

And I think serial number two for terawatt.

Do we really want to accept that level of risk in Tempe?

Regarding with my last 14 seconds, just uh items uh the that make it more um detrimental, the 24-7 nature, fire safety risk, which has been mentioned, and lack of human oversight.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh David, please, Rainer.

And uh Candy Lesher, please be on deck.

Okay, uh Madam Chair and board members, you know, I wanted to bring all the thoughts back again to the detriment of this, you know, this particular project.

You know, uh, I'm not sure why it's trying to be you know, pounding a round peg into a square hole, it keeps going over again.

I think you I get a pretty good sense after listening to all the the you know presentations that you kind of get a sense that this isn't the right fit, that at a core level there's it's not right.

And when you you look at the similar uses, we're trying to stretch it to kind of pound it into that space there.

And you know, in the moment none of the similar uses really fit, and none of them, if you go back to the core of it's using five terawatts of power.

They're gonna pull power lines into this.

I don't know if they're coming overhead, if they're gonna have to trench into that.

I don't know if you've ever been next to a transformer that supplies that type of type of power.

It's very impressive and it's not in a good way.

It's very scary.

But um, and the other part about that is uh is the cars, you know, they're not ready for prime time.

There's a lot of risk there.

It's right up against several schools close by, the kids walk through there, and it's it's easy, you know.

Clearly, with the the you know, the parking lots with beeping cars, they do not have control these.

So we it just takes a quick, you know, search on the internet to really, you know, know that you know they they have mostly control over them, but to have those around the kids and the neighborhood and in that massive amount of uh power, it's more it's it just screams industrial area, not residential.

And uh, you know, respectfully, I would you know hope you you would uh recommend the approval of this you know appeal and uh thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you.

Um Candy, and I just want to make an announcement.

When I call your name as being on deck, I'd like you to come to the front.

Um we have 37 people that want to talk.

We want to make sure that everybody gets their three minutes and that we have time to listen to you.

We want to hear all of you.

Um so if uh Candy, you're here.

Um Rebecca Davis, if you could come up and sit in one of these chairs so we can have a quit turnaround.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, board, thank you so much.

Uh I'm here not as a scientist or an engineer or knowledgeable person like some of these people here.

I'm here as a resident, and I have to say I was very disconcerted by the fact that you were asked um multiple times to not look at the property, just to look at the code, look over here.

But what that does is it pulls the humanity out of what we're actually talking about here, the residents.

The fact that this is not complementary in any way, shape, or form to this type of neighborhood, that it is not socially vitalizing to our neighborhood, that it is autonomous vehicles that add nothing that bring nothing to us except concerns about fire, the traffic, and all the other things that go over that entire area that you've heard multiple times tonight.

So I just I want to thank you so much for recognizing the humanity that is also involved in this decision, not just the code, because there are a lot of residents there, and the one thing that hasn't been mentioned, and that is property value.

I guarantee you, not a single person in that law firm or in Terrawatt, or in the companies that they're gonna be renting to are gonna want to buy a home right there next to it.

In fact, really, those are the only people who are benefiting from this, not your residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Uh Rebecca.

Do we get her name?

Uh her name was Candy Lesher.

Okay.

Again, I need you to come up front when you're called for on deck.

We do need to get through these.

We want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to be heard, and we have 37 of them.

So Rebecca, please come down.

Connie, if you could please be on deck, and that means come up and sit on here.

So when she's done and she's walking back, you can already be speaking.

Thank you.

Rebecca Davis.

Okay.

And please say your name.

I'm Rebecca Davis.

I live in the Hughes Acres neighborhood on Terrace.

And um, I'm just asking you to please not allow this compound to go into our neighborhood.

And it is in the neighborhood.

I think that's been made pretty abundantly clear to uh today.

This is not out on Broadway.

You have to drive into the neighborhood, down terrace, a residential street to get to this.

Um, you know, it's literally a few also abundantly clear.

It's literally a few short feet from apartments and houses, and we know it will greatly diminish the neighborhood.

It will not bring anything to the neighborhood.

And uh I've heard some pretty alarming things today that I hadn't even considered.

And um also to address whether Ray Mos would be available or autonomous vehicles would be available to pick up passengers in the neighborhood.

I can assure you, as a user of that occasionally, they come very quickly.

They are constantly circling in the Broadway and rural McClintock area.

You only have to wait a few minutes before one goes down terrace as it stands right now.

So, and I just would like to make a point that I'm sure you would not like to have this industrial compound in your neighborhood.

So I thank you for listening, and um, we hope that you will not allow this to happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Connie and Julianne Rutker, if you could um please come down, you'll be on deck.

Thank you.

And please for remember to say your name.

All right, I'm just setting my timer.

My name is Connie Joe Vickery.

I live in this neighborhood.

Um, I just want to really stress 24-7, 365 days a year.

I'm one of those people who get anxious, nervous, and sound really impacts me.

And I cannot think of living in a neighborhood where 24-7, 365 days, I will have noise that quote is ambient, but ambient has no real definition.

It means different things to different people.

And I can tell you that when I hear noise from Tempe Town Lake, like it there was this weekend, I can hear that at my house.

So I I can't fathom that I won't hear some of this noise as well.

Um I I know that you're looking at code, but maybe we should be looking at a code for this particular type of situation because it is unique.

Um and I do agree there's a lot of value to having these vehicles.

I'm not saying there isn't.

Um I just believe we do have to consider the human aspect when you're considering where you're going to be putting these sorts of things.

I also wanted to point out that Terrace is a very narrow street.

I ride my bike to work at ASU every day.

I go through that particular light.

And I can tell you that there are people who go on those scooters who go the wrong direction.

They pull out, they go quickly, they pull out in front of cars, and they're not gonna stop when they have these kind of cars going through.

There is no left-turn lane there.

There is none.

And if you add one, it's also going to impact all the traffic going east and west.

And I think that needs to be also considered.

Also, the unpredictability of these cars.

I've seen them pull out in the middle of going out of um one of the restaurants, and they went into the street, and all the cars had to go around them because they didn't back up.

I've seen them stop where the buses are supposed to be parked.

And the bus driver had to honk, honk, honk because there's not a person there to make them move.

They stopped at a corner, a T intersection.

Um, and they wouldn't move, and another bus came.

The bus driver got out and said to the person who was going to be using that service, hey, I can't get by you.

Can you at least call these people to move this car?

And it took several minutes for them to move, so they are unpredictable.

And I want to say thank you for your time.

Thank you, Juliana and Catherine McManafi.

You were on deck.

Please come down.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Juliana Rucker.

Um, and I live on Terrace with my family.

Um, my window can see into this proposed lot.

Um, we can see it all.

I want to highlight the point.

Um, the detrimental point though that while autonomous vehicles are allowed on city streets, the density of unmanned vehicles concentrated at a single point next to a school or create a unique pedestrian safety hazard that traditional vehicle services do not pose.

I also think about my children play in our front yard often.

It's our yard, they play with balls.

Um I think it would be a detrimental to the community to have a bunch of autonomous vehicles roaming around.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Catherine, you can come up and Mary Morgan, you are come down, you're on deck.

Mary Morgan's not here.

She left a couple hours ago.

Hi, I'm Kat.

Do you want to give the next person?

You are but after me.

I'm gonna I'm gonna do that right now.

Mariana Donlin.

She left also.

Okay.

We're all in the neighborhood.

Michelle Pyde.

All right, come on down for deck.

Hi, Catherine Mansfield.

I wasn't expecting to speak.

Um, I live four doors down from where this thing is going in, and we are I think our property value is gonna go way down, and we're redoing our backyard, and we're just very nervous about the whole thing, the sound, everything.

I'm totally against having Terrawatt have their have their uh charging station there.

I support the appeal.

Thank you.

Uh Michelle and Daniel Sir, I think it is.

S-U-R-E-R, you're on deck.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Board of Adjustment.

My name is Michelle Pide, and I live in Hughes Acres neighborhood.

I wanted to share my support of this appeal.

I wish to express my concern for a specific detriment.

We anticipate if this appeal is denied.

As a mother of three young children, I'm concerned for the increased traffic through the neighborhood.

Terrawatt has assured the neighbors that these autonomous vehicles would not travel through the neighborhood themselves, which may be true, but I can almost guarantee that no humans will continue to use the intersection in question.

This would absolutely result in increased traffic through the neighborhood.

This is a major concern for many of us in the neighborhood, and I greatly appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Daniel, you're up.

Janelle Van Brunt, you are on deck.

Please come down.

Hi, my name is Daniel Suber.

I live on Concordia between Terrace and Rural.

I support the appeal.

I think that the this is dangerous.

Terrace and Broadway is a very dangerous intersection already.

I've been almost hit by a car.

I've seen people be hit by cars.

And I think adding more traffic will not benefit anybody.

And I think this might benefit Waymo, but it doesn't benefit the community or the neighborhood specifically.

And I have interacted with the Waymo's personally.

And while I understand that they're useful as uh you know rideshare service, um, they're not the same as uh a manned vehicle.

And I think that just adding dozens of unmanned vehicles um on the street uh doesn't really do anything to uh benefit the community.

Uh that's it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Janelle and Mark Van Brunt, you are on deck.

Please come down.

My name my name is Janelle Van Brunt.

I've lived at the same house on Terrace for 45 years.

I want to uh draw your attention here again to this map.

Um this is the proposed site right here, this little white line are apartments.

Mostly rentals.

And actually they're condominiums, but they're mostly rented out, which means that none of the people that live there received any notification of this event because they are not property owners, they're renters.

Twenty of those units have bedrooms that are 10 feet from the wall, which is not as it is a little bit less than what it is from me to you.

10 feet.

These are 22 families that have their bedrooms less than 10 feet from this wall.

It's unconscionable that such such a project could be put that close to that many human beings who are living here with all the noise with the lights.

I can't even imagine it.

If I were a mother of children, they have to look out.

They see that, it's right there.

It's not even as far as from me to you.

We were told by the attorney for Tarawatt, don't look at the specific site.

That is exactly our point.

This is our specific site that we're looking at, not just those apartments but us.

This is the neighborhood of people.

This kind of project belongs in an industrial park.

It does not belong in a neighborhood where bedrooms are 10 feet from this site.

I ask you to really look into your hearts.

Would you want your family 10 feet from this?

And these were renters, they received no notification.

My husband and I went over and talked with them.

They didn't get any notification.

They're not property owners.

Thank you for considering this very human.

Thank you.

Mark Denise Robinson, you are on deck.

Please come down.

So I'm Mark Van Brunt.

I've lived in the same house with the same wife for 45 years with six children.

So I am not going to uh I have a lot of other things we're I'm glad that we're brought up.

Um the one thing that might be unique is that after the development commission, uh I have we've had some relationships with these um the vet the um businesses across the street.

And so I began to talk to them about what they thought about this, and they um I would tell you that this whole uh similar use idea uh didn't go over very well.

They said we run a business, we rely on terrace at terrace connection for all of our business across from rural and go into our property, be it be it uh the um uh the you have um we have well at this point QT and MITS and and there's another one down, and here was their concern is that they know they figured it out that a thousand two hundred sorties out of there that can only go one direction, and it's in the direction of the uh up terrace that's gonna tie up that intersection, the very intersection where most of the business most of their business comes from.

the we have um we have uh well at this point qt and midas and and there's another one down and here was their concern is that they know they figured it out that a thousand two hundred sorties out of there that can only go one direction and it's in the direction of the uh up terrace that's gonna tie up that intersection the very intersection where most of the business of their business comes from and it is it has uh been for them a something that they're just dreading um in terms of just the tie up and the slowdowns and the weights and so um they're having um they're gonna have they're they're very interested in how this hearing comes out let's just put it that way um so I I just would um would hope that uh consideration would be given to that as well and we appreciate your time and interest in our neighborhood appreciate it thank you um I'm assuming Denise Robinson isn't here Donna Aguilera Aguilar and Randy Spirol I think I can't read the handwriting is there a Randy here he left eileen spinlaw Daniel Jacobs all right just come down be on deck thank you very much and don't forget to say your name hi I'm Donna Aguilar I live on Concordah just a few blocks from this site and I think the unknown is the question here why that lot is the target why is our neighborhood the target for this isn't there another place this could go that wouldn't have any of these issues that's that's my first question second question I mean did they consider other properties did they consider are the lots other places that they could have done it you know we wouldn't all have to be here this just doesn't belong in a neighborhood and I hope you see that I appreciate you thank you uh Daniel you're next and Vincent Martinez Vincent Martinez all right go ahead Daniel my name is uh Danny Jacobs uh I live just down the street from where the charging station would go in I use Waymo's fairly often um I think uh the the the the industrial nature of the use is probably um in the best scenario if a if the AI drivers are working as intended will be um maximized the the number the efficiency in and out of the site will be a lot more than a typical dispatch station where human drivers stop for a cup of coffee this is one car every minute and uh that is more akin to something like a factory uh than it is um uh an occasional uh drive up and uh and uh and uh change cars like at a taxi so I I I would suggest and encourage you guys to look for um the best possible um uh alternative in the next most upgraded uh zoning uh value PCC two uh there are lots of those areas around they're not there's a there's a few on the map I think so um uh it may well be that the thing you have to pick isn't ideal um but uh that's why we we do these things every few years we have to go in and clean up all that mess so um please uh do the best you can to um make it so that we don't have to come back and do this again for another neighborhood and another neighborhood uh these uh these these neighborhood um zones are really meant to be something that is small and uh fairly infrequent I I would also just add that the the energy in the city is picking up quite a bit um there have been a lot of other things added in the neighborhood uh where uh old uses were changed and and buildings were torn down and and more busy um uh restaurants and things with drive throughs and and all that sort of thing have been have been picking up there's a lot more people on on scooters than there were five years ago um I ride my bike into ASU every day and have done for the past ten years and I'd say that I've seen a lot more crazy stuff in the last five years and even more in the last two so things are just gonna get crazier and um the way to the way to bring the temperature down is to um not really push the the the the the um the the the zoning classification that is sort of the most neighborhood kind that's that's my message to you so thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Uh Vincent you're up uh Andrea Martinette Martinez you are on deck please come down um madam chair board members um I wanted to just address this PC one zoning district um I don't think it's would be the responsibility of your board to have to come up with a similar um we need professionals um tempe um members the the code the people that write the codes we need um uh engineers that kind of stuff that's the people that need to address this because it's new it it hasn't been out there it's we we we don't have this type of thing and when these own zoning codes were created um for for um one of these recharge stations um you know and I think that you know there needs to be more time on that

That's the people that need to address this because it's new, it it hasn't been out there.

It's we we we don't have this type of thing, and when these own zoning codes were created um for for um one of these recharge stations, um, you know, and I think that you know there needs to be more time on that um to where the code is then written in regards to uh charging stations.

Thank you.

Andrea and Chris Meuse, you are on deck, please come down.

Is Chris here?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Board members.

Andrea, hold on for a minute.

Elizabeth Baker.

All right, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members.

My name is Andrea Martinez, and unlike a lot of people, I do not work inside the home.

I don't get to telecommute.

I commute to downtown Phoenix every day, and I've been doing that for about 25 years.

That is my uh exit and my return every day to and from my job back to my home.

I have also seen the scooters just they just come across.

They're not pedestrians, they are crossing without really making eye contact with the driver, and I can imagine it would add to the traffic danger there with these autonomous vehicles.

But more than anything, um, I will probably have to find a different way to leave my neighborhood and to come home, which in turn will increase internal neighborhood traffic.

And for that reason, I don't believe this is zoned properly as a PCC one.

I believe it is not a benefit to the neighborhood.

And I especially think that if it were a retail location, you would have, like some many people have mentioned, kind of business hours eight to five.

You would have not 1,000 vehicles.

I'd be very surprised that for a retail operation that it would draw that much business into an interior family neighborhood.

Those are businesses that are typically on the main street, such as Broadway.

So this is not something that is serving the public.

Public has no access to it, and the public does not benefit from it.

So I also agreed it's not equivalent to a taxi service as the argument has been presented.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Elizabeth, you're up.

David, um I cannot pronounce H.

Are you here?

Yep.

All right, you're next.

Elizabeth Baker.

I live in Hughes Acres.

I think that we've discussed that this is not a very good use of a very small parcel of land.

There was a tremendously large, what do you call the PCC one or whatever the zoning code was just on the other side of the immediate apartments that had a True West credit union that sat vacant for a very long time and they went in and they put in housing because no business is uh a dentist may have moved in on one end of the property.

We have seen the industrial neighbors along real salado as it was gentrified, kicked out, uh bought out, whatever you want to call them, and new housing built.

None of us who live in this neighborhood move to a nuisance.

The nuisance is coming to us, and to think that somehow it's a legitimate use of an extremely small parcel of dirt, and that that is the highest and best use of that property.

I can only assume that Terrawatt got a great deal on buying the property because they're not running the business, they're gonna rent it out.

So I'd start singing to that, but I don't know the words.

Thank you.

Uh David, you are up.

Um Bill Makata.

Are you here?

Bill?

I have nothing.

You have nothing?

Okay.

Beth.

Um Marcata, are you are you here?

All right, you're on deck.

You're up next.

David, go ahead.

So I had a lengthy list on nearly every point of which has been addressed by someone else, and I agree with all the points that were made previously, so I won't repeat any of them.

So I only had a couple things to add or mention that I thought might be relevant.

Um the idea of the parcel based on the zoning being intended to be developed for the benefit of the neighborhood seems to me clearly to be contradicted by the way the dispatching of the vehicles would work, to my understanding, which is without taking any consideration of responding to local calls as priority calls for the service of those vehicles from that location.

If that were the case, it might be a reason to consider that it was more of a direct benefit to the neighborhood, but as one of the other speakers mentioned, Wayneville vehicles were so responsive and and quick to come anyway, that it it wouldn't be much benefit.

Um as for dispatch, it's central dispatching between IT centers and cars directly with an ill function locally in that parcel, to my understanding.

Um I just want to bring up something that I've been trying to track down data on but haven't found yet.

Uh I've been in Hughes Acres since our house was built in 77.

And at one point there was a proposal for a pet boy store to be going in on the southwest corner of Dorsey and Broadway, and that got the neighbors in a bit of an uproar, and it was never followed through on.

Um I'd contacted the city to see if they could provide me some documentation on that, but so far no luck from them from the History Museum or from Tempio Tribune, but it definitely happened.

It was probably between 77 and 99.

But in terms of the kind of use you're talking about for a PCC one, that would have been justified technically, but it didn't happen because the neighbors has a strong shown objections to it, and I think there's even more reason to object to this thing.

Um that the point brought up about being downwind of the smoke from the fire.

Yeah, we'd be right in that path.

So that's one more reason I'd object to it.

And also I'm wondering whether uh Terrawatt is uh has the potential to provide service to companies other than Waymo, and under what circumstances that would be approved, or would it just automatically happen?

For instance, if Tesla started running robotaxis in our area or one of the other potential vendors of that service, would uh if they contracted with terawatt and their vehicles are arguably less safe.

Would we have any visibility on or control over what other uh services use that facility and were running through our neighborhood?

And would the constraints on the operation of those vehicles be the same as Waymo has agreed to in their commitments to use that facility because that brings up a whole other can of worms about future prospects that I don't know, makes me very uncomfortable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Beth, you're up.

Bridget Humphrey, you're on deck.

Bridget, are you here?

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Beth Marcott.

My husband, Bill and I live directly across the street from the proposed site.

We are on the corner abroad of uh terrace and Palm Croft.

My kitchen window looks out onto Terrace.

I can see everything going on.

I can see that parcel of land right across the street.

Our driveway, we back out onto Terrace, and it's right where all of that traffic is gonna nosedive right into and out of the proposed facility.

So we also have um a bigger, a bigger stake in the game, if you will.

Um I I really appreciate the points that especially you um Miss Cross that came up with um that really put in the forefront that um terawatt is actually the honor of this whole process, and that um Waymo is merely a customer to whom it is being rented out to.

Um it does not provide a service to our neighborhood.

I'm very nervous about the noise level, the constant hum, the the idea of a transformer right across the street.

Um that you guys have heard transformers, they buzz constantly, and then to have a thousand vehicles in and out of that facility um 24-7 is mind-boggling the lights, the noise, the traffic.

I'm a nurse at um a local high school here, and I know how teenagers drive.

This is another point, and it's right next to a high school.

Teenagers do not drive with common sense, their brains are not fully developed.

Y'all know that.

And and the idea that you have that they are going to be battling um with with all of these autonomous vehicles coming in and out of of that parcel of land that is is actually right next to it.

Sometimes they do overflow parking into that parcel.

That's how close it is.

Um I really would ask that you um continue to consider as you've already begun that this property really um is geared for a more neighborhood-friendly business rather than um a charging station.

I appreciate your time and and thank you for being with us tonight and to listening to us.

Thank you.

Bridget, you're up.

Stanley O'Dell, are you here?

You're up next, please come down.

I'll see if I can make this thing work.

Probably not.

Don't forget to state your name.

Yes, I was talking.

Good evening.

My name is Bridget Humphrey.

Thank you, Madam Chair and board members for putting up with the soil here tonight.

I live on Terrace Road.

I've lived on Terrace Road since 1985.

In my beloved home, which I had also hoped to, in which I'd also hope to spend my retirement years.

This doesn't look like a high impact project.

Cars drive in, fill up or recharge, and cars drive out and go home.

But that's not what we have here.

One, these cars don't have a home.

I've spoken to several people who live in Chandler.

Chandler had some programs for these type of vehicle charging stations in recent years.

The vehicles do not go home.

They have been told repeatedly that they create a terrible nuisance.

They um uh will sorry, lost my train of thought for a minute.

They they will drive through the neighborhoods, they cruise the neighborhoods all day long, all night long.

They park in front of people's houses.

When they park, they don't turn off the vehicles, they're running the entire time.

If they're making noise, you can't go out and say, hey, would you you know move move your car because there's nobody in there to move the car?

Um and it it becomes a real a real nuisance for the people in the neighborhood.

I know that there's a report that the Terra Watt has said that they are not going to be driving south of this facility.

I'm also a lawyer.

And a promise like that is completely non-binding.

Uh and even if it were binding, it's not enforceable.

How do you stop a driverless vehicle?

I mean, are they are they do they stop when the little red lights come on and the cop behind them?

I don't know.

Um, but uh but I don't think it's credit that's that's a credible promise that they've made is to stay out of the neighborhood.

The other thing that we haven't really talked about, um there's there's one aspect of the I don't know how this is working, so I'm gonna hold this up.

Um I borrowed Mr.

Aronell's chart uh because this shows the ingress and egress off of Terrace Road.

When you've got cars coming off of Broadway, they're heading south onto Terrace, they're going to have to make immediate left into this charging station.

That's a very busy intersection.

I drive that intersection every weekday for 25 years.

I sit at that long light, which is a trigger light, not a regular routinely changing light.

So it can be a very long light.

You've got cars coming in that are going to have to make an immediate left against traffic that's backed up at that light, and you're going to have a huge log jam that extends out into Broadway Road in both directions, possibly, uh blocking this intersection.

Um as people have talked about tonight in recent years, the foot traffic has been.

Thank you, unfortunately.

Your time is gone.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Stanley, you are up.

Is there a Colin Reynolds?

Is there a Colin Reynolds here?

Uh Larin Owens.

Laren Owens.

Thomas King, I think.

Is there Thomas King?

Anna.

I can't read your real last name, but I it starts with a B.

Anna B.

All right.

Come on down your up next.

Uh Stanley, go ahead.

Stanley O'Dell.

Um and I'm on Terrace Road, resident Terrace Road in the Hughes uh acres uh area.

Uh I have 30 years of experience as a as an attorney for state government, and I have a little bit of experience with ordinances and and statutory language.

I was interested in the discussion that was being had by members Miller and Morrow regarding what you referred to as the first prong.

Let me try to give you a nail to hang your hat on here.

Um staff has found that this is a similar use, and they chose to use the term vehicle-based service, parentheses, dispatch, parentheses closed.

But there's no evidence before you that any dispatching is cited at this facility.

They're not putting a server farm there to do it, and then no one would consider the high voltage that's coming into this facility.

The cars either are dispatched from a Waymo facility somewhere else where the server farm is located, or the or the vehicles have enough onboard software to dispatch themselves.

But that's merely incidental, coincidental, to their being at this charging facility.

This is not a vehicle-based delivery, it's an installation-based service.

What is the service?

Charging.

That's the only function here, other than a couple of people maybe doing some cleaning.

They're there to charge, then they leave.

But for them being at that location, is anyone saying that they couldn't be dispatched or dispatched would happen less?

Of course not.

Is anyone saying that any passengers will embark or disembark?

No.

There's no passenger embarkation or disembarkation facilities planned.

So to argue that this is a vehicle-based service, what it really is is an installation-based charging service.

That is not similar.

Your staff also said, well, if you find it's not similar, then you have to say what it's similar to.

I mean, it's fueling.

Um you could say the gigantic tank farm we have out at 59th Avenue that except those are human-driven trucks uh for the petroleum.

I wouldn't even, I wouldn't even analogize it to uh an electrical substation because that's generally a passive.

You don't have all the the vehicles coming in and out.

Many of the people who've spoken before have talked about the problem with the long jam this is going to create, actually, make worse on Terrace Road, which is already a bottleneck.

I I think if this ever were to make it to the superior court, the judge would look at the record, which you're helping to build and ask, did anyone bother to request a report from the city traffic engineer on what this would do to Terrace Road, which is one of those quarter mile streets in this case between rural and McClintick that is designed to serve the neighborhood.

Did anyone assess that?

Is the report in the file?

I've heard nothing tonight indicating that that has been done.

So to me, that's a that's kind of a glaring uh omission uh in the record that you're building.

So I think you've got plenty to hang this on if you want to deny the the position of the true thank you.

And Anna, you're up Anna, you're up.

Good evening.

Um, unlike many of my neighbors, I've only lived in the neighborhood for about four years.

My background, however, is in entrepreneurship and business and also driving economic development, specifically in pedestrian friendly and pedestrian scale neighborhoods.

And this is something I've done out of state.

When we moved into the neighborhood, and I do have four children who ride their bikes to school along the routes that have been pointed out every single, you know, by every person in the room.

Um I realized very quickly that the neighborhood, the Hughes Acres neighborhood is one of the few neighborhoods I've seen in the entire metro where you can actually get everywhere you need to go without crossing a major intersection if you wanted to.

You through the Hughes Acres neighborhood, you can get to Meyer Park, you can get to several elementary schools, several churches, and several grocery stores.

And now that I've been sitting in these meetings, I actually see that the zoning and all of the um ordinances that are in place were designed to create that exact quality of life and that experience.

Um, I think it's very obvious that this venture will disrupt that, and I believe we'll ruin it.

Now, in your position, you are looking at a venture that's unique and that's new.

And that doesn't often happen.

Most of the decisions you've had to meet up make up to this point in the position that you're in have been based on precedence, and you're able to lean on a specific ordinance to guide you on that.

It seems to me that this particular venture, because it is so new, specifically in the nature of the battery that's in the car, which is not like a typical taxi.

Because this venture is so new, this is something that probably exceeds what you've ever had to deal with before.

So, what I would like you to do in considering whether or not this should be upheld, is to think to yourselves that by not questioning deeper into this specific venture.

The nature of the newness in this thing could disrupt the purpose of the entire neighborhood in being one that is a quality of life factor and not so much a convenience of getting a ride.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And that is all the cards I have.

Um, do we have any more?

Could we get a her last name?

I did uh Anna, what is your last name?

Biava, B I A V A?

That is all the comment cards I have.

Do we have any more?

At this time, um, we are gonna ask for rebuttals uh from Heather and Todd and when uh yeah, Heather and Todd.

Good evening, board.

I'll make this brief.

I know we all want to go home.

Heather Dukes.

Um I am in agreement that we need to look at the zoning ordinance.

We need to look at the similar uses and then figure out if this could be more detrimental rather than put focusing on the particular use.

I will note that PCC one zoning district is a neighborhood type commercial use, and we talked about that on the record here today.

It's commonly next to neighborhoods.

That's the purpose of that zoning district is to provide a transition from neighborhoods to more intensive commercial districts.

So it's often close to neighborhoods.

So if we open up this box, this Pandora's box of allowing it at this one location in this one PCC one zoning district, you're now allowing it in all PCC one zoning districts throughout the city.

You're also allowing it in all PCC2 zoning districts, most likely, because as the zoning administrator pointed out, there's not much difference in the permitted uses in those two zoning districts.

So I would ask you to consider this.

Um not a similar use to the vehicle-based services, and it comes down to what the primary use is.

And uh Terawatts Legal Council use repeatedly the term vehicle fleet charging.

That's what this is.

This is vehicle fleet charging.

And when you look at the table that she put in her slides of uh comparing the taxi-based service with this type of use, the energy source and the charging was nowhere in there in terms of what's similar between those uses, and that's the primary use of what terrawatt's trying to do.

So please consider that.

Um another difference in the use is that again, there's no humans and the service is not directly to the public.

It's it's to a private party.

Um and when we talk about these large shopping centers that have uh charging stations at them, like let's say the target, the target near my house has 20.

Those are not generating new traffic in the area.

Those are target people are going to, you know, the Denny's next door, and they're saying, oh, we're here for our groceries or our restaurant for the next hour, and we're gonna let our vehicle charge.

It's not generating new traffic to the area the way this is.

So that is a one key difference that's more detrimental than those types of large shopping centers on large parcels that can accommodate that type of traffic on a large arterial street.

This is a residential street, and if we were to look at maybe a traffic study, like someone um suggested that perhaps staff look at the traffic implications to this, the traffic study in this matter incorrectly identifies um terrace as a collector street.

It's not a collector street.

If you look at the general plan, it is a residential street, and so it is not appropriate for this type of commercial traffic that's generated by that use.

Um the solution is here, and this is what I would propose that the appeal be granted, that the use be found to be similar to view uh fuel distribution station, which is a use allowed in the HID zoning district, which is an industrial district, and is more similar to that type of use because it's energy being sold to a private party in bulk.

It's not being sold directly to the public.

Um then if this is use is so new, if the if we truly want to adjust the zoning ordinance to accommodate this use in the commercial zoning districts, that's a job for the city council after a staff study um in a staff report and a public hearing.

So if I think in the interim, instead of opening this up widely to all these zoning districts, not knowing exactly what this is going to look like, we restrict it to the most compatible use, which is fuel distribution station, and then go from there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Todd, do you have any rebuttal?

Uh the only thing I could add to that would be that that there is no similar use to uh that this is such a new technology.

Um it's kind of like what you run up against with data centers.

Um, you know, they they have very unique uh problems and uh concerns associated with them.

It would be like saying, you know, comparing a data center to uh let's say uh a year 2000 cyber cafe.

Right.

I mean you you can't you you can't say that a cyber cafe is okay, so now a data center is okay.

And you can't say that a taxi charging station is okay.

So now this fleet charging station that draws five megawatts of power is okay.

Uh they are come there there is no use currently in the the TIMPE uh arena for this.

Uh they are come there there is no use currently in the the TIMPE uh arena for this, and I think somebody needs to define that.

Uh and it certainly doesn't belong in this area, it belongs in uh industrial area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um questions for Wendy or Todd on the board?

I'm Wendy.

He's Todd.

I'm not I mean uh Heather or Todd, sorry, I'm asleep of course.

All right.

Uh Wendy Rebuttal.

Yes, thank you.

And I'm gonna um endeavor to do this old school if I can with go all the way in the middle of the possible a couple of quick comments.

Um that coming up.

Yeah, the irony of us talking about technology, and I'm doing this on an Elmo.

I hope everybody at this hour appreciates this.

So a couple things.

I want to refocus the discussion on the fact the standard here that you that you have is the board should review to determine if the zoning administrator's interpretation is either not supported by credible evidence or incorrectly applies the law.

That's the standard that we have in front of us here today.

I I also, and I'm gonna jump around a bit because there's been a lot of discussion.

It was a lot of discussion about what has been a very robust dialogue on the use permit.

And we have made significant commitments in front of the DRC that include things like a not exceeding the ambient condition, the noise condition on site, not using backup beepers on site, how the traffic circulation is gonna flow.

A lot of discussions we've had with fire, particularly fire mitigations that we're putting in.

All of those discussions and all of this discussion, which has been very robust, properly belongs in front of the city council on whether or not that use permit here would be appropriate.

Um I also want to talk about it.

There was discussion about it doesn't serve the neighborhood, and I believe board member Dalton, you you mentioned that you were troubled by that language in the um the overarching language.

So I want to break that out for you here.

So if you can see this, what you have up top here, this 3201, the purpose, and I think that's the language that you read to us.

Yeah, so that language I want to be clear modifies all the zoning districts.

That is not PCC one.

That is talking about residential, commercial shopping, city center, PCC, regional, mixed use commercial.

It modifies all of them.

But then when you get down here a little bit further, and you focus just on what it says for PCC one, our district, it does talk about services and entertainment uses oriented to serve the needs of the neighborhood, community, or the metropolitan region.

So again, I would respectfully suggest to you that that is indeed what is occurring here.

So we talk about the two-pronged test, and we talked about um the city's interpretation, and we suggested to you that it's very similar to a taxi dispatch service, ride hailing service.

We heard a lot of dialogue about that.

Um other folks suggested it is more akin to a service station, vehicle service station, distributing gas to a car.

That ultimately gets us to the same result.

I guess we would suggest to you that in many circumstances that's actually more onerous on a neighborhood.

Um I would tell you it is not an industrial use.

It is not a giant tank farm.

But I do think that this discussion of having to pick a category of where we fit, um, we would be willing to take a continuance here and come back and talk about detrimental use and talk about what category and provide additional evidence as to why this is not a detrimental use here, if that would be helpful to this board.

Um that is something that we are willing to to entertain or um have occur here to have additional information on that particular um prong of the test.

So I would also suggest to you ultimately we do comply with the test that staff's interpretation that it is a akin to a ride hailing service, the taxi dispatch surface was the correct one, and that overall, when you look at this, we are not more detrimental to some many of the other uses, your your gun shop, your liquor license, um a filiberto set could be there 24-7 and would be allowed today by right.

Um we are not more detrimental, and as a result, the city's interpretation should stand.

And again, we're willing to continue to provide additional evidence on uh what would be detrimental.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Counselor, in you know, a couple sentences is giving your best argument why this is not like a fuel distribution center.

Um station.

Chairman Foy, uh, board member Morrow, fuel distribution is a large tank distributing mass liquids in large quantities.

I mean, it is a significantly more industrial use.

You know, here what we're talking about when you're dealing with charging stations and charging cars, again, you charge cars in in homes.

We put these battery packs in homes to charge cars.

We could do a charging center here that was not fleet vehicle, just a charging center by right.

So that is allowed by right.

It's very different than a large bulk fuel distribution, which also is you know significantly more detrimental to a community.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and now staff, you get to move back, Chris.

All right, good evening, members of the board.

Um so to sum up, uh the board's role tonight is solely to determine whether this use is similar to and not more detrimental than, and that's a phrase I'm sure uh we've all heard quite a bit and are probably done hearing uh for a while.

Uh so not similar to and not more detrimental than a vehicle-based service, parentheses, taxi dispatch, or comparable vehicle related uses found in the PCC one zoning district, which requires the use of the processing, which require the processing of a use permit.

That's verbatim from the zoning administrator's opinion.

So we've heard a lot about the um numerous operational characteristics of this specific site.

Traffic, fire safety, crime prevention, noise, headways, energy, etc.

Those are matters that are certainly relevant in in consideration in the context of evaluating a use permit.

And I would note that the zoning administrator's opinion does opine that a use permit is an appropriate avenue through which to evaluate this particular use type.

Um through that use permit, nuisances related to any of those aforementioned um impacts can be mitigated or ameliorated.

Um, and and that is what we have endeavored to do.

I would note that the appellant did say that this sets a precedent that this will be allowed in all PCC one zoning districts, but again, it is with the caveat that it is subject to that use permit.

So the scale, the impact are all evaluated through that use permit process, and that is contained and consistent with what is in the zoning administrator's opinion.

So the appeal is a relatively simple matter for this uh opinion.

What is this most what is this use most similar to?

What do we call, what do we classify uh a vehicle hub that is primarily intended to facilitate ride hailing activities?

Um so that's that's the question that you know we're we're hoping to answer uh this evening.

Um but uh you know the at the end of the day, it's um you know, is there an error or fact, an error of fact in the uh administrator's opinion?

Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Uh any questions?

Thank you, first I do.

Uh so there has been discussion, and and it's been brought up by board members that um because tarot owns it and they're kind of leasing this out or renting it out to Waymo to use, that it's the primary business isn't a service to the community, it's a service to a private company.

Um that sounds that way to me.

What's your response to that?

Uh so I think the distinction is well, I'll I'll I'll bring up Ryan to maybe uh you know, get into some of the details.

Um but uh you know what we're looking at is this isn't a one-to-one matter, right?

There doesn't have to be an exact apple to apple comparison.

It is what is it most analogous to?

Is it is it similar, is it similar to uh the that vehicle-based service?

Is it similar to comparable uses uh that are located and allowed within the zoning district subject to a use permit?

I mean, that's the that's the primary question.

So, what is the service?

I would say the service is the ride hailing aspect, right?

Uh somebody puts something into their phone to request a vehicle, and it arrives.

Um, you know, in terms of how that vehicle, how this site functions within the context of the community, that is the impact, that is what is occurring.

Okay.

My other question is so if I bought that land and I decided I wanted to put a parking lot there, parking service, but I'm gonna use it for my company, like I have a business there that I'm gonna put there that's allowed, but only my employees can use the charging stations.

Would would that be allowed?

Um so you're referring to say you open up an office retail facility, but you limit use of the parking lot to just customers, uh would you know, uh, would say yeah.

Uh no, no, the charging stations, not for customers.

I I open a retail store, right?

And there's a parking lot that can be used, but I have charging stations.

I let's say I have 10 charging stations, yeah, but they're only for employees.

Would that fit?

Yeah, so um, you know, when we evaluate projects, um uh you know when a project comes through site plan review and they identify their parking configuration, you know.

What we're primarily concerned with is does it meet its middle and parking obligations?

And if the answer is yes, um, then the sort of restrictions placed upon that parking regime is up to the private property owner.

Uh so if it is a retail you know service with you know dedicated employee parking spaces that are charging stations, that's allowed.

Okay, and another point to bring up is is similar, like if you had a parking structure for an office service.

If they had a dedicated amount of charging stations for their employees of that, there would be no use permit process, they'd be allowed to install the charging stations within the either the the parking lot or the or the or the structure to provide that service for the for their employees.

So right now as an ancillary use.

That property has there's no restrictions as far as use because there's no land use on the on the property today.

Or charging stations.

I guess that's like the charging stations could go in there even if it's not Terrace, that Tara that doesn't, it's anybody could put you.

I could put a parking lot, a commercial parking lot that I sell spaces to to the public, and have 40 spaces, and every single one of the spaces has a charger on it, that would be allowed.

Uh Chair Foy, that is correct.

Commercial parking is allowed by right.

All right, to follow up on that, because I had the same I'm following your line of thinking.

Yeah.

And and really the the zoning code decision we're looking at today is detached from the customer that the developer, the land developer is going to provide really is irrelevant that it's going to be Waymo or that they could offer those charging stations to members of the public or to specific people, but it's can they put the charging station in the parking lot there?

That's yeah, it's not customer dependent.

Madam Chair, uh board member Morrow.

The the other factor in the question you had asked about in the applicant of terawatts.

So this is similar to when we get requests for uh cell tower use permits.

Typically, it's the uh cell tower providers that actually build the infrastructure for the tower.

They own the tower elements, but they don't own the antennas and service that's provided by that tower.

So those companies are coming in applying for the use permit, they own the the 50 or 60 foot tower element, and then they sublase to the um phone providers T-Mobile Sprint and providing that service on on their site.

So they're they're the applicants, the primary applicants, but it takes both the two businesses to create that service that is being presented for you today, which as a result requires that use permit process.

Are the cell towers allowed in TP one, TPC one?

Yes, with a use permit.

Even simpler, if I put a gas station there and said I'm only gonna sell gas to taxi companies, I could do that.

I'm getting a present through your proposal that way, yes.

And and got a use permit for it.

Yeah, okay.

Like we had requests a comment that said ask I'm planning to build a coffee shop building with a drive-thru, required a use permit because it's a drive-thru, but they don't know yet what coffee shop is planning to operate that that facility.

Sometimes that that agreement comes later later on in the process.

And the the infrastructure being built could be I mean in theory, the city could buy the infrastructure 10 years from now and say, okay, this is a publicly available car charging station for humans, robots, or otherwise.

If we get in the business with that, I'm not saying that's a good idea.

Okay, well go ahead.

Go ahead.

Um very some interesting hypotheticals.

Um possibly I'm thinking it's we should come back to the issue before us, which is the decision of the zoning administrator, and how and what the zoning administrator hung his hat on when he made the determination, as he did.

The use, and I'll quote the use is more similar to a vehicle-based service under the service category.

Specific examples under this category include courier, delivery services, taxi, and ambulance as similar uses.

Um we have had a lot of information, a lot of suggestion before us, and I think I tend to agree that it's none of those, that it is an industrial use, similar to a fueling fueling depot, uh, because it's provided in bulk.

You've got a 24-hour 40 bay or more, charging station, which is constantly selling, providing electricity.

Just if it was gas and you came in and plugged, you know, put your gas nozzle in and said, okay, fine, I'm gonna pump out as much as much gas as I could, and somebody else comes in after that, and after that, and after that.

That'd be a fueling station too.

Um the hypotheticals aside, we have to decide whether or not the zoning administrator made the correct interpretation and found the correct level uh flock correct rationale upon which to render his decision.

And I think that's really where we have to come back to.

Thank you.

Um question is uh, you know, Ms.

Riddle, they brought up that uh TerraSec would make commitments to address noise abatement, to um address lighting, to address public concerns, and um, you know, and I I've I've been in multiple situations in my past life where corporate entities, industrial entities, they would make all these commitments and then not do it.

So, what would the recourse be if they made these commitments and then that's not how it played out?

Like would they be prepared to pack up and go?

Would they be prepared to address the community?

Uh like address the concerns, like how would like what would the implications be if they made these commitments where group the um appeal was denied, they were granted to do it, and then it's not how it worked out.

Like what would what's the recourse to the community?

Yes, uh uh Chair Board Member Dalton.

So we are processing, and there is a use permit in process, which does contain specific uh stipulations of approval that um if the property owner is found to be in violation of, and those are related to noise, traffic, um, specifically sort of the circulation patterns associated with the with the facility.

If they are found to be in violation, that use permit could be revoked or brought back to a hearing uh before the development review commission um andor city council.

So those are the measures or the the sort of enforcement mechanisms uh that the city has at its disposal to evaluate and make sure that it's following through on its promises.

So that you know that has been um uh identified um and processed and included in the analysis by staff and and presented to the DRC.

Thank you.

And true.

And uh to you know, go to uh what uh Terrawatt would be willing to do, uh, I would defer to uh Miss Ridel and their team uh about that component.

And I guess I want to get because there's again two prongs.

The detrimental impact on the neighborhood, I you know, it's a similar use, okay.

Even if we buy that it's a similar use is taxi, right?

It's impact on the neighborhood is significantly different than a taxi place.

And I guess my issue would be the traffic and the autonomous driving, it is allowed, but it's still more detrimental than maybe a taxi service, dispatch service, wouldn't it?

Uh Chair Foy, I think the best way that I kind of uh uh envision uh all of this is the similar use ruling is kind of a high-level definitional.

What is this most similar to?

And then the actual scale and impact and and the uh specific nuisances can be addressed through that use permit process.

You know, there's a distinction between um all uses when they're scaled up to a certain point, right?

Um, and that is kind of what the city's use permit process is intended to address.

And so the the similar use ruling is uh more or less just a comparison of all the uses that we have in our zoning code, and it says it's most like this.

This needs a use permit.

We are going to evaluate all of those considerations, traffic, energy, crime prevention, noise, safety, everything through the use permit process.

That's more, it's gonna be addressed more.

Sorry.

Uh that's gonna be addressed more and was addressed more with the you the approval of the use permit and then the appeal of the use permit.

And it wasn't really, I'm sorry, and it wasn't really something that was specifically addressed when making the decision um on the similar use here.

Uh Chair Foy, uh, you know, I well I'll defer Ryan about sort of the the the very specifics, but in terms of you know, just the the crafting of uh the opinion, it is it is looking just purely at what is this generally, what it is what is it most like, and then we apply the uh those specific criteria for a use permit, which include nuisances, which includes traffic um issues, which includes septe considerations, and all of those, you know, we evaluate with our professional staff.

So we've had our transportation staff look at this site.

We've had our septe staff look at this site, we've had fire look at this site.

So um, you know, and all of those concerns have been addressed with those professional staff.

So the fact that these are autonomous vehicles, which is 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.

I'm gonna refer or defer to Mr.

LeBec on on that because that's uh kind of a specific wording.

Um I'm getting a nod from I don't want to speak for him.

Uh the record rule effect that he nodded in agreement.

All right.

I think I know where I stand now.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And I'm gonna open the floor to discussion with the board.

Um, any comments?

Thoughts?

Um, I can tell you, I'm on the fence.

Um, it's it so many of the things that were brought up today, uh, obviously are huge and mean a lot to the neighborhood.

And I'm gonna, you know, I live in Meyer Park.

I never even heard of this until this was put on our thing.

Um, and now that I'm thinking about it, I'm listening to you, but I don't think it's appropriate for what we're doing here, which is so narrow.

And a lot of your concerns should be addressed in use.

That's the way I'm seeing it.

My biggest issue though is the detrimental analysis, like that is part of making this decision.

It's in the code.

You know, if you find this, you know, you're looking at an the two-pronged test, there's you know, annihilate, okay.

If we say it is like a taxi service, which I you know, pretty much I'm okay with it is similar to a taxi service in my buttrimental part, I I just don't know if the analysis was ever done, and it doesn't seem reasonable to me that it would be the same or similar or not worse than a taxi service or then a delivery service.

That's I guess where I'm at.

And I just want to know if anybody else has any thoughts on that.

Well, I have a comment on what you said first about the narrow focus.

Um I would I would disagree a little bit in that sense is that there's a lot of disagreement here in the interpretation.

You have one camp that says why this is the greatest thing in the world, and others that say this is absolutely terrible and will decimate their property.

So that isn't that kind of what the essence of a public board is is for to hear hear those arguments and make an interpretation where the disagreement exists, because really none of this stuff is there's there's not a lot of precedence for this.

And when any of these these purposes, these scopes, these codes were brought into play, nobody thought of like lithium batteries, nobody thought of high charging 24 hour driverless cars.

I mean, it's like the Jetsons.

And uh so, and I don't even think their cars were driverless.

But so what I'm saying here is that we do, I think as a public board, our focus isn't so narrow, and we there is a little bit of autonomy in essence to kind of label that and make that interpretation and clear the path for what could be established in the future.

Well, I think you know, I understand what you're saying, and I don't totally disagree, and it's hard, but we really do have a narrow purpose.

We're the board of adjustment.

We are not um hearing the use permit appeal.

We are hearing an appeal specifically on is it similar and is it more detrimental?

That's it.

Those are the two issues, right?

And so within what you're saying, that is part of the detrimental analysis, in my opinion.

So that's where my my concern is like I just don't see it not being the same as a taxi dispatch or being the same as delivery service or an ambulance service.

That's where I'm having the issue.

Right.

And there is there's disagreement in that narrow focus.

There's there's disagreement where it's some say it's similar to a taxi service, others are saying it's not.

It's uh what did they the one gentleman that was an attorney said that it was uh I can't remember the exact terminology used, but it was like industrial uh like um I can't remember exactly the phrase he used.

But the the but the whole point is is there's there's some disagreement, and that's kind of why we're here to flex.

Right, and no, and that's that's fine.

That's disagreement on the first front.

I totally respect that that you don't agree with me that I think.

I'm not taking a position on that.

I'm just saying there's market for I'm not taking a position necessarily on record, there's just some differences of opinion, and I think that is part of what we're here for.

Um, Chair Foy, I just wanted to say that it's interesting that you're having uh difficulty with the detriment part because I I feel the opposite.

I I do, I feel the opposite.

Frankly, just as we're discussing, I just want to say that I think that the city of Tempe and others in the metro area are approaching things like e-bikes, autonomous vehicles, things that are frankly changing quite rapidly in our transportation systems.

They're doing our their best to figure out how does it fit in our city?

Um, what kind of infrastructure do we have that can accommodate it, what kind do we need to build?

So I think that's all great, and these discussions are important to be having.

But as far as autonomous vehicles go, the safety piece, I mean, like I work in a field where I know a little bit about it.

It's still a growing field, there's still a lot of research happening, but the general consensus is that they are quite safe.

And I think in the infrastructure, if they've been in talks with SRP, as they said, when they do reviews, they have to, you know, they have transportation, they have the fire department, they have the, you know, sorry, I'm a little tired related fields.

I'm sure there's a better way I could phrase that, but they have them way in.

So I don't really have concerns with the infrastructure of that.

I'm more referring back to what member cross said earlier about is this a s a vehicle-based service.

I mean, yes, there are vehicles involved.

But in my interpretation of a vehicle-based service is that you're still serving a person first.

I'm I'm still a little bit caught up on that.

I feel like it's still servicing a particular company.

And I have one last thing to say.

The comparison earlier to a cell phone tower, I don't think is a very good comparison because a cell phone tower, yes, it's tall, but the amount of land it takes up is a lot lower than I think maybe like a vehicle charging station would be.

Anyway, I said my piece.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Sorry, uh members of the board.

Uh just one point of clarification, kind of about the not detrimental than language.

And I think the intent of that language is to, you know, indicate that it is not more detrimental than other land uses contained within the PCC one zoning district, not necessarily relative to the surrounding neighborhoods, because again, we're trying to be location agnostic in this evaluation.

So just wanted to make that point of cover.

Thank you.

I think we need to be location agnostic and also in some ways customer agnostic, because uh like most of my concerns about the proposal relate specifically to the robot cars.

Um I really liked the quote that it's it's battle between the humans and the robots.

Um but at the same time, it reminded me that the land use or the the what is allowed in the zoning code is what it would be built, what installations would be built.

Could you have uh what this is really just an electric service station, and then the use that they need the use permit for is their contract with Waymo to service Waymo autonomous vehicles exclusively, as opposed to having this be just you know, uh an electric car version of a circle K.

Well, so then wouldn't that still be an incorrect like it wouldn't be a vehicle pay based service then?

Like you just you just said it would it's a lot like it's uh offering charging electricity.

I still feel like it would be I don't know, I don't know how accurate.

Well, I mean service station is a place of business having pumps for storage tanks for for liquid fuel dispense in retailly directly into a motor vehicle here instead of liquid fuel, it's electricity.

And it's it's not synonymous, but I think it's a similar use.

It's an electric gas station.

Is that considered vehicle-based service, though?

I thought a service station was like distinct.

I thought that was its own.

Well, but I think I think we're all looking at vehicle-based service as like the only thing from um the zoning administrator's opinion where is he also talked about vehicle service, commercial service parking facilities, service station repair.

Um he signaled out taxi or comparable vehicle related uses.

So we're looking at all the vehicle related uses allowed in the PCC one district.

So gas stations, auto zone.

Other places, Jippy Lube.

Yeah, and that's a kind of the way I look at it, and that's I guess um I I appreciate what you're saying, and I think I almost agree sometimes, and then I go back this way.

Um but I think that it's it's mentioned in here other services, and I think that so I I think that I still think it's a taxi service, and I I don't know.

I I I'm still on the detrimental thing, but I I think it's not, I think and I need to be more uh location agnostic, I guess, because I'm thinking about what everybody has said about the traffic and the safety, and I don't think that that's really appropriate for here.

Not that it's not appropriate to be considered for the use permit, but for what we're doing here today.

Oh, I'll be clear.

I I don't think I want this thing built, but I I don't I'm not prepared to say that they it can't be built in the commercial zoning districts.

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay.

I'm I keep coming back to this idea of the vehicle-based services and the services like courier delivery, taxi, ambulance dispatch, and such.

And I mean a prior life actually running an ambulance company and knowing what it what it takes and how it dispatches it.

And you don't put them in little pockets of uh, you know, residential area, regardless of how it's on.

Is that well, that one that place simply is not big enough to be in Canada's dispatch place, as far as that goes.

Um if you talk about services, this particular site doesn't provide the c doesn't provide services except to electric vehicles.

That's all it does, it charges them, and once in a while cleans them, but it doesn't provide couriers, it doesn't deliver, it doesn't dispatch, it doesn't um coordinate ride share, it simply charges a vehicle, and that's all it's doing.

And if we're analogizing it to all of these other things that go well beyond that, which if we're talking about electric vehicles, require them being charged, but you can charge them anywhere, you can charge them at the library, you can charge them at my house for that matter.

Um it's it's just not grounded well, and maybe that's the problem I'm having.

It the opinion is not grounded well, and maybe it's just because there isn't a way to shoehorn it into PCC one.

Um, and this is also too is again.

I'm I'm kind of hung up on this neighborhood thing because that word is thrown around and it's specifically bracketed next to PCC one, and this doesn't benefit the community.

This doesn't benefit the neighborhood, this does a benefit the people, it benefits um it benefits terawatt and Waymo because the none of these people here could use that if they wanted to.

They technically wouldn't even there'd probably be a sign that says no trespassing private property.

Whereas if there was like a vehicle service station, I could pop in there and say, hey, my car's idle and funny, and some mechanical combine and say, Oh, let's see if we can get you in, or we're booked, but there would be some option to do it.

And you know, this just to be clear is not at least unless I'm missing something.

This isn't benefiting the Meyer Park community, and these neighborhoods, the people in the neighborhood have no ability to use this commercial service.

It's simply that uh um terawatt bought or is leasing the land, and then they are procuring the service to Waymo or whomever they choose.

And so I think that's something to consider in a PCC one determination because it's not the same as if you build a coffee shop, build a library, build a car detailing place, build a marijuana medical, um a marijuana dispensary, uh gun shop, and anything.

It would be you know, people could walk in there and they would have the ability to patronize that.

Nobody in the neighborhood or in this city for that matter has the ability to patronize that from where I'm seeing it.

All right.

And I kind of want to also address um number one, acknowledging that really and truly the city code just isn't made for this.

It's just not.

And in all fairness, you are 100% right.

Yeah, in all fairness, you're 100% right on this.

And that was a very difficult decision.

So you know, Mr.

Levac, they they had to do something.

Like they had a they had to make a ruling, and you know, maybe based on what exists in play, maybe that is the closest thing to something they have.

But he had to do something.

So yeah, yes, I definitely acknowledge that.

So and I I guess if um if we approve the appeal, then we have to go to the second prong.

And I actually um I would actually like a response from staff on this because I just don't see how something so novel that we would we would be responsible for shoehorning it into another um similar use or use.

So if if uh Chris are while he while they're coming up, can I just ask a question?

Sure.

We are if we approve the appeal, we then have to state where we think it should go, right?

But we're not committing it to go there.

Right.

We're simply saying, in our admittedly not great necessarily best judgment, but this is this is a better fit than where they were where it was put before.

Right.

But I want to know why.

Why do we have to do that?

I don't think so.

So it chairfoy, in in most situations where there is a reversal of a decision made, there's a clear direction.

And so we're hoping to get if there is a decision of approval the peel and overturning the decision, we need a clear direction as to where does the land use fall.

Absent that, then we're still kind of maybe back to square one is determining where the appropriate use is.

All right.

And so then having to make another determination absent your involvement in that process.

And so what he said you you could choose to use our direction, or you could find something that's more applicable.

True.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Yeah, yeah.

I just I don't like it in PCC one.

I don't even.

And I I have a thought based on just conversations where I think it should go.

I don't know if I'm allowed to say that here.

Absolutely, please.

It was thrown around by staff, it was thrown around by others that general, and if you look in just start with the applicability and then go all the way down, it says PCC one neighborhood, PCC two general.

And that is referenced uh throughout.

And uh, and it's been said several times that it's this is it's general, not necessarily confined to neighborhood.

And so that that's just uh a thought I had.

Uh, it doesn't mean I'm right, um, but again, there's no real precedence for this anywhere.

You are correct.

There is no precedence for this anywhere.

Um, any other thoughts on where we might direct the zoning administrator to go.

I don't think it's a vehicle-based service.

And I think that's because of the B2B to C nature of it of having to have something downstream of it.

And maybe that's at least pushes it out of PCC one.

Okay.

Or it worked to clarify the error that we're looking for.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Um I would actually posit that it fits might possibly fit in light industrial, but certainly in general industrial.

Okay.

And I know, and I'll say this, we actually talked about that at this at development review.

And of course, passed out of there, but there was some thought that this would be a better fit in in uh an industrial setting rather than where it was because of the industrial nature of it.

Andrew, do you have any opinion?

It's just interesting because I do kind of agree with that, but not to move, I don't want to move too far away from the case because I know we're all tired, but it's just interesting then that like a service station or like a gas station, right?

Could theoretically be built here?

Like I don't know.

I just find that I just think it's a little strange.

I know that's not what we're discussing, but I think that's the the issue is that we have something that's a little unique that the code's not really appropriately addressed in the past and really needs to be changed and updated, but this is what we have.

And um, I think many of us feel like we personally don't want it in PP1, but we have to look at the law and the code and does it fit?

Does it fit as a similar use?

And that's where we're at.

I honestly don't know.

I think a lot of our hang ups are about who they're selling their product to, and I think that is part of the business use use permit, whereas this is the land use.

Can they put a parking lot and 30 charging stations?

And I think the answer to that is yes, and that may be where it's more appropriate.

It might be appropriate in PP1, but instead of saying it's like a vehicle-based service, it's more like a parking lot.

But then there it's it's not to the public, right?

So it's commercial.

But but again, the not to the public part goes to the business use as part of this specific plan, which we we we don't like.

I think I think it's been really hard for us, even us who who kind of understand that this is not the use permit appeal.

And for even me when I walked in, my concerns with the autonomous vehicle customers in heavy air quotes.

Um, but that's part of the business use that they've proposed as opposed to can you build an electric vehicle charging station.

And you're right, you're right.

And and and it I rem I looked at this all day, and that was one the first thing that was on my mind, it's gonna be very hard to separate business use permit and what we're looking at.

And that's why I kept saying it's very specific, very specific, and myself, I've gone beyond that.

Um so uh is does anybody think we're ready for a vote?

Do we need more discussion?

Okay, I'll call the question.

Okay, I will move that we deny the appeal and affirm the opinion of the zoning administrator.

Do I have a second?

Do I have a second?

I'm sorry.

Sorry, I'm used to doing that.

I'll second it for the case for the purpose of a vote.

All right, I'm gonna do a roll call.

Andrea, what a yay or no?

Nay.

Okay, and let's clarify.

Nay means that you disagree with him and you don't want to deny it.

All right, you correct.

Okay, Richard, Robert.

Nay.

Nay.

Yay.

Oh, I'll vote yay.

Nay.

No.

So the nays have it.

Um as a point of order, I think we need to you have to have an affirmative decision.

We have to pass the yes, so somebody else needs to make a motion.

So we need a motion to approve the appeal.

Is there a motion on the floor?

I'll move to approve the appeal of this case.

I'm gonna do a roll call.

Andrea first.

I'll need a second.

Sorry.

I need a second.

I need a second.

I'll move it.

Go ahead.

Oh, wait you know what?

Sean our vice chair just made a very good where we moving it.

What are we recommending?

Um I'll amend the motion.

And that we recommend that it be uh our recommendation be that it fall into the general industrial category, and that potential uses that would fit into that one.

Um let's see until I get there, hold on, would be a fuel distribution station.

Uh and there's another one.

Actually, I think I saw another one there.

Um let's see, no, maybe not.

Um well, since they and uh vehicle service.

Vehicle service and in a general general industrial.

Okay.

Vehicle service is allowed in light industrial as well.

Yeah, but uh the other one isn't.

That's why I'm suggesting too, and I want to keep it in general industrial.

Okay.

General industrial fuel distribution station.

All right.

I'm so sorry, can you like start over your motion so I can fully follow?

I'm sorry.

Okay.

I'm moving to approve the appeal of the of the case in question.

And make the recommendation that it be placed in the general industrial zoning category.

Let's see what exactly do they say it.

And vehicle service to a potential user.

I moved to second.

I Katie.

Uh five to two, right.

My math isn't that great.

So eyes have it five to two.

The motion passed.

The appeal is approved.

Uh, with recommendation that it be put in the general use.

Didn't general industrial uh and the use be either a fuel uh destination station, fueling station.

And uh what was the other one?

Vehicle service.

We will be having I believe we will be having a meeting next month.

We do not have an agenda for you yet.

Okay, what's the um date?

What's the date?

March twenty.

March twenty-fifth is the next Board of Adjustment Hearing, and I believe we will have items on that agenda.

Uh do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Seconded.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.