Attachment G - Opposition - Z-8-19-8.pdf

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Jeff Meyer <jmeyer@desertcarelr.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:10 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
Item #8  for the Planning Commission Meeting on 11/5/20 - Case #Z-8-19-8
Dear Planning Commission: 
I am a neighbor  to the applicant on the west side and operate a landscape business  adjacent to  planned “Green 
Waste”. 
I would like to support the PUD,  but don’t feel there has been enough vented in the neighborhood in respect to this use 
on the property.  As the plan stands currently it will allow up to 225,000 cubic feet of green waste debris within the 
dimensions of the space should it be approved by the Planning Commission. 
I feel a more appropriate size for this portion of the use  would be (100’ X 100’ X 6’ in height), and would support the 
PUD if this portion of the use could  be shrunk down to this desired size.  
Besides the fire that took place within this space in November of 2019 the amount of rodents and insects that will be 
attracted to this property will be overwhelming. 
Again,  I feel  something needs to be addressed in respect to the size of the Green Waste areas that will be allowed?  At 
what point  will the  City  step in and stop allowing such large  volumes  of space be dedicated for this type (Green 
Waste)  of  particular use, and at what point does the use  exceed  standards and or  safety concerns for any   particular 
neighborhood? 
Thank you for your consideration. 
Jeff A. Meyer 
President  
Desert Care Landscape Resources, LLC 
(602) 549‐5434 
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10 
Attachment G

From:
Trent Marchuk
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
Re: Environmental Remediation Facility and Proecessing Green Waste (Z-8-19-8 - ELS PUD)
Date:
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:23:08 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Thank you Enrique for the background and context. That was super helpful - especially
knowing the fire dept is actively involved. 
What do you think about including in the PUD:
1) the below draft use regulations for Green Waste that was based on the environmental
remediation use requirements in 603.A.15? This would outline the need for a use permit and
other measures sympathetic to the surrounding neighborhood. This would allow the neighbors
security in knowing the use would be subject to review and requirements imposed by the city
through the use permit process (Section 307) and ensure basic neighborly considerations are
adhered to. 
2) additional permitted use restrictions placed on the PUD for car sales, marijuana cultivation,
public assembly, etc? These are in 603.A.15-18. 
The neighbors have signaled to me they like both ideas. 
Also, heads up that the neighbors would like the city to implement a cap on the size of green
waste processing permitted next to residential neighborhoods - at least in connection with this
PUD. 
Thank you,
Trent 
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:11 PM Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola <enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov> wrote:
Good evening Trent,
 
How are you? My apologies for missing your call earlier today, just had a chance to check
my voicemail and saw your email.
 
The “Environmental Remediation Facility” and “Green Waste Processing Area” are two
different uses. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), defines an
“Environmental Remediation Facility”: https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/202
[phoenix.municipal.codes]
 
In summary, environmental remediation facilities are set up to remove pollutants or
hazardous materials/chemicals from the ground to remediate existing pollution and return

the land to a stable condition (in more general terms). A common example could be when
gasoline storage tanks are removed from a former gas station, and there is a requirement to
remove existing pollutants that may have seeped into the ground an environmental
remediation facility can be set up (per the Zoning Ordinance requirements) to locate site
equipment that will help remove pollutants from the ground.
 
This PUD is my first interaction with a “green waste” area for a landscape contractor yard or
similar use. The Zoning Ordinance does not define a “green waste” area necessarily, thus we
would refer to the PUD for guidance which would consider the “green waste” area an
accessory use to the primary use of the site (landscape contractor yard/office). I recently
looked at similar PUD cases within the South Mountain Village approved in the past few
years, and found two PUD’s that allowed a landscape contractor yard, but none of these
PUD’s contained standards for a “green waste” area.
 
The Fire Department provided comments on this case, Z-8-19-8, and stated that the site shall
comply with the Phoenix Fire Code. This means that if the PUD gets approved, the applicant
will file technical documents (site plan, etc.) to review the site for compliance with all of the
codes/ordinances, including the Phoenix Fire Code.
 
Let me know if questions arise! 
 
Thank you,
[google.com]
 
[google.com]
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street [google.com]
Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]
Office: [google.com](602 [google.com]) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple
times per day.  Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. 
Thank you.***
 
 
 
 
 
From: Trent Marchuk <trentchristopher@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 2:40 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola <enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Environmental Remediation Facility and Proecessing Green Waste (Z-8-19-8 -
ELS PUD)
 
Hi Enrique,
 
The neighbors have asked that somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] take a look at the
ELS PUD.  
 
Per vmail, I believe that "Environmental Remediation Facility" and "processing green
waste" are different yet in some regards seem similar in nature.
 
How has the city dealt with the processing of green waste in other parcels around the city
adjacent to homes?
 
For regulation of green waste processing, would it make sense to adopt some (or all) of the

use restrictions already documented in Section 603.A.15?  
 
In addition to perhaps modifying 603.A.15 for Green Waste, I would also advocate to port
over 603.A.15-18, regulating the use of environmental remediation, car sales, marijuana
cultivation, and public assembly on the land.  
 
My hunch is if we did the above, the PUD would become palatable to the neighbors -
especially if the Green Waste Processing were subject to a use permit (Section 307) and the
Fire Code portion were taken into consideration.
 
https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/603 [phoenix.municipal.codes]
 
Here is my quick edit attempt at adapting of 603.A.15 to Green Waste Processing for the
ELS PUD...
 
Environmental remediation facility Green Waste Processing, subject to the following
conditions:
a. A use permit shall be obtained in accordance with Section 307 of this ordinance.
b. The aboveground area of land occupied by the Environmental remediation facility Green
Waste Processing   shall not exceed the minimum number of square feet necessary to
implement the remedial or corrective action processing.
c. All structures and devices constructed and material to be processed above ground level
shall be shielded from the view of persons outside the property boundary by an opaque fence
constructed of materials of similar composition and appearance to fences and structures on
nearby property.
d. Outdoor equipment installed as part of the final environmental remediation facility in
support of green waste processing shall not exceed a height of ten feet and shall be set back
from the perimeter wall a minimum of three feet for every one foot of height over six feet.
e. After installation, no equipment or materials beyond that necessary to operate the
facility process green waste shall be stored on the lot.
f. A perimeter landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning and Development
Department as necessary unless an applicable approved landscape plan already exists.
g. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from adjacent residential
districts. Noise, odor, or vibration shall not be emitted any time by the facility so that it

exceeds the general level of noise, odor, or vibration emitted by uses outside the site. Such
comparison shall be made at the boundary of the lot on which the treatment facility is
located.
h. Neither the Zoning Administrator nor the Board of Adjustment shall have the jurisdiction
to grant variances from these provisions.
i. The facility shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Fire Code.
(j) A permit issued under Section 307 shall include reasonable restrictions on the operation
of the facility to mitigate any adverse impacts on nearby land, including but not limited to,
restrictions on vehicular traffic and hours of operation of the facility.
(k) This section allows authorization of activities to undertake all on-site investigative,
construction, and maintenance activities ancillary to the operation of the facility. All off-site
discharges of any substance shall be separately authorized pursuant to applicable laws.
(l) The structures used for the facility shall not exceed a total area of five thousand square
feet.
 
Welcome you thoughts/guidance,
Trent

November 4, 2020 
 
Rezoning Application for ELS: Case no. Z-8-19-8  
 
Enrique, 
 
First, Enrique did an excellent job with the virtual meeting for the SMVPC held on 10.13.2020. But, right 
from the onset one of the committee members had technical difficulties with his audio that took a while 
for him to resolve. Second, these audio technical difficulties continued to occur throughout the course 
of the meeting. Third, the initial vote to be cast was to deny the applicant. There were 6 in favor and 7 
that weren’t in favor. However, at least one of the committee members got disconnected in the process 
while the votes were being cast.  
It was then Enrique mentioned they should wait to let her get reconnected. Nevertheless, there was one 
or two committee members in particular that weren’t in favor of denying the applicant that were shall 
we say crafty in quickly moving the vote forward to in essence hijack the voting process.  Then these 
same individuals motioned to approve the applicant. Unbeknownst, to those in favor there was a virtual 
walk-out in protest of the conduct of their contemporaries. So, with only those committee members   
favor of remaining, Enrique had to adhere to the forum and adjourn the meeting with no vote to 
approve the applicant. 
Once again there appears to be one more violation and disregard of any rules of conduct. Furthermore, 
how unbecoming; no how appalling to hear how some of the committee members talked down to their 
contemporaries throughout with whom they didn’t want to hear speak and with such disregard for the 
existence of a human being. This is one rule based on my experience that’s followed top down in this 
process. How unnecessary and unfortunate for those who take such measures in order to advance their 
self- interest.  
I never would’ve believed what began with my infant son being stung in his crib would lead me to this 
juncture from observing the dumping practices of the applicant commencing a decade ago to this 
juncture. But, I will leave that for another day and only address this instant matter once again.  You are 
aware this goes beyond the waste the applicant dumps on their site and the hazard it presents to those 
in close proximity too.  
Of course, you know better this isn’t a hard industrial zoned area. They wouldn’t be able to conduct 
themselves in this manner if they were on an arterial street in the Gila Bend. But, you chose knowing 
this to endorse and approve their PUD zoning application previously.  The massive pile of green waste 
that is a mainstay on their premises that dwarfs the size of no other in the business is not the only crux 
of the matter with this applicant. You know I’m not the kind of person that would file a lawsuit without 
merit.

Here’s the deal; since their site is cleaned up now like the pictures Jack has shown us, I thought I’d go 
out one more time and take pictures today of their site and of their competitors’ sites in order to give 
you a few more comparisons. Truly, it is the best I’ve ever seen it and it still looks like a junk yard in an 
unincorporated area. The greenhouse structures that align the back of their parcels adjacent to our 
properties have that look of abandonment. They have been nothing more than a catch all, littered with 
trash and grown up weeds for over a decade. In other places there are piles of junk, old car parts, 
wrecked vehicles that look abandoned, piles of junk and more trash and vehicles parked all over the 
premises. See ELS pictures marked (Exhibit A).  
Like I said in the virtual meeting, the document I sent to you was done prior to the second clean-up of 
the premises. I took these pictures while they were doing the clean-up to prepare for the meeting with 
the SMVPC meeting on October 13, 2020. This is the only the 2nd time in all of these years they have 
removed the waste from their premises. Otherwise, it has always remained like as evidenced in the 
pictures taken the day of the fire on Thanksgiving 2019. 
The first cleanup only occurred for that photo shoot when Jack made his pitch to the SMVPC prior to the 
scheduled vote on Tuesday, December 10, 2019.  That’s when he made the initial request on behalf of 
his clients to change the perimeter and interior landscape design for their so called concerns for their 
neighbors and water conservation desires in order to be good citizens on the planet. Nonetheless, it 
took them a year to come to make this last minute decision.  
Of course, it had nothing to do with making sure no one outside of their premises could ever see 
anything again like the fire the chose not to disclose and even if they weren’t so cheap they can’t build a 
wall high to keep that from happening too.  It is obvious for anyone to discern unless they are 
compromised due to their self-interest. It’s the methods in which they operate in order to deceive you 
too that are the reasons we’ve got an attorney on retainer.  
I only attended two meetings representing us and not once but twice Jack falsely presented how well 
they maintained the property when he took the photos where they had removed the green waste two 
weeks prior to the virtual meeting held on October 13, 2020.  Nevertheless, he didn’t present to you any 
true pictures of the rest of the property nor has he ever. Apparently, fool me once shame on me fool me 
twice shame on you isn’t applicable. See attached marked (Exhibit B). 
Like I said to you in my previous email Enrique, when Jack told us in the virtual meeting that he took 
those pictures of their site a couple of weeks before the last meeting where it was all cleaned up. In that 
instance he was speaking truthfully. But, don’t take my word for it listen to the audio recording for 
yourself for that meeting. It would behoove Samantha to do the same. But, that was only for the photo 
shoot once again just like before that you are now aware of from the pictures I took the very next 
morning and sent to you Enrique.

The next set of photos we took were taken this summer in June and July mostly and a few in August.  
The waste alone is nothing more than a nesting ground for rats, scorpions and rodents see (Exhibit C). 
It’s obvious they save a huge amount in operational expenses to have operated in this way all of these 
years. The time savings factor in labor cost alone has to be significant to plop 1.6 million dollar in cash 
for 6 acres of S-1 dirt in 2008 prior to the recession.   
Nevertheless once the recession hit full swing that’s when from what we saw them dumping on their 
site they were doing more than just landscape contracting, yet we said nothing and let them carry on 
running their business until this process unfolded. So, it must be extreemly cost effective for them to do 
it this way then not to interrupt their business cycle versus even grinding it down and hauling it all away.  
Because, they only grind enough debris to keep a pathway open for their work trucks to continue to 
drive up and dump their landscaping debris every day uninterrupted. They typically grind the debris up 
on and off for an hour or two beginning early in the morning right before sunrise to reduce the size of 
the piles and eventually fill up some of the box trailers on site. Just think about how much debris 
remains a constant with what Jack has given you in the tonnage amount that has been reduced to loose 
dirt that they hall off periodically. 
You might wonder how we know this because they wake us up when they’re grinding the debris. See 
audio recordings attached in the adjacent email and marked (Exhibit D). You might wonder how we 
knew they were cleaning the waste up expeditiously in September like they had only done like that once 
before. Because, we could hear them grinding up the debris non-stop for a few weeks and noticed the 
semi-truck from Arizona Wood Grind & Recycling pulling in out constantly to pick up the box trailers.  
See photos marked (Exhibit E).  
Jack sure has done a bang up job concealing how they run their operation. He must be really close 
friends with the owners since he’s known them for decades. He’s been doing this for over 40 years and 
now I’m beginning to wonder if he is really that close with the owner at ELS or this is his standard of 
practice too. I want to crystal clear with everyone involved from Sandy the chairperson for the SMVPC 
who operated in a less than transparent way at times to Enrique who was very professional while being 
kind and considerate. This is atypical of me it is not my nature to call people out, but this continuous 
approach from the end user to the decision makers that have endorsed this project knowing they’ve 
been putting people in harm’s way has left me with no other option, but to speak in this tone and act in 
this manner.  
ELS are the only contractors on landscape row in this specific area Southern Avenue that uses a yellow 
metal machine to grind up their debris and haul it away as described. They keep their beat up box 
trailers adjacent to our properties in plain sight. They must keep there so that they are out way in order 
their fleet of trucks that arrive from the job sites to dump their debris in the afternoon.  
You can see from the pictures taken yesterday of their competitors properties every single one them 
takes care of their premises and the safety of their employees is of primary concern. I have been to AAA 
on several different occasions and it always looks the way it does in the pictures from yesterday. There 
is no green waste, trash, old cars that remains on their property. They have been in business just as long 
as ELS too.

Now look closely at these next two pictures taken this summer of ELS where the pickup trucks are 
returning to dump the debris from their attached trailers marked (Exhibit F). Compare the height of the 
debris to their laborers and the height of the box trailers and t’s even higher at times. Living next door to 
an operation that has no concern for their neighbors is one thing. Listening to them grind up debris in 
the morning like they are ripping up the concrete sidewalks right up to your front door is another.  
Truly, it’s impossible for us not to notice how they operate and when they’ve been dumping stuff at 
times that is not green waste all of these years. It’s mind blowing and to think it’s all in plain sight and 
they continue doing it while they are seeking your approval to rezone. How cheap are they to not put up 
a screen along their chain length fence that’s adjacent to the north end of my property.  
And the screen they had out front on Southern covering their chain length fence it was ripped up and 
had fallen down in a few areas for an extended period of time for anyone to see. Its perpendicular to 
that newer class “A” apartment complex that I think is called Southern Lofts. They aren’t that stupid 
they just don’t care. I mean did you really do they still think you were going to buy into the reason they 
wanted to change the perimeter and interior landscape buffers was for the reasons Jack mentioned? 
Furthermore, I wonder if the owners live anywhere near this community.  Because, they don’t know 
much about it or they would have jumped all over my previous offer. I can think of two non-profits close 
by that could’ve provided them with their well needed laborers. But, don’t take my word for it reach out 
to them instead. They are Gangs to Jobs and Phoenix Hustle.  
Our intentions and actions are in alignment since you left with no other choice. Of course, as Jack 
mentioned the unmanned fire and how they applicants responded was the tipping point for us. 
However, it’s their continued ways in being deceptive and cavalier attitude that’s persisted that was the 
final straw. BTW, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen flumes of smoke coming from their business that 
didn’t come from the exhaust of a truck or a barbecue they were throwing for their employees. 
Here’s one more example of their callousness marked (Exhibit G). Who knows how big this fire was, but 
I do know it came from their property. I noticed it in the afternoon on May 1, 2020, but I only caught the 
tail end after coming back from the grocery store walking from my garage to the back door of my house. 
I don’t have time to run over every time I see something circumspect. Although, according to Jack from 
the voice mail left me last spring,” they’ve never had another fire on the property in the 40 some years 
they have been in business”.  
 
Respectfully, 
 
 
Paul C. Van Buren

From:
Paul Van Buren
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
AAA, HMS & Desert Care
Date:
Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:26:19 PM
Enrique,
I meant to include in the document these  pictures as an exhibit too. I have more from all of
these companies. There's a couple in particular that I wanted to send AAA if it's not included.
One's of their offices and eating area for their employees and there other is a sign they have
posted when you pull in with the number of days where no employee has been injured on the
job. I don't recall the number specifically, but I think it's close to 900 days. I'm not privy to go
into the details, but the laborers that work for ELS are not treated the same as the ones who
work at AAA. If you need anything else lmk.
Paul

Jack, 
 
When I replied ok to your text on Friday in response to your availabilities to meet the beginning 
of this week. There was not one word said or any implication that I would meet today or 
tomorrow either.  And I responded promptly to your text this morning that you sent at 11:22 
AM when you said you were ready to meet.  As I said, I was out and would get back to you later.   
Let’s address this again to be clear after all that I shared with you and your client who attended 
the December meeting with you too.  Your recollection differs from mine, but it is verifiable to 
everyone that was present in the room. When I initially said, I would work with you providing 
your clients would to give back to the community.  I recorded the meeting as well from the time 
you began until after the final vote to postpone. 
So, this is not a figment of my imagination nor is it a direct quote. However, it couldn’t have 
been that difficult for you to miss when I stated it the first time to everyone in attendance. 
Because, I was only given 3 minutes to talk in front of the Committee, which allowed me to 
address a few key points and nothing more.  In fact, the moderator timed me with his watch, 
visually using his fingers counting down the minutes until he told me that my time was up.  
This occurred after your extended dissertation with an unlimited amount of time when you 
went into great detail ELS’s reasoning to change their landscape buffer with a new tree line 
north to south along the western edge of their property line. You remember don’t you in how 
you portrayed at your client’s behest the benefits to their neighbors in changing the designated 
landscape proposal with a new tree line to enclose this portion of their property north to south. 
One that would grow fairly tall and quickly creating a more advantageous barrier and 
ecologically friendly landscape buffer that would also satisfy Jeff Meyer with Desert Care. Since, 
it was his desire for your client to construct a block wall.  This is per the Committee member 
who said he had a conversation with Jeff about this issue. 
You replied that you had talked with Jeff on the phone about the new landscape buffer along 
his property line and he confirmed to you that he was ok with it or something to that affect. I 
don’t know if that’s true, but you went on to say soon thereafter that you had discussed with 
me over the phone their proposal along the southern portion of the property that’s adjacent to 
mine and that I was ok with it too.  
But, that’s not true I haven’t expressed an agreement to anything period much less we have 
never had a single conversation over the phone. In all fairness, you did mention to me in an 
email they were going to install landscape screening along or on their fence that’s adjacent to 
the northern portion of my property.

Jack, all of our communications have been via email with a few texts back and forth. 
Furthermore, to set the record straight; I don’t know nor have I met or had any communication 
with Jeff or anyone affiliated with Desert Care. I don’t know nor have I ever met or had any 
communication with anyone on the Committee up until the meeting on December 10, 2019. 
Now that I’m thinking about it unless you want to call my reply to a group email you sent that 
included Jeff from Desert Care, Kay Shepard and whomever else.  I guess that could technically 
count as one communication.  But, I only know of Kay Shepard in that she’s a local realtor.  I 
didn’t know she was on the Committee nor have I ever met or communicated with her before.  
Of course, I have heard of Greg Brownwell who owns the Farm. But, I had never met him or had 
any communication with him prior to the Committee Meeting.  I thought his last name was 
Bromwell not Brownwell.  Truly, it was serendipitous when he said; they had been duped 
before by a landscaping company as you were standing there duping them again.  
I did pick up his business card on the table when I was leaving the Committee Meeting. It was 
the only one there to my knowledge.  He was copied in some of our email correspondences 
since he was the only person on the committee that I had any contact information for other 
than Samantha and Nick in Planning.   
I don’t have to be this transparent or forthcoming. I have no personal agenda nor do I gain any 
pleasure in approaching you in this manner. That’s not an advantageous measure when being 
confronted with a choice as consequential as this one.  But, there may come a point when it’s 
not in our best interest for me to continue communicating with you.    
I never take these decisions lightly especially when going up against anyone with the 
wherewithal of company the size of ELS or for that matter an entity as large as the City of 
Phoenix. Nevertheless, we have gone up against the Giants when confronted with no other 
choice and won. 
Beyond the fire that neither you nor the owner in attendance had any intention of mentioning 
occurred. I was perplexed by most of your answers and the owners input too.  After all you said 
or didn’t say at the Meeting and before in your emails. I was being genuine and sincere even 
when I stopped to tell you both again on my way out the door that I would work with you. 
I said it again that I would work with you providing they would give back to the community in 
some manner.  Not even a price to pay even though it was blatantly clear you and the owner 
were being disingenuous.  That said we have given your client’s multiple chances to display 
good faith to no avail.  Still you continue to press for meeting now and for what reason? 
That unmanned gasoline fire that was just a few feet away from igniting unlimited amounts of 
cubic yards in tonnages of alleged “green waste” alone. Again that’s what you’ve consistently 
called it, but the pictures include more than just green waste. That is assuming the pictures 
were delivered by Nick and seen by everyone on the committee?

Nevertheless, I am perplexed by Nick’s misrepresentation of my words in an email he sent to 
you and the committee in regards to my awareness and agreement to not include the Narrative 
with the exhibits. Neither did his reasoning when I replied that it wasn’t true make sense nor 
did his follow up email add up as well. But, he assured me the most of the committee members 
had read the Narrative assuming that is true as well? 
Back to your landscaping request to change, had those environmentally friendly trees been in 
place you were proposing a few years prior to this fire over Thanksgiving weekend. Based on 
your description of their coverage and how quickly you stated they would grow. That fire 
would’ve ignited all of that “green” waste quickly spreading out of control to adjoining homes. 
The neighbors adjacent that contacted the fire department wouldn’t have noticed it in time and 
they would’ve been in harm’s way. We find it hard to believe after all that is known and out in 
the open now.  There’s not been one word said in your correspondences expressing any regret, 
remorse or concern on your part or from your client or even gratitude for being there for them.   
There appears to be a lack of conscience knowing the consequences could’ve easily been far 
reaching. It’s as if there’s no understanding a catastrophe could’ve easily occurred with this 
family and there were several children present.  Of course, the potential was there for a much 
larger fire to have broken out had they not called the fire department quickly.  
Not to mention the damage that could’ve been done to their property. But they could’ve 
endangered the lives of others potentially not just the homes and business nearby. Just one 
more perplexing thing when I mentioned your answers and the owners input were perplexing 
even beyond the hiding of this fire.  
Remember, when you were asked by one of the committee members the cost advantages in 
storing the alleged “green waste” on site. Think back to your answer and I will share with you 
one more fact over the years in pictures. That parcel of land, approximately (7) seven acres they 
paid well over a million dollars for the middle part of last decade. It has been overwhelmingly 
used for the sole purpose of dumping this alleged “green waste” for over a decade. That’s how 
advantageous it is for your client to dump whatever the desire on their property.  
We think it’s great they can afford to sponsor a little league baseball team and supply books to 
their employee’s children.  We are aware of how they treat your workers too.  In fact, I’ve 
talked to several of them this past year and one at length last Saturday.  That said, we still 
chose to extend to them another olive branch and they quickly rejected our offer.  
Sincerely, 
 
Paul Van Buren

From:
Mary Hagerty
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
Z-8-19
Date:
Tuesday, September 1, 2020 3:37:26 PM
Hi Enrique,
This email is in response to Z-8-19.  Please add this email to the case file.
As we are concerned that the rezoning to PUD could open up future unforeseen uses, and to
codify the MUA further as the applicant has expressed willingness to do, we ask the following
stipulations be added - or wording that is substantially similar:
1. "The development will be in general conformance to the site plan, land use plan,
and/or permitted use submitted with the Z-8-19 application.  Any changes to the site
plan, land use plan, or permitted use will be forwarded to the City Council by the
Planning Hearing Officer.  The Village Planning Committee will make
recommendations on any changes to the site plan prior to the Planning Hearing
Officer review.  The City Council may hold a public hearing if the site plan is
appealed from the Planning Hearing Officer."
2.  "The development guidelines of the Baseline Area Master Plan are to be met to the
extent the specific standards listed above do not address those more general
guidelines." 
1. Therefore, we support Jack Gilmore to not have to put in a solid block wall.
2. Block walls are not encouraged in the MUA
3. Remove the exception for parking or set a minimum landscaping setback for parking
along the frontage
1. PUD currently states: 40 feet, with an exception for existing structures and
parking for 35% of the frontage
2. MUA states: Average 35' along arterial/collector streets, minimum 30'
permitted for up to 50% of the frontage
If the following uses could be permitted under the proposed PUD application, we ask that the
corresponding permitted use restrictions carry over from S-1 Section 603:
Section 603.A.9 - Fundraising events
Section 603.A.14 - Nondaily newspaper delivery service
Section 603.A.15 - Environmental Remediation Facility
Section 603.A.16 - Sale of vehicles
Section 603.A.17 - Non-profit medical marijuana cultivation
Section 603.A.18 - Public Assembly
Thank you,
Mary A Hagerty
Ravenswood

From:
Jack Gilmore
To:
Jeff Meyer
Cc:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Austin Meyer; Alison Meyer; Vincent Rector; "Jimmy Castine"; "Ryan Pike "
Subject:
RE: City of Phoenix - Question on case Z-8-19-8 - ELS PUD
Date:
Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:24:53 PM
Jeff:
 
No problem of course on the reply to all..  I have some calls into ELS to discuss some ideas…   The
225,000CF assumes that ELS would completely fill the defined area that is 300’ x 125’ then 6’ in height. 
That has never happened.  The schedule below shows how much green waste is grinded and removed
from the property.  During the spring, summer, and fall those loads average 10-11CY’s that are
removed at least 3 and sometimes 4 times per month.  At 10-12 loads per pickup, that is 27,000 –
34,200 CF per pickup, well be low the 225,000 you are concerned about.  The largest load is 14CY and
that equates to 37,800 Cubic Feet (37,800/225,000  which 17% of the 225,000CF).   
 
I will be receiving an updated version of this green waste pickup schedule from last September to a
date more current and will share.   If we shift the green waste further east and reduce the area, I
believe we can get to your goal.  Let me review some options with ELS and get back to you…
 
Best
 
Jack
 
 
Green waste Grinding and
Removal
           Schedule Jan-Sept
2019
          100 cubic yards per
load
Date
Loads
 
Date
Loads
 
Date
Loads
1/7/2019
2
4/1/2019
8
7/8/2019
7
1/11/2019
4
4/5/2019
13
7/16/2019
10
1/24/2019
3
4/15/2019
1
7/22/2019
6
2/4/2019
8
5/6/2019
8
7/25/2019
2
2/21/2019
12
5/13/2019
13
8/19/2019
11
3/4/2019
10
5/24/2019
12
8/27/2019
7
3/11/2019
14
6/3/2019
2
8/29/2019
10
3/18/2019
12
6/10/2019
7
9/10/2019
8
3/25/2019
12
 
6/17/2019
6
 
9/11/2019
5
 
 
 
Jack Gilmore

2211 N 7th Street
Phoenix, AZ  85006
p. 602 266 5622 \ c. 602 999 8860
jgilmore@getgilmore.com
http://www.getgilmore.com/ [getgilmore.com]
 
 
Thank you for considering the environment before printing this e-mail
 
 
From: Jeff Meyer <jmeyer@desertcarelr.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:56 AM
To: Jack Gilmore <jgilmore@getgilmore.com>
Cc: enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov; Austin Meyer <acmeyer@desertcarelr.com>; Alison
Meyer <ameyer@desertcarelr.com>; Vincent Rector <vrector@desertcarelr.com>
Subject: RE: City of Phoenix - Question on case Z-8-19-8 - ELS PUD
 
Jack,
 
I would appreciate you coping  everyone on your response to my  correspondence please. 
 
We would agree to put up some cash for a block wall, however paying for  half to support ELS’s
 endeavor  doesn’t feel right. …..maybe 25%?   We would still expect some trees to be planted as a
barrier as previously proposed.
 
Jack,  we have provided input on this PUD  for going on 2 years now, and I am tired of repeating
myself!  The following sentence is from my e-mail to you on October 3, 2019 when I was referring to
the green waste.   “Your client  is suggesting up to  225,000 cubic feet of area for this  use?   This is
almost an acre of space at a height of  6 feet.   I am sorry, but not sure we can  support this plan, and
would like to  see this space cut back drastically, with a better use for a majority of this  space  please.”
 
Moving the waste area still doesn’t address all the issues in our opinion.  The cubic footage of 225,0000
cubic  feet needs to be reduced by 1/3rd  for us to support and previously mentioned.
 
Thank you!
 
Jeff A. Meyer
President
Desert Care Landscape Resources, LLC
jmeyer@desertcarelr.com
(602) 549-5434 (C)

From: Jack Gilmore <jgilmore@getgilmore.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:37 AM
To: Jeff Meyer <jmeyer@desertcarelr.com>
Subject: Re: City of Phoenix - Question on case Z-8-19-8 - ELS PUD
 
Jeff:
If a wall is considered, are you willing to split that expense?  At this point ELS is still grinding their green
waste and it is removed from the property.  If ELS were to shift their waste area further east so there
would be a 175’ separation, would that reduce your concern and gain support?
Jack
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 16, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Jeff Meyer <jmeyer@desertcarelr.com> wrote:
Jack,
 
I  heard you stopped by our offices yesterday.  I know the world seems to have stopped to
some degree in respect to zoning hearings during these unprecedented times. Hopefully
the world for all of us will change here soon!
 
What has changed in respect to the green waste storage and removal process since we
first met with the owners  at ELS?  This is and has been  my “Beef” in supporting this
project from moving forward!!
 
The piles of debris  often exceed 6 feet in height, and are too large and not manageable  in
our opinion.  The debris needs to be more limited and confined  in space and  moved out
more  often. More rodents are attracted to the debris and piles  in its current state , and
for the owner to say “ there has been only one  fire in all the years of their operation
within the compost”…….well that is one too many fires  for us as their neighbors.  Resolve
these items and we will support the PUD……..It’s that simple!
 
Additionally, the visuals of the operation, and the noise can become  pretty intense at
times.  You may recall that I  had request a block wall to replace the current chain link
fence as our division.
 
Again, the forementioned items need to be addressed and  resolved in order   for us to
consider  supporting  this PUD.  I have copied Enrique at the City of Phoenix as he seems
to be the first Planner that has  expressed an interest in what we have to say. 
 
If the owners come back with a plan over the next two weeks that we can agree upon and

amend……… then great!  If not then we will plan on sending  our attorney to the next
scheduled SMVPC meeting to address this on our behalf.
 
Thanks for checking in.
 
Jeff A. Meyer
President
Desert Care Landscape Resources, LLC
jmeyer@desertcarelr.com
 
 
<image004.jpg>
 
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola <enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:56 AM
To: Jeff Meyer <jmeyer@desertcarelr.com>
Subject: City of Phoenix - Question on case Z-8-19-8 - ELS PUD
 
Good morning Jeff,
 
Thanks again for your call today regarding case Z-8-19-8 and your concerns with some of
the standards proposed by the applicant in their narrative. My recommendation would be
to review the applicant’s narrative in more detail to review the standards that are
proposed by the applicant. This narrative and staff report can be found through the
following webpage (see under Year 2019, Case Z-8-19-8):
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
 
Then, I would recommend making a list of the specific standards that you would like to
change in the narrative. You can send me the list of standards and I can share this with the
applicant and also with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee once the case
returns for a public meeting. If the applicant does not agree with making these changes,
then I would recommend attending the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
(SMVPC) meeting and asking the committee to make the changes in the applicant’s
narrative by adding some new stipulations to the case.
 
If the SMVPC does not agree with making these changes, the next public body to hear this
case will be the Planning Commission (PC). You can also attend this public meeting and ask
the PC to make these changes in the applicant’s narrative. A similar step can be taken with
the City Council (CC) which is the last public body to hear the case, and the one to make a
final decision (approval or denial).
 
In terms of zoning compliance, the standards in the PUD narrative would become the
standards that the city would enforce on this property (if this rezoning case is approved).
Meaning, that if any of the PUD standards are not met, the city can cite the property
owner until the property comes into compliance or escalate the compliance process. The
Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) would be tasked with the zoning enforcement
process.

Please contact me with any other questions! (Email works best since I am mostly working
remotely from home, but you can also leave me a voicemail and I will return your call in
24-48 hours).
 
Regards,
 
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
 
<image001.png>
 
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails
multiple times per day.  Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more
timely response.  Thank you.***

From:
Jeff Meyer
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc:
Alison Meyer; Vincent Rector; Austin Meyer; Brandon Grimes
Subject:
City of Phoenix - Question on case Z-8-19-8 - ELS PUD
Date:
Friday, October 9, 2020 4:31:44 AM
Good Morning Enrique,
 
After some discussions with our attorney she is suggesting that  I provide a statement as to our position
on the above case, and requested  that you share this e-mail with the South Mountain VPC committee
for the upcoming meeting scheduled on October 13th.  
 
As you may  recall I am representing  Desert Care Landscape Resource, and we are the neighbor to the
west on the backside of the ELS parcel that is referenced  within the case in the subject line above.
 
As the  applicants neighbor I have shared previously  that  we have had  some concerns over the years
as to the upkeep of their   property as seen from our adjoining parcel. The applicant has been very lacks
 in respect to keeping things clean and  orderly and has not demonstrated much  “Pride of Ownership”
as  the appearance of their property that is not seen from Southern Avenue.  
 
The following bullets are items that we would like to see amended to the  PUD  in order for our
company  to support this application.  All of our requests reference changes as to  gaining acceptance
to  the  “Green Waste” area that the applicant  would like to see  incorporated into their plan.
 
As the plan stands currently the applicant is  requesting the green waste area to be within 50
feet of  our property.  I  received a  previous e-mail correspondence from Mr. Gilmore the land
planner for the applicant  on  September 16th  that eluded to the fact that the applicant would
entertain  moving the green  waste area further away  than the  50 feet that is currently
planned.  He shared that there would be consideration to move the green waste up  to 175’ feet 
to the north and  east, which would please us,  and  serve as a better  barrier between the
properties.  The following is an excerpt of Mr. Gilmores e-mail  correspondence,  and I would be
happy to forward the original  e-mail in its entirety to the SMVPC committee if requested.
 
Jeff:
If a wall is considered, are you willing to split that expense?  At this point ELS is still grinding their green
waste and it is removed from the property.  If ELS were to shift their waste area further east so there
would be a 175’ separation, would that reduce your concern and gain support?
Jack
In the statement above Mr. Gilmore mentions splitting the expense of a block wall.  Our
company initially offered to pay for 25% of the wall since this PUD request was published,
however  would now  agree to equally share in the expense of the wall,  and again  feel that this
needed for us to support the PUD.    We have enough insect and rodent issues in the
neighborhood as it stands now, without adding this additional green waste  space that the
applicant is requesting.  Having an adjoining  wall  with the applicant will  not completely make
our property  invincible  to attracting pests of the green waste area,  but  it will help satisfy our
needs in  acting  as a sufficient barrier, in addition to  the Hopseed  bushes that are being

proposed by the applicant.  Again, we  request the installation of the  wall, and would agree to
split the expense with the applicant as suggested by Mr. Gilmore above.
 
Below are additional  contents of  another e-mail from Mr. Gilmore that was  sent  on September
16th, and again is highlighted in RED. Our  last point of contention deals with the  size of the
green waste area that is being  desired by  applicant.  Previous e-mail correspondence from our
company has pointed out that the applicant could have up to 225,000 CF of green waste should
they maximize the requested  space.  We have  had numerous  conversations with  Mr. Gilmore
that it was our desire to see a smaller footprint of green waste,  and had requested that the
applicant consider reducing  the desired space  by up to   1/3rd.   Having the green waste  area
moved to the east and reducing the  size  allows our company to feel more comfortable with the
threat of a fire taking place as their neighbor.  The applicant has acknowledged that they have
had a previous fire,  within this  green waste area.  Having a   smaller footprint, keeping a  further
 distance, and having  a block wall  as the  barrier  will provide our company with the necessary
 safe guard and security to the situation.  Based on the e-mail contents supplied by Mr. Gilmore
below it would seem that the applicant would  not need to be considering  such  a large space of
300’ x 125’ anyways, so why won’t the applicant consider downsizing the desired space, and
managing their risk of  a another fire?
 
Jeff:
The 225,000CF assumes that ELS would completely fill the defined area that is 300’ x 125’ then 6’ in
height.  That has never happened.  The schedule below shows how much green waste is grinded and
removed from the property.  During the spring, summer, and fall those loads average 10-11CY’s that
are removed at least 3 and sometimes 4 times per month.  At 10-12 loads per pickup, that is 27,000 –
34,200 CF per pickup, well be low the 225,000 you are concerned about.  The largest load is 14CY and
that equates to 37,800 Cubic Feet (37,800/225,000  which 17% of the 225,000CF).   
 
I will be receiving an updated version of this green waste pickup schedule from last September to a
date more current and will share.   If we shift the green waste further east and reduce the area, I
believe we can get to your goal.  Let me review some options with ELS and get back to you…
 
Best
 
Jack
 
 
Green waste Grinding and
Removal
           Schedule Jan-Sept
2019
          100 cubic yards per
load
Date
Loads
 
Date
Loads
 
Date
Loads
1/7/2019
2
4/1/2019
8
7/8/2019
7
1/11/2019
4
4/5/2019
13
7/16/2019
10
1/24/2019
3
4/15/2019
1
7/22/2019
6

2/4/2019
8
5/6/2019
8
7/25/2019
2
2/21/2019
12
5/13/2019
13
8/19/2019
11
3/4/2019
10
5/24/2019
12
8/27/2019
7
3/11/2019
14
6/3/2019
2
8/29/2019
10
3/18/2019
12
6/10/2019
7
9/10/2019
8
3/25/2019
12
 
6/17/2019
6
 
9/11/2019
5
 
 
Once again I can supply you with the contents of the original e-mail if necessary. 
 
In conclusion we request that the SMVPC  be provided with a copy of this e-mail for the meeting next
week, and it is our hope that the  3 bullet points that we have presented are addressed by the applicant
prior to granting any  approval. The last e-mail above from Mr. Gilmore  states that he would circle back
to us with a proposed plan of shifting the location of the green waste site, which has not happened.   
We started conversations with Mr. Gilmore  on this subject  in March of 2019 and surely something
could have been done by the applicant in addressing  our concerns of these previously requested and
stated  items.
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Jeff A. Meyer
President
Desert Care Landscape Resources, LLC
jmeyer@desertcarelr.com
(602) 549-5434 (C)

From:
Paul Van Buren
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
SMVPC Virtual Meeting @ 6PM on 10.13.2020 - Rezoning Application - Z-8-19-8 - MCP Holdings LP (ELS)
Date:
Tuesday, October 13, 2020 5:52:32 PM
Enrique,
I just sent you an email with 8 attachments. Please, verify that you have received and
distributed to the members of the committee. Also, I've requested time to speak, but my ISP
(internet) has been acting up today. So, just in case I lose my connection there is a 2 page
description attached that will take the place of my time allotted to speak. My phone number is
(602) 791-8090
Paul

From:
Carla Van Buren
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
Reistering to Speak at the SMVPC Meeting tonight 10.13.20 - Item 5 on the agenda regarding ELS rezoning case
Date:
Tuesday, October 13, 2020 5:46:10 PM
Attachments:
SMVPC Mtg. docx. 10.13.2020.docx
MCP Holdings 104-56-003F (2).pdf
MCP Land Holdings docx.10.13.20.pdf
Enrique, Please distribute the attached documents to the committee members

To the members of the South Mountain Village Planning Committee, 
 
We wouldn’t be in opposition to this rezoning request. If we had the least bit of confidence that once 
the applicant received approval they would adhere to basic minimum standards of care.  However, the 
place remains a dump and we are certain based on past experience right up to the present day. Once, 
they receive approval they will continue to operate in the same manner and disregard for others.  
It is clear and evident they will continue to use this site to dump whatever they choose to call green 
waste. We know that is not always the case. They have options available to them presently with the 28 
acres they own near the new 202 S. Mountain Freeway. Where there are no residential properties 
adjacent and they can dump their debris efficiently and cost effectively.  
The single event on Thanksgiving 2019 was only one example. The pictures that were scanned and then 
emailed to you by Nick Klimek were of extremely poor quality too. I have more pictures taken from my 
roof over the years too. I would gladly share them with you as well. Regarding their past history they will 
stop at nothing; to include when they were previously warned about employing non-documented 
workers only to do it again then get fined and almost shut down.  
According to Samantha the head planner, if they don’t get the zoning in place they won’t have a place to 
operate their business and all of those employees will be out of a job. They have the zoning in place they 
need now. They could’ve easily relocated their nursery (see adjacent parcel maps) onto the western 
portion/half of their site and moved their green waste dumping to their 28 acres of vacant land at 67th 
Ave. and Broadway. Then continued operations on the site since the eastern half / portion of their site 
have the hard zoning in place presently.  
From what I understand the adjoining neighborhood has made some recommendations and will go 
along with the rezoning request. However, they aren’t aware to the extent we are what goes on next 
door. In other words it’s not in their back yard. How would you like it to step out your back door and see 
a bunch of empty trailers and trucks dumping debris all day long (see pictures attached). Not to mention 
the nerve racking noise early in the mornings when they grind the debris.  
The first PAD approval for the property owner occurred with no notification to the best of my 
knowledge to any of the property owners in the required distance. The next adjacent property owner 
operates a towing business under the radar screen. The next property owner adjacent to the subject site 
and to the west of my property is the beginning stages of the development process with plans to build 
nine homes.  
Of course, he is using Jack as his landscape architect like the previous owner of that property stated that 
he was planning to live there and build three more houses. Nevertheless, he built a small dwelling on his 
property and chose to not pull a permit even for the electric. There was a family living there with small 
children, but it appears they move and now someone else is living there.  All I know is I’ve heard a baby 
crying from time to time.

So, that only leaves Gary and I left within the required distance of the adjacent property. The next 
closest residences are either vacant or used for commercial applications for the most part. We are all for 
working together to find common ground. But, what motivation does ELS have to work with us once 
they get the rezoning approval.   
ELS has only cleaned this site up once in over a decade. That initial cleanup began a week after the fire 
to their tractor in November 2019.  We thought cool they finally cleaned this place up and keep it this 
way. Since they’re going to rezone it maybe they would maintain things well enough for us to not have 
to be concerned about another potential catastrophe?  
We thought they were cleaning it up due to the fact that Alex the captain of the fire department on the 
day of the fire said, “I’m going to pay them a visit next week and if they don’t clean up this fire hazard 
they won’t be able to rezone their property”. I don’t know if Alex paid them a visit, but I do know that 
didn’t appear to be the reason they began to clean their site up like it had never been cleaned up 
before.  
Because, it appeared their intentions were to clean it up take pictures to show you at the SMVPC village 
planning committee last December.  Since, the pictures that Jack presented to you were of that area 
that had been smoothed over with their tractors where they hauled off all that debris. Only to make it 
look like a fresh clean site for the photos they presented that day.  
But, that was all a charade and it was right back to where it was previously right after the meeting within 
a very short period of time. I hope these pictures come through to you and like I said, we have more too. 
Although, it’s not as easy to see now since they’ve put up a dirt barrier blocking our vision.  But, the 
mega tonnage of green waste and trash are still visible.  So, we can still see everything we need to 
include the long lines of trucks dumping in the afternoon see pictures attached.  
In conclusion, we prefer a landscape company in this location. If we could only find a way to hold them 
accountable and get those trailers moved elsewhere. I’m sorry their property is such an eyesore. And 
there are times early in the morning at sun rise when it sounds like they are ripping up the sidewalks in 
front of our houses.  Wonder how they would have handled this situation if it were next door to their 
homes in some master planned community? 
If we really had it out for ELS then we would’ve done something about it a long time ago.  Nonetheless, 
we have kept track of some of the things we have noticed all these years. It’s impossible not to and just 
in case something worse would happen like the loss of life. That fire over the Thanksgiving holiday is not 
the only time we’ve seen large flumes of smoke coming from their property even though Jack said that 
to me in a text message last winter (see picture attached from May 1, 2020).  But, you can only see the 
large flume of smoke since we couldn’t get close enough to take more pictures. What really gets us is 
their callousness!

MCP Holdings LP - APN 104-56-003F -12.53 Acres - 6340 W.
Broadway Rd

From:
Paul Van Buren
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
Pictures taken of ELS on 10.14.2020
Date:
Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38:16 PM
Enrique,
I meant to send you some pictures that I took earlier this morning, but I am just now getting
the time.  You can see contrary to Jack's continuous untruths it  is not as he presented. 
However, when he said the picture he showed us last night of the very small pile he was
speaking the truth.  This pile is less than a few weeks old .  I took some from my backyard and
others from an adjacent property with permission.  Please, confirm that you have received my
email and that you've distributed my email with pictures attached to ALL the Planners and
ALL the members of the SMPC as well.  I will get back to you with a follow up email. 
Best,
Paul