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

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 
Attachment E

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