Monday, May 15, 2017

Not Disclosed? YES, NAVY SEALS ACTUALLY HAVE “JET BOOTS” || WARTHOG 2017

[more than 600 operations] w many special applications outside of military operations. Price tag = $33,900 per unit... not bad for such a fine thing, huh?
Published on May 15, 2017
Views: 4.672
Navy SEALs and weapons super-tech go hand in hand. Naval Special Warfare Command spends big bucks leveraging emerging technologies and testing for real operations. Occassionally, the tech is deployed to the now legendary Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), more popularly known as SEAL Team Six.

SIKORSKY MAKING STRIDES WITH MATRIX AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGY || WARTHOG 2017

[BlackHawk included, and Cessna Fixed-winged aircraft with no pilot, or 2-crew, or lots of passengers in the back.
EMS or night-time military ops or areas too dangerous. It's 'several years away' due to technical and cultural issues
Published on May 15, 2017
Views: 166
Work is continuing apace at Sikorsky Innovations on its Matrix Technology to enable autonomous and optionally piloted flight, as the manufacturer pursues both commercial certification and military qualification for the system.

Blame It On Politics: Who's The Boss? . . . Fault Lines Appear In The Mesa City Council

Some members of the Mesa City Council - including Mayor John Giles - appear to be crossing the line with respect to refraining from making public comments while a litigation is pending: Case-in-Point an incident one week ago when District 3 Council member Ryan Winkle was given a citation for the suspicion of driving under the influence.
Local mainstream media have had a field day splashing sensationalist headlines and releasing a police-cam video that might have prejudiced public perceptions ahead of the presentation of evidence in this case on June 14, 2017.
True that those in-the-public-eye usually do deservedly get more attention for misdemeanors and mistakes - and high regard and praise for the 'good things' they do - it is unusual and dis-honorable for professional public colleagues to publish in social and printed media possibly prejudicial remarks condemning Ryan Winkle in advance of misdemeanor charges that are pending. Whatever happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
Behavior while driving can be modified and rehabilited,
Apparently certain members of the Mesa City Council are reacting in public well in advance of pending traffic court actions showing a big split on the council based on their political motivations: so far it's only been John Giles District 6 Councilmember Kevin Thompson. 
The only voice of reason your MesaZona blogger finds in these circumspect circumstances is what the longest-serving member of the Mesa City Council, Dennis Kavanagh, who was succeeded by Winkle last year as the result of term limits, stating the obvious by chiming in on Sunday with a warning to his former colleagues not to overreact to the arrest.
“Our ethics code offers the city council a range of options it can consider when a member faces misconduct charges. Our ethics code permits the council to vote for censure, reprimand, suspension, monetary penalties as well as removal from office for specified reasons including conduct demonstrating a lack of fitness for office.”
Advocating a “progressive discipline approach,” Kavanaugh wrote:
“A councilmember's boss is not the mayor or the other members of the city council. The voters of District 3 are the ones who placed Ryan on the city council. They have the ability to recall the district council member after the first six months the official is in office and they have the ability to reject that official in the next election, should that member choose to run for re-election.”
“They should be the best judge of whether to remove the councilmember they elected. Remember, none of the other members of the current council, including the mayor, could cast a vote for or against Ryan in the 2016 election.”
Kavanagh's remarks are excerpted from this article written by Jim Walsh on May 15,2017 published in East Valley Tribune was updated 2 hours

Biological Therapies Jump in $5.2B Deal

Thermo Fisher Extends Binge With $5.2 Billion Patheon Deal
by
Ed Hammond
Aaron Kirchfeld
Source:    Bloomberg
The deals adds to the $22 billion in acquisitions announced by Thermo Fisher over the past five years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Patheon will bring not just any medicine ingredients, but the more complex and harder to produce type grown out of living cells. Such biological therapies are increasingly important to drugmakers facing intense competitive pressure, and companies that have pioneered the therapies are now turning to contractors like Patheon to manage costs or make production more efficient.
 “This is a large and high-growth market that opens up new opportunities for us,” Thermo Fisher Chief Executive Officer Marc Casper said on a conference call Monday.
 
Patheon's stock jumped to $34.73 before the U.S. markets opened on Monday. Through Friday, the shares had risen 24 percent since they were sold in an initial public offering in July at $21 each on the New York Stock Exchange. Thermo Fisher’s deal offers a quick post-IPO exit for buyout firm JLL Partners and Dutch vitamin company Royal DSM NV, Patheon’s two biggest shareholders. . . the shares of Thermo Fisher have more than tripled in the past five years, outperforming both the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and peers. The Waltham, Massachusetts-based company, with a market value of more than $67 billion, now offers equipment, instruments and supplies to laboratories and medical research facilities and is a major player in technology used to sequence the human genome.
Including debt, the price comes to about $7.2 billion, Thermo Fisher said in a statement Monday. Thermo Fisher got committed debt financing from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for the deal, and expects to finance the purchase with debt of approximately $5.2 billion and equity of $2 billion. The transaction, expected to close by the end of the year, will boost Thermo Fisher’s earnings per share immediately, according to the statement.
[More details on the Bloomberg link with headline]
 

Shaking Up The Family Tree? . . . We Got Bones!

New Evidence of Mysterious Homo naledi Raises Questions about How Humans Evolved
The much-anticipated dating of the enigmatic species, along with stunning new fossils, challenge key assumptions about human evolution
By Kate Wong on May 10, 2017 in Scientific American
If and when we humans ever figure out how we developed on this entire Planet Earth and when and where our collective species evolved - a concept some people don't believe in - each new announcement in scientific anthropomorphic research seems to always get the pop-up headlines treatment.
Like this one published on May 10, 2017 where southern Africa is the 'hotbed of evolution diversification'. . . or so they say

Sunday, May 14, 2017

When Life Gets Tough > Roll With It HD


Public Hearing Planning & Zoning Board Wed 17 May 2017

Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing
City of Mesa
Meeting Agenda - Tentative
Council Chambers 57 E. First Street @ 4:00 pm/ UpperLevel


Chair Michael Clement
Vice Chair Michelle Dahlke
Board members:
Dane Astle
Steve Ikeda 
Jessica Sarkissian 
Jennifer Duff 
Tim Boyle

Consent Agenda
All items listed with an asterisk (*) will be considered as a group by the Board and will be enacted with one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Board member or citizen requests, in which the item will be removed from the consent agenda, prior to the vote, and considered as a separate item.     
Items on this agenda that must be adopted by ordinance and/or resolution will be on a future City Council agenda.  Anyone interested in attending the City Council public hearing should call the Planning Division at (480) 644-2385 or review the City Council agendas on the City's website at
www.mesaaz.gov to find the agenda on which the item(s) will be placed.
Call meeting to order.
1 Take action on all consent agenda items.
Items on the Consent Agenda


2 Approval of minutes from previous meetings.

PZ 17035 Minutes from the April 17, 2017 and April 18, 2017 study sessions and regular hearing. *2-a
3 Take action on the following zoning cases:
Page 1 City of Mesa Printed on 5/11/2017
May 17, 2017Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing Meeting Agenda - Tentative

PZ 17036 Z17-004  District 1.
The 700 block of North Country Club Drive (east side). Located on the east side of Country Club Drive north of University Drive (3.4± acres). Site Plan Review. 
This request will allow a multi-residential development.
Peter Swingle, Athena Studio, LLC, applicant; Country Club 72, LLC, owner. (PLN2016-00932). 
Planner: Wahid Alam

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*3-a

PZ 17037 Z17-015  District 2. 
The 400 block of South Higley Road (east side). Located on the east side of Higley Road south of Broadway Road (2.5 ± acres). Site Plan Review.
This request will allow for development of a self-storage facility.
Philip Gollon, ARC Services, Inc., applicant; Nathan Palmer, Intelliguard Self Storage, LLC, owner. (PLN2017-00109).
Planner: Kim Steadman

Staff Recommendation: Continuance to June 21, 2017
*3-b

PZ 17038 Z17-016 District 3. 
1343 South Gilbert Road (east side). Located on the east side of Gilbert Road north of Hampton Avenue (1.23 ± acres). Site Plan Modification.
This request will allow for development of a restaurant with a drive-thru.
Cody Bowman, ID Studio 4, applicant; Amin Dhanani, owner. (PLN2017-00113).
Planner: Wahid Alam

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*3-c

PZ 17043 Z17-019 District 6.
The 10000 to 10800 block of East Point Twenty-Two Boulevard (north side) and the 9600 to 10400 block of East Elliot Road (south side). Located between Point Twenty-Two Boulevard and Elliot Road and between the Eastmark Parkway alignment and Signal Butte Road. (738± acres). Development Unit Plan.
This request will approve Development Unit Plan 5/6 within the Eastmark Community Plan. Jill Hegardt, DMB, Inc., applicant;
DMB Mesa Proving Grounds, owner.
(PLN2017-00083). (Companion Case to Preliminary Plat "DU 5/6s")
(Associated with Item *5-a.) 
Planner: Tom Ellsworth
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*3-d

4 Discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council on the following zoning cases:
Page 2 City of Mesa Printed on 5/11/2017
May 17, 2017Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing Meeting Agenda - Tentative

PZ 17039 Z16-023 District 5.  
The 2400 to 2600 blocks of North Greenfield Road  (west side). Located south of McDowell Road on the west side of Greenfield Road (69.34± acres).
Rezone from PEP-PAD (formerly DMP) and PS-PAD to PEP-PAD (63.59± acres) and PS-PAD (5.75± acres) (removing conditions of approval) and
modifying the development master plan (project narrative) for zoning case Z08-022.
This request will allow development of a business park.
William Jabjiniak, City of Mesa, applicant;
City of Mesa, owner. (PLN2016-00217). Continued from April 18, 2017
Staff Planner: Tom Ellsworth

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*4-a

PZ 17040 Z17-014 District 5.   
The 8700 to 9000 blocks of East Main Street (south side). Located south of Main Street and west of Ellsworth Road (36.58± acres). 
Rezone from Maricopa County C-3 and RU-43 to City of Mesa GC and RS-43.
This request will establish City zoning on recently annexed property.
City of Mesa, applicant;
Rodger Overson, owner. (PLN2017-00124).
Continued from April 19, 2017
Planner: Kim Steadman

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*4-b

PZ 17041 Z17-017  District 5.
The 1100 block of North Ellsworth Road (west side). Located on the west side of Ellsworth Road south of Brown Road (4.84 ± acres).
Rezone from RS-43 to LC-BIZ and Site Plan Review.
This request will allow a self-storage facility.
Adam Baugh, Withey Morris, PLC, applicant; Magic Gifts, LLC, owner. (PLN2017-00121).
Planner: Wahid Alam

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*4-c

PZ 17042 Z17-018  District 4. 
The 400 block of South Bellview (east side). Located south of Broadway Road and east of Mesa Drive (.5± acres).
Rezone from NC to RSL-4.5.
This will allow for the development of 3 single residential lots.
Kim Fallbeck, City of Mesa, applicant;
City of Mesa, owner. (PLN2017-00243).
Planner: Lesley Davis

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*4-d
Page 3 City of Mesa Printed on 5/11/2017
May 17, 2017Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing Meeting Agenda - Tentative

PZ 17044 Z17-020 District 1.
The 2400 to 2800 block of East Thomas Road (north side).  Located north of Thomas Road and west of Lindsay Road alignment.  (13.3 ± acres)
Rezone from Maricopa County RU-43 to City of Mesa RS-43.
This request will establish City zoning on recently annexed property.
City of Mesa, applicant;
City of Mesa, owner. (PLN2017-00162).
Planner: Kim Steadman

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*4-e

5 Discuss and take action on the following preliminary plat:
PZ 17045 “DU 5/6” District 6. 
The 10000 to 10800 block of East Point Twenty-Two Boulevard (north side) and the 9600 to 10400 block of East Elliot Road (south side). Located between Point Twenty-Two Boulevard and Elliot Road and between the Eastmark Parkway alignment and Signal Butte Road. (252.4± acres).
Preliminary Plat. Jill Hegardt, DMB, Inc.,
applicant; DMB Mesa Proving Grounds, owner. (Companion Case to Z17-019)
 (Associated with Item *3-d.) (PLN2015-00450). 
Staff Planner:   Tom Ellsworth

Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*5-a

6 Review, discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the following proposed amendment to the Mesa Zoning Ordinance:
PZ 17046 [see added section to see report]
Proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Section 11-31-34 regarding medical marijuana facilities, including dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and infusion facilities. *6-a
Items not on the Consent Agenda
7 Other Business.
7-a Receive a presentation and discuss the draft update to the City of Mesa Sign Ordinance.
8 Adjournment.

___________________________________________________________________________

*6a
PZ 17046 Proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Section 11-31-34 regarding medical marijuana facilities, including dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and infusion facilities.

Planning and Zoning Board Report      
DATE:  May 17, 2017

TO:  Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: John Wesley, Planning Director 
SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana Facilities – Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding separation from churches     
PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would modify the required separation for a medical marijuana facility from a church. The proposed amendment would remove the setback for churches located in zoning districts other than a residential district; the 1,200’ separation would remain for churches located in residential zoning districts (RS, RM, DR, T3N, T4N, and T5N Districts).  
The impetus to make these changes is based on experience we are having in implementing the current separation of 1,200’.  Because churches can locate in any zoning district and do not require any special permitting, they can easily locate in industrial and commercial centers without staff being aware they are there. 

We have had two instances where there has been a church with very little signage in a strip center that went unnoticed by staff and the applicant early in the review process.  
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In 2010 the voters in Arizona approved a ballot measure allowing for the use of medical marijuana in Arizona.  Mesa, along with all other jurisdictions in Arizona, had to amend their local regulations to address this new use. 
Mesa’s regulations are contained in Section 11-31-34 of our zoning ordinance. 
The ordinance approved by Council provides reasonable zoning regulations while still protecting citizens from potential negative impacts.   
The zoning regulations for medical marijuana facilities include both cultivation facilities and dispensaries.  The regulations, as adopted by Council, include restricting the use to industrial zoning districts and separation requirements from other uses (schools, churches, libraries, parks) where youth may congregate.       

 2
The requirements for both dispensaries and cultivation facilities are: 
Medical Marijuana Facility Required zoning district LI, GI Separation requirements:     Between dispensaries 5,280’ Between dispensaries and off-site cultivation facilities 2,400’ Between cultivation facilities 2,400’ From residential substance abuse, alcohol rehabilitation, or Correctional Transitional Housing facilities 2,400’ From public parks in LI or GI, churches, libraries, schools,  1,200’ From day-care centers, pre-schools, public parks (except in LI or GI), privately owned open space in HOA’s 500’ 

Since the adoption of the ordinance we have had several years of actual application of the ordinance and operation of these facilities to learn from. 
Based on this experience we see the need to make some adjustments in the ordinance to address the actual impacts of the use and the operational process of implementing the ordinance.  Staff believes it is time to do a thorough review of our ordinance, compare it with other jurisdictions, and evaluate the actual impacts we have experienced.  This will take several months to complete.   
In the meantime, staff is proposing a minor change to the regulation based on a one specific issue that we believe needs to be addressed now.

In two instances, we have processed requests for medical marijuana dispensaries where there ended up being a conflict with a church.  Churches are allowed by right in any zoning district. This makes it easy for churches to locate in industrial and commercial areas without being noticed.  We have had two situations over the last couple of years where a church has gone undetected.  In both cases the church was in a strip center with very little signage.  In one case the church was found prior to the action on a rezoning case, in the other it was not discovered until after the dispensary was in operation. 
To address this specific issue and still mitigate any potential adverse impacts, staff has reviewed a variety of options.  These options have included everything from reducing the separation requirement for churches to 900 feet or 500 feet to eliminating the requirement in all districts.  Given that the issue is finding the smaller churches that locate in non-residential areas, reducing the separation requirement would not solve the issue.  Further, until we do the more thorough study we did want to remove the protection from the churches in residential areas. 
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends amending the code to remove the setback for churches located in zoning districts other than a residential district; the 1,200’ separation would remain for churches located in residential zoning districts (RS, RM, DR, T3N, T4N, and T5N Districts). The reason being if a church chooses to locate in a non-residential area they must expect and understand that there will be a variety of uses and activities around them, some that may be very intense.  Typically, these are generally small churches that will generally be occupied during times when the dispensary or cultivation facility will be closed