Wednesday, January 06, 2021
1st Mesa City Council Meeting of New Year 2021 > REMOTE ZOOM + So Much To Slide By
https://mesa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx 
PUBLIC HEARING > Item 8a ANNEXATION CASE ANX20-00241 (337 ACRES)
Total Assessed Valuation of private land ................................ $41,236
| File #: | 21-0031 |
| Type: | Public Hearing | Status: | Agenda Ready |
| In control: | City Council |
| On agenda: | 1/11/2021 |
| Title: | Public hearing prior to the release of the petition for signatures for the proposed annexation case ANX20-00242, located north of Pecos Road and east of Ellsworth Road (337.0± acres). This request has been initiated by the applicant, Dennis Newcomb, Beus, Gilbert, McGroder, PLLC, for the owner, Pacific Proving, LLC. (District 6) |
| Attachments: | 1. Council Report, 2. Annexation Map, 3. Annexation Petition |
City Council Report
Date: January 11, 2021
To: City Council
Through: Natalie Lewis, Assistant City Manager
From: Christine Zielonka, Development Services Director Nana Appiah, Planning Director
Subject: Public Hearing prior to the release of the petition for signatures for annexation case ANX20-00242, located north of Pecos Road and east of Ellsworth Road (337.0± acres). Council District 6
Purpose and Recommendation
The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to conduct a public hearing on the proposed annexation of 337.0+ acres (see Exhibit “A”).
State Statute requires the blank annexation petition to be recorded prior to the public hearing (A.R.S. §9-471A). The blank petition was recorded on December 14, 2020.
The subject annexation request was initiated by the applicant, Dennis Newcomb, Beus, Gilbert, McGroder, PLLC for the owner, Pacific Proving, LLC.
Following the public hearing, the annexation petition will be released for property owner signature. Once the signatures have been received, the annexation ordinance will be scheduled for the City Council’s consideration and adoption. Staff anticipates making a recommendation of approval for the annexation.
Background
The annexation area consists of one undeveloped parcel generally located on the south side of the Williams Field Road alignment, specifically between Ellsworth Road and the Crismon Road alignment as well as the Crismon Road alignment right-of-way located on the eastern side of the property (see Exhibit ‘A”).
The applicant is requesting annexation to develop the parcel within the corporate limits of the City of Mesa.
Currently, the site consists of two zoning districts within Maricopa County. Specifically, 295.3± acres of the subject property (Area 1) are zoned Industrial 2 (IND-2) with the remaining 41.7± acres (Area 2) zoned Single Residence 43 (RU-43).
The annexation ordinance will establish City of Mesa zoning designation of Light Industrial (LI) on the 295.3± acre portion of the site that is currently zoned IND-2 in Maricopa County and City of Mesa zoning designation of Agriculture (AG) on the remaining 41.7± acre of the site currently zoned RU-43 in Maricopa County.
Subsequent to the annexation, the applicant will submit an application to rezone the AG portion of the property to Leisure and Recreation (LR).
2
Discussion
The proposed annexation area is completely surrounded by the existing City of Mesa corporate boundaries and is within the City of Mesa Planning Area. The subject property has a General Plan character area designation of “Mixed Use Community”.
Upon annexation, any development of the subject property will be required to comply with City of Mesa development standards, including storm water retention, street improvements, landscaping, screening, and signage.
> The City will also collect the development fees as well as supply water and gas utilities. Utilities and City services are already provided in the area and extension of these services will have minimal impact on the City.
> The City of Mesa Departments/Divisions of Transportation, Fire, Solid Waste, and Water Resources have provided comments related to the future development of the property; however, none of the comments pertain to the annexation of the current vacant land.
Planning
State Statute requires the City to adopt a zoning classification that permits densities and uses no greater than those permitted by the County on newly annexed land (A.R.S. §9-471-L). The property is currently zoned IND-2 and RU-43 in Maricopa County. City of Mesa zoning designations of LI and AG will be established through the annexation ordinance.
Fiscal Impact
Annexation of this land will result in the collection of any future secondary property tax, construction tax, and development fees generated from the land.
Notification
The annexation site has been posted and notifications have been sent to all property owners and county agencies as required by state statute (A.R.S. §9-471).
GENERAL INFORMATION Area ....................................................................................... 337.0± Acres Population ............................................................................... 0 People
Dwelling Units ........................................................................ 0 Homes
Existing Businesses ................................................................ 0 Businesses
Arterial Streets ........................................................................ 1.25± miles
Total Owners .......................................................................... 1 Owner Total
Assessed Valuation of private land ................................ $41,236
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM 3 = RELEASE OF 8 "APPROVED MINUTES" going back to Oct 29, 2020
| File #: | 21-0015 |
| Type: | Minutes | Status: | Agenda Ready |
| In control: | City Council |
| On agenda: | 1/11/2021 |
| Title: | Approval of minutes of previous meetings as written. |
| Attachments: | 1. October 29, 2020 Study, 2. November 5, 2020 Study, 3. November 12, 2020 Study, 4. November 19, 2020 Study, 5. December 1, 2020 Study, 6. December 8, 2020 Study, 7. December 8, 2020 Regular, 8. December 14, 2020 Study |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ More > 17 CONTRACTS Here's just one on the Consent Agenda Item *5-b
| File #: | 21-0027 |
| Type: | Contract | Status: | Agenda Ready |
| In control: | City Council |
| On agenda: | 1/11/2021 |
| Title: | Three-Year Term Contract with Six Years of Renewal Options for Wireless Voice, Data, Equipment, Products, and Services for Citywide Use (Citywide) This contract provides for the purchase of a wide variety of wireless devices and services. In mid-2014, the City transitioned to a pool plan program that enabled the City to save on wireless voice, data, equipment, and services. Through this program, City devices draw from the Citywide voice or data allowance, if usage exceeds an individual plan’s limit (mitigating overage charges). In addition, equipment upgrades can be leveraged from a Citywide perspective, allowing aging or failing devices to be replaced as needed. The Department of Innovation and Technology, Mesa Fire and Medical, Mesa Police, and Water Resources Departments and Purchasing recommend authorizing the purchase using the NASPO/State of Arizona cooperative contracts with AT&T; DiscountCell; T-Mobile; and Verizon Wireless; Year 1 at $2,039,000, Year 2 at $2,267,000, and ... |
| Attachments: | 1. Council Report |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more > Item *5-k $3,300,000 annually to replace damaged or rusted streetlight poles
| File #: | 21-0024 |
| Type: | Contract | Status: | Agenda Ready |
| In control: | City Council |
| On agenda: | 1/11/2021 |
| Title: | One-Year Renewal with a One-Year Renewal Option to the Term Contract for Streetlight Maintenance, Installation/Removal, and Rusted Pole Replacements for the Transportation Department (Citywide) The City maintains over 41,000 streetlights. Contractors are needed to supplement City crews for the replacement of damaged or rusted streetlight poles, foundations, fixtures, and cabinets. Contractors are also used for the installation of new streetlights along with performing various maintenance activities. The Transportation Department and Purchasing recommend authorizing the renewal with Brooks Bros Utility Contractors, LLC; Contractors West, Inc.; and CS Construction, Inc., at $3,300,000 annually, with an annual increase allowance of up to 5%, or the adjusted Consumer Price Index. |
| Attachments: | 1. Council Report |
From The Verge > Go read these stories about the use of spy satellite images in environmental studies
Fostering Connections In The Neighborhoods With A Raffle For "A Little Library"? ...only one in each District
Love Your City Little Library Raffle in Mesa
The colorful little libraries were painted by volunteers during Mesa's 2019 Love Your City Service Day. To participate in the raffle, visit www.mesaaz.gov/littlelibraries. Winners must be willing to install the little libraries at the address submitted on the raffle form within Mesa and meet requirements set forth by the Mesa Little Library program. . . A Little Library is a "take a book, return a book" free book exchange. They come in many shapes and sizes, but the most common version is a small wooden box of books. Anyone may take a book or bring a book to share. More information is available at www.mesaaz.gov/littlelibraries.
Contact: Kevin Christopher
Tel. 480-644-4699
kevin.christopher@mesaaz.gov
More from a previous post on this blog 2 years and 6 months ago:
There's been one inside the Mesa Urban Garden for at least four years. Another one in the 'urban parklet' on Main Street next to Milano's Music and another one at El Rancho de Sol as of June 2018.
Little Libraries Program comes to Mesa
This year, the City of Mesa is committed to funding a minimum of six libraries with opportunities to expand if community interest increases. All applicants will be reviewed on a first come, first serve basis, subject to availability of funds, completion of required paperwork and project approval by the Neighborhood Outreach Office. . .
_________________________________________________________________
Read more >> http://www.mesanow.org/news/public/article/2129
The numbers were published as you can see.
Are people holding them accountable?
Are the lines of communication open?
How can those questions be put aside in a representative democracy when there's a recognized disconnect in the direct network from citizens of Mesa to those who get elected?
Never mind those questions for now if you can, but recognize there is a problem and that it can't necessarily get solved by outsourcing the solutions to "a start-up group" that hopes that its unique twist on social networking will help bring people back together????
FACT: In a city with a population of over 475,000 there were about 10,000 users -
That's a participation rate or sampling of about 2% and includes only those who made the choice to register as a user and signed-on
Tuesday, January 05, 2021
Time To Process Information from Techdirt Yesterday - 5 or more articles
Seven Years Ago, CERN Gave Open Access A Huge Boost; Now It's Doing The Same For Open Data
from the tim-berners-lee-would-be-proud dept
Techdirt readers will be very familiar with CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research (the acronym comes from the French version: Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire). It's best known for two things: being the birthplace of the World Wide Web, and home to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator. Over 12,000 scientists of 110 nationalities, from institutes in more than 70 countries, work at CERN. Between them, they produce a huge quantity of scientific papers. That made CERN's decision in 2013 to release nearly all of its published articles as open access one of the most important milestones in the field of academic publishing. Since 2014, CERN has published 40,000 open access articles. But as Techdirt has noted, open access is just the start. As well as the final reports on academic work, what is also needed is the underlying data. Making that data freely available allows others to check the analysis, and to use it for further investigation -- for example, by combining it with data from elsewhere. The push for open data has been underway for a while, and has just received a big boost from CERN:
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.
Filed Under: experiments, knowledge, open access, open data, science, sharing
Companies: cern
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obscure Analytics Tool Helps Cops Make Sense Of All That Location Data They're Grabbing Without A Warrant
from the flying-under-the-radar-love dept
FOIA requests, leaked documents, data breaches, Congressional testimony… all of these have led to the outing of cellphone surveillance tech utilized by law enforcement. As far back as 2014, Chris Soghoian -- former ACLU "technologist" and current Senator Wyden advisor -- was telling cops their "secret" Stingray devices weren't all that secret anymore.
But the market for tracking people via their cellphones remains uncornered. For the most part, Stingrays (cell tower spoofers) need warrants to operate. The same goes for demanding weeks or months of historical cell site location data from service providers.
The courts may be deciding there's a bit more Fourth Amendment to go around these days, but cops seem to be deciding there's more Fourth than ever that should be avoided. New tools, toys, and tactics are in play. "Reverse warrants" contain the word "warrant," but they demand info on every cellphone user in a certain area at a certain time, flipping probable cause on its head. Data brokers collecting location data from apps sell access to law enforcement agencies, allowing them to engage in tracking that would be unconstitutional if it involved cell service providers.
There's a lot of data flowing towards law enforcement agencies. But it's useless if it can't be analyzed. That's where a little known company steps in, giving cops a way to wrangle all that subpoenaed data into something actionable. The Intercept's Sam Richards has the details. . .
Hawk Analytics is smart. It's built for the long run. Even if courts find mass collections of location data worthy of Fourth Amendment protections, cops will still be looking for someone to help them parse all the data they've obtained. Third-party data brokers may see their fortunes fall, but CellHawk will still be there to analyze the output of those that survive.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, analytics, cellhawk, law enforcement, location data, police, private data
Companies: hawk analytics
Judge Refuses To Extradite Julian Assange, Citing US Prison Conditions & Assange's Mental Health
from the a-slight-win-for-journalism dept
Even if you think that Julian Assange conspired against the US with the help of Russia, as some allege, you should still be extremely concerned about the US's prosecution of him. As we've explained, the details in the indictment would criminalize many activities that journalists do every single day. It would be a massive expansion of how the Espionage Act was interpreted and would try to blame him for hacking he had nothing to do with.
So, at least for now, it's good to see that a UK court has refused to extradite Assange to the US. The reasons have little to do with the sketchiness of the underlying case, but rather is a condemnation of US prison conditions. The judge notes that in Assange's current mental state, he'd likely end up killing himself if placed in the US prison system, but rejected the claims from Assange that the prosecution is politically motivated, and therefore invalid. . .
I agree that it's good that the extradition attempt has failed for now, but I'm extremely worried about the judge rejecting the free speech/journalism/political attack arguments. Again, much of what Assange did -- even if you disagree with it or think it was done under the auspices of a foreign country -- should not be considered criminal. The descriptions in the indictment could easily apply to tons of journalists, both in the US and abroad.
Whether or not Assange is a horrible person is unrelated to the legal principles at stake. The entire case appears to be a politically motivated attack on publishing embarrassing documents, and that should raise significant 1st Amendment questions.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, espionage act, extradition, free speech, journalism, julian assange, uk, us
Malware Merchant NSO Group Caught Leaving Harvested Location Data Exposed
from the oh-well-'little-people'-aren't-the-end-users-so-who-cares dept
Israeli surveillance tech firm NSO Group is something else. (Pejorative, yo.) It set up shop in a contested country where it's not all that paranoid to say everyone is out to get them. (But it's still a little paranoid, if not a lot racist.) That being said, Israel doesn't have a lot of nearby allies. And its ongoing conflict with Palestine hasn't made it any new friends.
You'd think a government contractor operating out of this space would be more judicious with its sales efforts. But finding new customers seems to be more important to NSO Group than defending its own country against attacks. NSO has sold its pervasive surveillance products -- ones that leverage popular messaging apps to create spy-holes in end-to-end encryption -- to anyone who wants them, including those that would turn these tools against Israeli citizens, journalists, and activists.
NSO has enabled a global war on dissent and criticism. It's not the only company that takes a hands-off approach to sales -- justifying the money in its pocket with claims it's nothing more than an exploit-hawking middleman. This has earned it some justifiable disdain. It has also earned it lawsuits, including one filed by a company too big to ignore: Facebook.
Multiple governments have purchased exploits from NSO, resulting in a worldwide war on journalists and activists. This makes NSO richer. But it doesn't make the company any smarter. NSO and Israel briefly joined forces to engage in domestic surveillance, utilizing NSO's malware to facilitate COVID contact tracing -- an effort swiftly blocked by an Israeli court. . .
NSO may be trying to rehabilitate its image by offering its considerable surveillance power to the fight against COVID, but its efforts show it's really still just in the business of collecting everything it can while expanding its user base to whoever's willing to buy -- even if it includes foreign enemies.
A failure to secure a database -- even if it's only filled with "trial" data -- is a monumental self-own. This indicates NSO isn't nearly as careful as it should be, considering the wealth of data/communications it helps government agencies siphon from targets' devices. When millions of people around the world are just grist for the surveillance mill, it rarely seems imperative to protect the data you've harvested from them. The only thing that matters to NSO is surveillance and the profit made. Collateral damage doesn't affect its bottom line -- not when there's a host of human rights violators lining up to buy your goods.
Filed Under: data breach, exploits, hacking, location data, security, surveillance
Companies: nso group
60 Minutes Episode Is Pure Misleading Moral Panic About Section 230; Blames Unrelated Issues On It
from the oh-come-on dept
I have a browser open with about a dozen different bad and wrong takes on Section 230 that one day I may write about, but on Sunday night, 60 Minutes jumped to the head of the line with an utterly ridiculous moral panic filled with false information on Section 230. The only saving grace of the program was that at least they spoke with Jeff Kosseff, author of the book on Section 230 (which is an excellent read). However, you can tell from the way they used Jeff that someone in the editorial meeting decided "huh, we should probably find someone to be the "other" side of this debate, so we can pretend we're even-handed" and then sprinkled in Jeff to explain the basics of the law (which they would then ignore in the rest of the report).
It's almost difficult to describe just how bad the 60 Minutes segment is. It is, quite simply, blatant disinformation. I guess somewhat ironically, much of the attack on 230 talks about how that law is responsible for disinformation. Which is not true. Other than, perhaps, this very report that is itself pure disinformation.
What's most astounding about the piece is that almost everything it discusses has nothing to do with Section 230. As with so many 230 stories, 60 Minutes producers actually seem upset about the 1st Amendment and various failures by law enforcement. And somehow... that's the fault of Section 230. It's somewhat insane to see a news organization like 60 Minutes basically go on an all-out assault on the 1st Amendment. . .
Zelensky Calls for a European Army as He Slams EU Leaders’ Response
Jan 23, 2026 During the EU Summit yesterday, the EU leaders ...
-
Flash News: Ukraine Intercepts Russian Kh-59 Cruise Missile Using US VAMPIRE Air Defense System Mounted on Boat. Ukrainian forces have made ...
