The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/19/2013 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting – Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) February 19, 2013 5:30 P.M. th 345 – 6Street Meeting Chamber –First Floor I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL (quorum present) III.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IV.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 15, 2013 o VI. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Workshop 1. Workshop on Gorst Watershed and Subarea Plan VII. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is March 19 , 2013 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to February 19, 2013Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING January 15, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Josecalled theregularmeeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Chair JoseAndrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Vice Chair TiftNicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Commissioner Dinkuhn Commissioner Lambert Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Strube Quorum Certified ELECTION OF OFFICERS COMMISSIONER TIFT NOMINATED COMMISSIONER JOSE TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2013. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT NOMINATED COMMISSIONER TIFT TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2013. CHAIR JOSE SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER LAMBERTMOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER DINKUHNSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHTMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2012 AS PRESENTED.VICE CHAIR TIFTSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none,he closed the publicportion of the meeting. Workshop: Potential Zoning Code Amendments Ms. Floyd explained that staff maintains a list of issues and concerns that come up regarding the Zoning Code, nicknamed by staff “The Bullpen.”These issues are presented annuallyto the Planning Commission for discussion and potential modification. The purpose of the workshop is to present potential Zoning Code amendments to the Commission,educate the Commission on the issues the Department of Community Development faces while working with customers, andget early feedback from the Commission prior to commencing research and developing options for code revisions. Ms. Floyd reminded the Commission that it took severalyears and countless community meetings to update the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which serves as a foundation when developing policies and regulations and the Zoning Code is intended to implement the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. As the Commission reviews the potential Zoning Codeamendments, she encouraged them to keep in mind the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan and evaluate whether or not they are being accomplished. She reviewed the four potential zoningcode amendments as follows: Home Occupations Ms. Floyd advised that the current code provides criteria for home occupationsto ensure the uses are subordinate to the dwellings and do not negatively impact neighborhoods. For example, the use must be located wholly indoors and no more than 50% of the dwelling can be used by the business. No employees, except residents, are allowed. The intent is to limit the size and scope of the use. To limit impacts to the neighborhoods, the code requires an extra parking stall for the business in addition to the two required for the residence. However, this requirement can be waived if no customers come to the site. Sales are allowed by appointment only, and products must be produced on site unless the business is involved in distribution but does not attract buyers to property for retail or wholesale. Ms. Floyd ,Any sales of product shall be limited to those produced on the referenced BMC 20.46.030(f)which states that, “ premises, except products produced elsewhere may be allowed, provided the business is primarily involved in the product’s distribution and does not attract buyers to the property for retail or wholesale sales, ;” and BMC 20.46.030(g)which states Sales and services to patrons shall be arranged through appointment so that only one patron vehicle is on the premises that “ at any given time. She acknowledged that these criteria could be interpreted to mean that ahome occupation business selling Mary Kay, Avon or other cosmetics would not be allowed. A home occupation that stores paper products on site and Ms. then delivers them to customers could also be prohibited. She suggested that perhaps the language could be clarified. Spencer clarified that the point of the criteria is to prohibit home occupations from having customers come to the property unannounced and without appointments, but staff does not believe the criteria successfully accomplishes this goal. Commissioner SimpsonMs. Floyd asked howthe home occupation regulations are enforced. As an example, explained that a business license would be required in order for a person to sell a product in the City of Bremerton. A home occupation permit would also be required, and the business owner would be asked to explain how the business meets the home occupation criteria outlined in the code. It takes less than a week for the City to issue a business license and home occupation permit. If a neighborcomplains, the City would reevaluate the home occupationpermit, and asks the business owner to demonstrate that the business is consistent with the code requirements for home occupations. Chair Jose said his interpretation of BMC 20.46.030(l)(2) is that neighbors can complain if they believe a legally established home occupation no longer meets the code criteria. If this occurs, the Director would review the situation and determine Ms. Spencer whether or not the home occupation is compatible with the residential environment in which it is located. agreed that the code allows the Director this discretion, but she has never needed to exercise theauthority. Staff provides specific criteria for approval of a home occupation. If complaints are made, staff contacts the business owner, whotypically corrects the situation. Chair Jose asked how much time staff spends dealing with home occupation problems and if they are able to effectively resolve complaints. If so, he questioned the need to change the code at this time. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 29 January 15, 2013~ Page of Ms. Floyd ,The business shall be wholly situated indoors.” referred to BMC 20.46.030(b)which requires that “She explained that while this criterion is easy to apply in most situations, it could be interpreted to prohibit home occupations Commissioner Lambert such as dog trainers and dog walkers, which may not occur wholly indoors. emphasized that the goal of the home occupation regulations is to avoid impactingneighborhoods in a negative way but still allow home occupation businesses. She said she would not be opposed to allowing a dog trainer or dog walker to use his/heryard when Ms. Spencer caring for a dog, but a kennel use could result in more significant impacts to a neighborhood. noted that a daycare would not meet this requirement because children play outside. She observed that the “wholly indoors” criteria was really intended to deal with issues related to the outside storage of materials. She suggested the language could be reworded to make the intent more clear. Ms. Floyd pointed out that large doggie daycares would be prohibited as home occupations because the code currently only allows four dogs per residence. However, the code would be more difficult to interpret for small doggie daycares with up to four dogs. Questions may be raised about how this type of use would be different than a dog trainer or dog walker business. Vice Chair Tift shared his personal experience with a fairly active mail order business that operatedwholly inside a residence in his neighborhood.While no visitors came to the site to purchase items, numerous trucks visited the site each day to deliver and pick up products. Although this use was consistent with the current criteria, it was very disruptive to the neighborhood. Ms. Floyd raised the question of whether or not uses such as taxi, tow truck and septic truck businesses should be allowed as home occupations. The vehicles required for these types of businesses are typically parked on site, which raises questions Commissioner Simpson about whether or not the use is contained wholly indoors. asked how many taxi companies there Ms. Floyd are in the City. estimated there are about 20 people who operate private taxi services from their homes. Commissioner Simpson said she can see where a taxi service with multiple vehicles would be an issue in a neighborhood, Ms. Floyd but a business operating a single taxi should not have a significant impact. pointed out that a home occupation can only employ people who live in the residence (BMC 20.46.030(c)). However, nothing would prevent a business owner from parking more than one taxi on the site, as long as they are only operated by people who livewithin the residence. Commissioner Lambert questioned how a small taxi service would have any greater impact than a private resident who makes multiple vehicular trips in and out of the neighborhood each day or someone who frequently orders online merchandise, resulting in constant deliveries. While these trips may be annoying, she questioned if it is within the City’s jurisdiction to limit the number of trips allowed in and out of a residential driveway each day. Commissioner Albright pointed out that vehicles associated with home occupations often display signage, which could be Ms. Spencer construed as being against the code. said staff does not consider potential vehicular signage when reviewing Ms. Floyd applications for home occupation permits. explained that each home business is allowed a 2’ x 2’ sign, and signs Commissioner Albright on vehicles typically exceed that amount. said she can understand a residential neighborhood’s opposition to a tow truck or septic truck business, since these uses are industrial in nature. She questioned if it would be Ms. Floyd possible to limit these vehicles based on weight. pointed out thatthe City does not prohibit owners of businesses located outside of residential neighborhoods from bringing their vehicles (including tow trucks) home each night. However, they can regulate a business that operatesout of a home. Commissioner Simpson said it would be helpful to have more information about the number and type of complaints the City Ms. Spencer Commissioner has received regarding home occupations. agreed that staff could provide this information. Dinkuhn suggested that the problems may be associated with “growing pains.” The City has a lot of residents in its core area where people want to set up business, as well. The City should be flexible as they continue to grow and the uses continue to overlap. She suggested that providing opportunities for neighbors to comment onhome occupation permits could Ms. Floyd help resolve many of the issues. noted that some home occupations have increased permitting requirements, and perhaps they should discuss what types of businesses should be included on thislist. Ms. Floyd While a tattoo parlor would meet the criteria for a home occupation, questioned whether the Commission believes this is an appropriate home business. She noted that the City has received numerous complaints from neighbors about this DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 39 January 15, 2013~ Page of Commissioner Lambert type of use because customers come and go at all hours of the night. agreed with Commissioner Dinkuhn that it would be helpful to have a process that allows neighbors to weigh in on a proposed home occupation. Chair Jose suggested that rather than trying to create code language that will address all potential problems associated with a home occupation business, problems can be addressed when they come up via the complaint process. More strict criteria could add collateral damage to legitimate home businesses that wouldn’t have those impacts. He suggested that further exploration of how the complaints are resolved might help clarify the best approach to address the issue. He questioned the need for change if the City hasa good complaint/resolution process in place and issues are handled timely and effectively. Ms. Spencer said that the most significant concern is that neighbors are not notified of the home occupation before the Ms. Floyd permit is issued. explained that the home occupation permit process is relatively quick. If the application meets all of the criteria, a permit is issued by the City and neighborhood input would not likelysway the decision. A building inspection would also be required to ensure that the residence meets all of the building code requirements. Anyone issuing a complaint would have to explain how the business does not meet the criteria. Ms. Floyd advisedthat the current code requires a conditional use permit for businesses such as non-automotive engine repair and beauty and barber shops. The conditional use permit process takes approximately 3 months to complete and the application fee is $320. Although a conditional use permit requires notice to all neighbors, the criteria isexactly the same as for other home occupation businesses. The City’s ability to condition home occupations that meet the criteria would be very limited. Ms. Floyd raised the question of why a beauty and/or barber shop would fall under the same category as engine repair Commissioner Albright businesses. suggested that the correlation has to do with the chemicals that are discharged into the Chair Jose sewer system. noted that thereisusually a significant retail component associated with beauty and barber shops, Ms. Floyd as well. explained that the Public Works and Utilities Department has indicated that both the conditional use permit and the home occupation permit would require the same inspection, which raises the question of whether or not it is fair to require a lengthier permit process for some types of home occupation uses. She also pointed out that one section of the Chair Jose current code prohibits small and largeengine repair, and another section allows it as a conditional use. questioned if it makes sense to add criteria to cover every potential situationor just have a standard process for allhome occupation business so the process is clear and predictable. Vice ChairTift pointed out that the code provides for enforcement action against someone who legitimately sets up a business but then does not comply with what they said they were going to do or the business grows beyond what they were expecting. He asked if the City also investigates complaints about businesses that are being operated out of homes without Ms. Floyd Chair Jose the required permits. explained that the enforcement process is complaint driven. once again referred to BMC 20.46.030(l)(2), which provides a clear and straightforward statement that allows the director to determine whether interferingwith the useand enjoyment of the neighboring premise and is not compatiblewith or not a home occupation is “ the residential environment in which it is located.”Commissioner Dinkuhn agreed that this provisiongives the City permission to deny a home occupation permit if neighbors are unhappy. However, alot of people do not realize they can Vice Chair Tift issue a complaint.suggested that manypeopleare reluctant to complain because they want to get along with theirneighbors. Ms. Spencer said she has worked with a few other cities on home occupationrules. The issue really comes down to notification,the numbers of vehicular trips, and whether or not customers are coming to the house. Theconditional use permit requirement was intended to address these issues. She suggested staff review codes from other jurisdictions to find examples of innovative ways to address number of clients, peak hour trips, selling of goods, and notification requirements. She cautioned that the City does not have a lot of resources to make the permit processes more complicated than they already are. She encouraged them to keep the permit process simple. Again, she suggested it does not make sense to require a more costly and lengthy permit process for some home occupations when the criteria is the same for all. Commissioner Strube said he would like more information about the number and nature ofthe complaints. He also asked if Ms. Spencer the code contains regulations related to hours of operation. agreed to provide more information about the complaints the City has received in the recent past. However, she said the current code is silent on hours of operation. Commissioner Strube cautioned against significantly restricting all types of home occupation businesses just because a few types cause significant impacts to neighborhoods. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 49 January 15, 2013~ Page of Ms. Floyd summarized that staff would research how other jurisdictions deal with home occupations. She would also Ms. Spencer provide additional information about the actual complaints that have been filed. further summarized that the Commission did not express concern about the City continuing to issue home occupation permits for taxi service businesses. Mobile Vendors Ms. Floyd advised that the tax and license department has some regulations that apply to mobile vendors on public properties (parks, streets, and sidewalks), such as prohibiting them from blocking a sidewalk or obstructing visibility from a street. However, the code is virtually silent regarding mobile vendors on private properties. While the Comprehensive Plan does not have any goals that specifically address mobile vendors, there are several that are somewhat relevant to the topic. Ms. Floyd reported that the City has receivedvariouscomplaints about mobile vendors located on both private and public properties. Owners of regular, long-term businesses must provide parking, landscaping, and ADA accessible restrooms, as well as meet the fire and building code requirements. Business owners have expressed concern that it is difficult to compete with mobile vendors who can offer lower prices because they don’t have to meet the same code requirements. On the other hand, a current downtown business started out as a mobile vendor onthe street. Ms. Floyd explained that while there is no specific text in the Zoning Code that directly addresses vendors, the following sections have been used to regulate their locations: BMC 20.40.160 prohibits any use not listed as a permitted, conditional or accessory use by the zone. Because “mobile vendors” is not listed as an allowed use in any zone, it is prohibited unless associated and accessory to an established use within the zone. BMC 20.40.080(a) requires that driveways and areas used for loading, parking and maneuvering motorized vehicles have a paved surface. This provision has been used to limit mobile vendors to existing paved parking areas rather than on unpaved, undeveloped lots. Ms. Floyd shared examples of different types of mobile vendors and asked for Commission feedback about whether or not Commissioner Albright the City should adopt regulations specific to mobile vendors on public and private properties. Ms. Floyd asked if the property owners on Wheaton Way support the mobile vendors that have located along that street. explained that a mobile vendor is required to obtain aproperty owner’spermission, so theymust support the concept. Commissioner Albright Ms. Floyd asked if staff has researched how the City of Portland handles mobile vendors. answered that Portland encourages mobile vendors and has designated certain areas for them to locate. Chair Jose asked if amobile vendor would be considered an accessory use or a primary use if it were to locate on a paved Ms. Floyd parking lot that has no other development. said it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two, and the decisions becomesomewhat arbitrary. Problems can occurifthe City makes decisions that are not based on any factual code language. It would be better to have clear code language in place so that everyone knows what the rules are. Chair Jose recalled a situation where a permanent business owner complained because a mobile vendor was parked nearby and was taking away his business. Rather than making changes to seriously compete withthe mobile vendor, the permanent business owner tried to use the powers of government to mitigate the disadvantage. The permanent business failed, and the Commissioner Albright mobile vendor eventually took over the space and is operating a very successful business. agreed with Chair Jose that competition is good. Mobile vendors are a great example ofincubator type businesses, which is something the City should encourage. Ms. Spencer pointed out that a mobile vendor located on church property in the middle of a residential zone would meet the two criteria mentioned above, but questioned if that would be an appropriate use in a residential area. In order to protect the residential areas, she suggested that, at a minimum, the code needs to provide a definition for “mobile vendor” and some discussion to say that mobile vending is allowed only in commercial districts andonly in paved areas. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 59 January 15, 2013~ Page of Commissioner Lambert suggested that perhapsthere could be limitations on operating hours and zones in which mobile vendors are allowed. The code language should provide sufficient criteria for staff to regulatethe use, but notput the mobile vendors at an unfair advantage. Commissioner Simpson pointed out that mobile vendors typically have a specific focus. She asked how often mobile vendors that are in direct competition with permanent businesses. She also questioned if it would be possible to regulate mobile vendors based on their proximity to permanent businessesfor which the mobile vendor would be in direct Ms. Floyd competition. answered that the City has not seen a lot of situations where mobile vendors are in direct competition with permanent businesses, but the number of competitive situations could increase as the popularity of mobile vending continues to grow. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that the work force at PSNSis large, and there is a relatively short period of time for them to purchase their lunch. He expressed his belief that both the mobile and permanent vendors are important. He recalled that some of the previous dispute wasassociated with the concern that a few mobile vendors were operating without the required permitsand could therefore offer less expensive products. Chair Jose summarized that the Commission agrees that mobile vendors should be addressed in the code. He expressed concern that there is not a good foundation for staff to regulate the use. Whatever solution or approach the City takes, it must recognize what is unique about the City and its work force. He said he supports the idea of allowing mobile vendors to Commissioner Dinkuhn occupy sites in east Bremerton that are currently underutilized economically. also asked that staff research codes from other cities that successfully regulate mobile vendors such as Portland and Bellevue. She agreed that the Commissioner Lambert City should encourage mobile vending as an opportunity for very small businesses to get started. agreed with Ms. Spencer’s earlier suggestion that the language should prohibit mobile vendors in residential zones. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Ms. Floyd explained that SEPA was created in the late 1970’s, at a time when the concept of environmental protection was just beginning. It gave local governments a tool to evaluate, regulate and mitigate the foreseeable impacts of a project. However, over the years, local regulations have become substantially more comprehensive and the value added by SEPA has slowly diminished. As part of the 1970’s legislation, the stateallowedcities to adopt exemption levelsbased on an established range.Kitsap County and most cities in the county chose to establish their exemptions ata higher level, but the City of Bremerton kept the exemptions at the lowest level. That means that in the county where there is a higher potential to the environment,because the area is not already urbanized,there are fewer environmental regulations and developers can obtainpermits faster. The City’s SEPA process costs $320andadds at least three months to the permit process.This tends to irritate developers, especially when they can do a project in the county without having to do SEPA. Ms. Floyd advised that in 2012, the State Legislature increased the exemption levels for SEPA statewide, making more projects eligible to be exempt from the process. For the past year, while the rule making was in process, urban jurisdictions such as Bremerton have been allowed to usethe previously approved higherexemptions automatically. However, in order to continue to use them or to utilize the newest (higher) exemptions, the City will need to adopt an ordinance to specifically identify what the exemption levels should be. If the City does not adopt an ordinance by the end of 2013, the exemption levels will drop back down to the very lowest levels identified in the 1970’s. This would upset a lot of people in the development community who feel that SEPA is just added process. She said developers constantly inquire why the City requires the SEPA process, which costs money and takes time, if there isno added value. She asked the Commission to provide feedback about what the appropriate exemption level should be. Ms. Spencer pointed out that permitssubmitted today will be processed based on the exemptions shown as “mid-range” in the PowerPoint presentation. She emphasized that the City must take action by the end of 2013 or exemptions will drop back down to the lowest level in 2014. She pointed out thatprobably about 99% of the SEPA reviews performed by staff have resultedin a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). Mitigation related to school impact fees was identified in about 1% of the cases, but the City could adopt an impact fee ordinance to address this issue and eliminate the need for future mitigationthrough SEPA. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 69 January 15, 2013~ Page of Commissioner Strube expressed concern that having a lower exemption level than the county will discourage people from developing in the City. He suggested that if they want the City to grow, they need to make the permit process as simple as Commissioner Dinkuhn possible. agreed that the City’s SEPA requirement should be very similar to the County, with the exception of parking. The City should be very committed to the Comprehensive Plan’s priority goal of creating walkable communities, and it might not be appropriate to allow up to 90 parking stalls before the SEPA requirement is triggered. Commissioner Dinkuhn also expressed concern that 60 multi-family units would have a greater impact than 30 single- family units. She questioned why the previous exemption levels did not distinguish between the two types of residential Ms. Floyd development. clarified that the higher exemption levels should not be interpreted as encouraging surface parking or multi-family development. She suggested that the higher exemption levels are based on how much land could be covered before SEPA is triggered. Parking areas greater than 90 spaces would have a substantial impact on stormwater runoff, and more multi-family units can fit in the same general space as one single-family unit. Commissioner Albright said she firmly believes the City needs to be competitive and adopt the higher exemptions. It is important to bring more businesses and families into the City. Adopting the higher exemptions will make development easier for all involved. Vice Chair Tift requested data on how many development proposals over the last several years would have triggered SEPA Ms. Spencer review based on the higher 2013 exemption levels. agreed to provide data on the SEPA reviews done over the last several years and identify how many would have been exempt based on the higher 2013 threshold. Ms. Floyd summarized that developers have expressed concern about the random requirements that the SEPA review can Ms. Spencer add to a project. These requirements are oftenoutside of the City’s code requirements and cannot be predicted. added that increasing the thresholds for SEPA would give predictability to the process. Commissioner Lambert said she supports the highest level of exemption based onthe fact that 99% of the SEPA reviews done by the City result in a DNS. This change would free up staff resources, andshewould rather see the City encourage Ms. Spencer development. said she suspects the SEPA fee does not actually recover the costs associated with the review. Chair Jose summarized that it appears the Commission is supportive of increasing the SEPA thresholds, but they need to have further discussion at some point in the future about whether they want to increase the thresholds to the mid-level (as shown in the PowerPoint) or maximum level allowed by the state. He said it is important to clearly understand what the County’s exemption levels are and then make the City’s requirements competitive. He reminded the Commission that a number of businesses have left the City and relocated elsewhere in the county. Forest PracticePermits Ms. Floyd explained that Bremerton is somewhat unique in that about half of the City is forested land. While much of it is owned by the City, there is also a large amount of privately-owned forested land. At this time, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the primary permit administrator for forest practicepermits both inside and outside of the City. However, the City becomes responsible when a property owner decides to convert their land to another use. While the City has a process in place for reviewing applications to change forestry land to a specific use, it hasno regulatory process for when a property owner decides to convert land to an undetermineduse. At this time, the City appliesa variety of code provisions when reviewing these permits, but the process is unclear and the City does not really have the ability to force an applicant to meet requirements that are not specifically called out in thecode. Ms. Floyd pointed out that there is a lot of forestry land in the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA), and it would be helpful to have a clear and concise permitting process in place. She explained that, on one hand, tree removal is necessary to accommodate development. On the other hand, the Comprehensive Plan encourages environmentally responsible development, protecting the tree supply, and the adoption of a tree ordinance. Recognizing that state law requires the City to adopt an ordinance related to forestry permits, she requested input from the Planning Commission about how much regulation is appropriate and how the competing interests can be balanced. Ms. Floyd explained that a mature tree can suck up 100 gallons of water a day. Clear cutting a property can result in serious erosion problems as all the water the trees were absorbing would run down the hillside, flooding roads and dumping sediment DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 79 January 15, 2013~ Page of everywhere. When a property owner decides to cut trees, it is important for him/herto indicate what will be done to prevent impacts to neighboring properties. Ms. Floyd also explained that during the process of developing a Forest Practice permit process that we may also consider Ms. Floyd developing regulations for general tree removal. shared a citizen inquiry that occurred just this week. A large tree on a property on Kitsap Lake snapped in half, and the property owner wants to cut down the rest of the tree. Because the tree is located within the lake’s buffer area, the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance requires the property owner to hire a biologist to figure out how to limb the tree and leave it in place to benefit habitat. It also requires the property owner to hire an arborist to determine if the rest of the tree can continue to grow and provide shade forwater and habitat functions or if it is dangerous and needs to be cut down. However, because no permit is required, it is impossible for the City to enforce the Critical Areas Ordinance requirement and the property owner can cut down the tree without hiring an arborist or a biologist.As another Ms. Floyd example, said developers are required to plant a certain number of street trees. However, there is no code provision in place to prevent a property owner from cutting down a street tree at a later time. Ms. Floyd stressed the need for the City to adopt a clear process for reviewing forestry permits. She said it is clear to staff that a permit should be required to clear more than two acres of forestry land. However, they are seeking direction from the Vice ChairTift Planning Commission as to whether it is also reasonable to require permitsfor smaller scale tree cutting. recalled that the forested land on Wheaton Way next to Arby’s was cleared to accommodate a proposed assisted living/nursing home development. The project was never developed and the property remains cleared. He asked staff if this Ms. Floyd proposal required a forestry permit. said that because the property owner planned to develop the site within 10 years, no forestry permit was required. Ms. Floyd Ms. Spencer agreed to research how other jurisdictions regulated forested land.said in her experience with other jurisdictions, tree removal requirements often depend on the size of trees. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose thanked his fellow Commissioners for electing him to serve as chair for another year. He said he is happy to serve. He also welcomed Commissioners Strubeand Simpson. Lastly, he reported that he is currently serving as the Commission’s representative for the Gorst Creek Subarea Plan process, which is moving along. He said he enjoys representing the Commission in projects of this type, and he encouraged other Commissioners to consider participating in special projects, as well. Director Report Ms. Spencer congratulated Chair Jose and Vice Chair Tift and thanked them for their willingness to serve. She also welcomed Commissioners Strubeand Simpson. Ms. Spencer reported that the Gorst Subarea Plan is moving forward. A public outreach meeting has been scheduled for th February 12at the Square Dance Hall starting at 5:00 p.m. Staff will send the Commissioners an email providingmore th information about the meeting. A Planning Commission workshop with the consultant team is scheduled for February 19. Ms. Spencer noted that each Commissioner was provided a paper copy of the Comprehensive Plan. An electronic copy of the Comprehensive Plan is also available on the City’s website. She reminded the Commission that the City will undertake a complete update of its Comprehensive Plan within the next few yearsand it will be important for Commissioners to understand the contents of our current Comprehensive Plan. Paper copies of the Commission’s Bylaws and a list of Planning Commission and staff expectations were also provided. th Ms. Spencer announced that at an awards banquet on April 19, the American Planning Association will present the City of Bremerton with a National Achievement Award for Economic Planning and Development for the SKIA Subarea Plan. This award is due in no small part to the efforts of the Planning Commission. The Mayor will announce the award to the City Council, as well. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 89 January 15, 2013~ Page of Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business There was no new business scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:16p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer Greg Jose AICP, Executive SecretaryChair, Planning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 99 January 15, 2013~ Page of Commission Meeting Date:February 19, 2013Agenda Item:V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Gorst Watershed and Subarea Plan—Overview DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Allison Daniels, Planner; 360.473.5845 MEETING PURPOSE An agenda item for the Planning Commission on February 19, 2013 includes the Gorst Creek Watershed Plan. The purpose of the meeting is to: Share information Describe three preliminary alternatives Discuss with the Planning Commission: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the three alternatives? o Is anything missing? What ideas would you add? o Do the alternatives test a reasonable range of ideas about the future of Gorst? o PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Bremerton, in partnership with Kitsap County and other state, federal, and tribal agencies, is in the process of preparing a proposed Gorst Creek Watershed Plan, including a framework plan for the watershed as a whole and a subarea plan for the Gorst UGA. Also under preparation are implementing land use and environmental regulations. It is also anticipated that a capital facilities plan 1 (CFP) will be prepared to support the Gorst Subarea Planand to implement infrastructure. The City is considering designating a planned action for the Gorst UGA to facilitate development consistent with assumptions and mitigation in an environmental impact statement (EIS). The plan and regulations will undergo public review and refinement through late 2013. The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County are anticipated to both adopt the Gorst Creek Watershed Plan and the Gorst UGA Subarea Plan within the context of their own Comprehensive Plans and zoning codes. The planning efforts in the Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst Urban Growth Area (UGA) areintended to: To plan the future of the Gorst area over the next 20-30 years by defining the land use options, To protect water quality, habitat and fish while fostering economic development, ï Ì¸» ÝÚÐ ©·´´ °®·³¿®·´§ «°°±®¬ ¬¸» Ù±®¬ Í«¾¿®»¿ Ð´¿²ò Ø±©»ª»®ô ¬¸»®» ³¿§ ¾» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ º±® ¬¸» ©¿¬»®¸»¼ô »ò¹ò ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± º·¸ °¿¿¹»ò To establish areas for development, restoration and protection based on science, To develop a long-range capital improvement plan to provide for future utility services, public services and transportation needs, and To make Gorst a place where people want to live, shop and recreate. The Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst UGA together comprise the study area, and encompass over 6,000 acres in the southwestern portion of Kitsap County. About 3,597 acres are within Bremerton city limits. The unincorporated Gorst UGA is approximately 335 gross acres in area (about half of which are in the watershed study area). Approximately 178 acres are in the McCormick Woods area of the City of Port Orchard. The balance of the watershed, about 1,941 acres, consists of Rural unincorporated land. The planning effort is funded through the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Watershed Management Assistance Program Grant and from the participation of Gorst government agencies, regional stakeholders, and property owners. SCHEDULE The project schedule indicates that alternatives are to be developed in the first quarter of 2013, followed by a Draft Watershed and Subarea Plan and EIS in the second quarter, selection of a Preferred Alternative in the third quarter, and legislative review in the fourth quarter. The Planning Commission will review have periodic briefings and meetings at key milestones with the next likely opportunity when the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Draft Plan are available. Attachment II The project schedule is available at the project websiteas ,and here: http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/gorstwatershed/doc/ProjectSchedule.pdf MORE INFORMATION The project website contains recent studies including a watershed characterization, scoping documents, and other maps, notices, and documents. Comments can be made through the website as well. For a summary of environmental conditions and current zoning, we suggest Planning Commissioners review the following document: Gorst Creek Watershed Plan, Land Use, Environmental & Infrastructure Analysis, available: http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/gorstwatershed/doc/TechMemo_WhitePaper.pdf For a review of public outreach efforts to date, we also suggest the Planning Commissioners review the scoping summary from fall 2012: Gorst Creek Watershed Plan, Gorst Subarea Plan & Planned Action EIS Public Scoping Summary: October and November 2012 http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/gorstwatershed/doc/PublicScopingSummary_OctNov12.pdf. Please see www.gorstwatershed.comfor additional information. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I: Gorst Creek Watershed Plan Frequently Asked Questions, February 2013 Attachment II: Preliminary Land Use Alternatives, February 2013 Attachment III: Proposed Gorst Creek Watershed Plan Schedule STAFF RECOMMENDATION Thisinformation is presented for Planning Commission consideration and discussion. No further action is required at this time. ûÈÈÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈó Ð®±¶»½¬ Ú¿½¬ Í¸»»¬ É¸¿¬ · ¬¸» °«®°±» ±º ¬¸» Ù±®¬ °´¿²²·²¹ »ºº±®¬á Ì¸» °´¿²²·²¹ »ºº±®¬ ·² ¬¸» Ù±®¬ Ý®»»µ É¿¬»®¸»¼ ¿²¼ Ù±®¬ Ë®¾¿² Ù®±©¬¸ ß®»¿ øËÙß÷ ¿®» ·²¬»²¼»¼ ¬±æ Ì± °´¿² ¬¸» º«¬«®» ±º ¬¸» Ù±®¬ ¿®»¿ ±ª»® ¬¸» ²»¨¬ îðóíð §»¿® ¾§ ¼»º·²·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿²¼ «» ±°¬·±²ô Ì± °®±¬»½¬ ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ô ¸¿¾·¬¿¬ ¿²¼ º·¸ ©¸·´» º±¬»®·²¹ »½±²±³·½ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô Ì± »¬¿¾´·¸ ¿®»¿ º±® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ®»¬±®¿¬·±² ¿²¼ °®±¬»½¬·±² ¾¿»¼ ±² ½·»²½»ô Ì± ¼»ª»´±° ¿ ´±²¹ó®¿²¹» ½¿°·¬¿´ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ °´¿² ¬± °®±ª·¼» º±® º«¬«®» «¬·´·¬§ »®ª·½»ô °«¾´·½ »®ª·½» ¿²¼ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ²»»¼ô ¿²¼ Ì± ³¿µ» Ù±®¬ ¿ °´¿½» ©¸»®» °»±°´» ©¿²¬ ¬± ´·ª»ô ¸±° ¿²¼ ®»½®»¿¬»ò É¸¿¬ · ¬¸» ¬«¼§ ¿®»¿á Ì¸» Ù±®¬ Ý®»»µ É¿¬»®¸»¼ ¿²¼ Ù±®¬ ËÙß ¬±¹»¬¸»® ½±³°®·» ¬¸» ¬«¼§ ¿®»¿ô ¿²¼ »²½±³°¿ ±ª»® êôððð ¿½®» ·² ¬¸» ±«¬¸©»¬»®² °±®¬·±² ±º Õ·¬¿° Ý±«²¬§ò ß¾±«¬ íôëçé ¿½®» ½±³°®·» Þ®»³»®¬±² ½·¬§ ´·³·¬ò Ì¸» «²·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ Ù±®¬ ËÙß · ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ííë ¹®± ¿½®» ·² ¿®»¿ ø¿¾±«¬ ¸¿´º ±º ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ·² ¬¸» ©¿¬»®¸»¼÷ò ß°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ïéè ¿½®» ¿®» ·² ¬¸» Ó½Ý±®³·½µ É±±¼ ¿®»¿ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ð±®¬ Ñ®½¸¿®¼ò Ì¸» ¾¿´¿²½» ±º ¬¸» ©¿¬»®¸»¼ô ¿¾±«¬ ïôçìï ¿½®»ô ½±²·¬ ±º Î«®¿´ «²·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ´¿²¼ò É¸± · °´¿²²·²¹ º±® ¬¸» ¿®»¿á É¸¿¬ °´¿² ©·´´ ¾» °®»°¿®»¼á Ì¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Þ®»³»®¬±²ô ·² °¿®¬²»®¸·° ©·¬¸ Õ·¬¿° Ý±«²¬§ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¬¿¬»ô º»¼»®¿´ô ¿²¼ ¬®·¾¿´ ¿¹»²½·»ô · ·² ¬¸» °®±½» ±º °®»°¿®·²¹ ¿ °®±°±»¼ Ù±®¬ Ý®»»µ É¿¬»®¸»¼ Ð´¿²ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿ º®¿³»©±®µ °´¿² º±® ¬¸» ©¿¬»®¸»¼ ¿ ¿ ©¸±´» ¿²¼ ¿ «¾¿®»¿ °´¿² º±® ¬¸» Ù±®¬ ËÙßò ß´± «²¼»® °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ¿®» ·³°´»³»²¬·²¹ ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²ò ×¬ · ¿´± ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ½¿°·¬¿´ º¿½·´·¬·» °´¿² øÝÚÐ÷ ©·´´ ¾» °®»°¿®»¼ ¬± «°°±®¬ ¬¸» °´¿² ¿²¼ ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®»ò Ì¸» °´¿² ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±² ©·´´ «²¼»®¹± °«¾´·½ ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ®»º·²»³»²¬ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ´¿¬» îðïíò ß² »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ·³°¿½¬ ¬¿¬»³»²¬ øÛ×Í÷ ©·´´ ¾» °®»°¿®»¼ ¬± »ª¿´«¿¬» °±·¾´» »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ »ºº»½¬ ±º ¬¸» °´¿² ¿²¼ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ø»» ¾»´±©÷ò Ø±© · ¬¸» °´¿² º«²¼»¼á Ì¸» °´¿²²·²¹ »ºº±®¬ · º«²¼»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ËÍ É¿¬»®¸»¼ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß·¬¿²½» Ð®±¹®¿³ Ù®¿²¬ ¿²¼ º®±³ ¬¸» °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² ±º Ù±®¬ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ¿¹»²½·»ô ®»¹·±²¿´ ¬¿µ»¸±´¼»®ô ¿²¼ °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»®ò × ¿²²»¨¿¬·±² «²¼»® ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²á Ë²¼»® ¬¸» Ù®±©¬¸ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß½¬ øÙÓß÷ô ¬¸» °®»º»®®»¼ «®¾¿² »®ª·½» °®±ª·¼»® ·² ËÙß ¿®» ½·¬·»ò Õ·¬¿° Ý±«²¬§ ¸¿ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ¬¸» Ù±®¬ ËÙß ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Þ®»³»®¬±²ô ³»¿²·²¹ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ · ¬¸» ¼»·¹²¿¬»¼ º«¬«®» »®ª·½» °®±ª·¼»® º±® ¬¸» ËÙß ¿²¼ ³¿§ ¿²²»¨ ·¬ò Ì¸» «¾¿®»¿ °´¿² ¿²¼ ·³°´»³»²¬·²¹ ¦±²·²¹ ¿®» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬± »®ª» ¿ °®»ó¿²²»¨¿¬·±² °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ ¦±²·²¹ °«®«¿²¬ ¬± ÎÝÉ íëòïíòïééò Ì¸» «¾¿®»¿ °´¿² ©·´´ ¿´± ¿¼¼®» ¬¸» ¬®¿²·¬·±² º®±³ Ý±«²¬§ ¬± Ý·¬§ »®ª·½»ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ °®±°±» ¬± ¿²²»¨ ¬¸» Ù±®¬ ËÙß º±´´±©·²¹ ¬¸» ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ¬¸» «¾¿®»¿ °´¿²ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ ·²¬»²¼ ¬± ©±®µ ½´±»´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ù±®¬ ½±³³«²·¬§ ²±© ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» °´¿²²·²¹ °®±½» ¿²¼ º±´´±©·²¹ ¿²²»¨¿¬·±²ò Ú»¾®«¿®§ îðïí Ú¿½¬ Í¸»»¬ Ð¿¹» ï ±º î É¸¿¬ · ¿² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Í¬¿¬»³»²¬ øÛ×Í÷á Ù»²»®¿´´§ ¿² Û×Í · ¿² ·²º±®³¿¬·±²¿´ ¼±½«³»²¬ô °®»°¿®»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ð±´·½§ ß½¬ øÍÛÐß÷ô ¬¸¿¬ °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô °«¾´·½ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¿¹»²½·» ©·¬¸ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¼»½··±²ó³¿µ·²¹ °®±½» º±® ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ×¬ ¿´± ¿´´±© ®»·¼»²¬ô ¾«·²»»ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ¿¹»²½·» ¬± ½±³³»²¬ ±² °®±°±¿´ ¿²¼ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»ò ß² Û×Í ¼»½®·¾»æ °®±°±»¼ ¿½¬·±² ¿²¼ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»å »¨·¬·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¬«¼§ ¿®»¿å ·³°¿½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ³¿§ ±½½«® ·º ¿² ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ©»®» ·³°´»³»²¬»¼å ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ¬± ®»¼«½» ±® »´·³·²¿¬» ·³°¿½¬å ¿²¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ô «²¿ª±·¼¿¾´»ô ¿²¼ ¿¼ª»®» ·³°¿½¬ò ß ¼®¿º¬ Û×Í · ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ·«»¼ ·² °®·²¹ îðïí º±® Ù±®¬ °´¿²²·²¹ °®±°±¿´ò ßº¬»® ¿ ³·²·³«³ íðó¼¿§ ½±³³»²¬ °»®·±¼ô ¿ º·²¿´ Û×Í ©·´´ ¾» °®»°¿®»¼ ¬± ®»°±²¼ ¬± ½±³³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬± »ª¿´«¿¬» ¿ °®»º»®®»¼ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»ò É¸¿¬ · ¿ Ð´¿²²»¼ ß½¬·±²á ß °´¿²²»¼ ¿½¬·±² °®±ª·¼» ³±®» ¼»¬¿·´»¼ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ¿²¿´§· ¼«®·²¹ ¿² ¿®»¿©·¼» °´¿²²·²¹ ¬¿¹» ®¿¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¿¬ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ °»®³·¬ ®»ª·»© ¬¿¹»ò Ü»·¹²¿¬·²¹ ¿ °´¿²²»¼ ¿½¬·±² ¬®»¿³´·²» »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ®»ª·»© º±® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °®±°±¿´ ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ Û×Í ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ¿¼±°¬»¼ ·² ¿ °´¿²²»¼ ¿½¬·±² ±®¼·²¿²½»ò Ð´¿²²»¼ ¿½¬·±² ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ ·º ¬¸»§ ³»»¬ ±® »¨½»»¼ °®±°±»¼ ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ °»®º±®³¿²½» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ò Ì¸· ¬±±´ ¸¿ ¾»»² «»¼ »´»©¸»®» ¾§ ´±½¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ·² É¿¸·²¹¬±² Í¬¿¬»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ Þ®»³»®¬±²ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ · ½±²·¼»®·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·²¹ ¿ °´¿²²»¼ ¿½¬·±² º±® ¬¸» Ù±®¬ ËÙßò Í±³» Ù±®¬ ´¿²¼ «» ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ³¿§ ª¿®§ ©¸·½¸ ¿®»¿ ¿®» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» °´¿²²»¼ ¿½¬·±²ò É¸¿¬ ¿®» ¬¸» ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»á ß ±º Ú»¾®«¿®§ îðïíô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ Ý±«²¬§ ¿®» °®±°±·²¹ ¬± ¬«¼§ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ °®»´·³·²¿®§ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ·² ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ Û×Íæ ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ï Ò± ß½¬·±²æ Î»º´»½¬·²¹ ¬¸» Ý«®®»²¬ Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Ð´¿² º±® ¬¸» Ù±®¬ ËÙß ø®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ ÍÛÐß÷ ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» î Ù±®¬ · ¿ ©»´´ó¼»·¹²»¼ ®»¹·±²¿´ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ½»²¬»® ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» í ó Ù±®¬ ¾»½±³» ¿ ½±³°´»¬» ½±³³«²·¬§ Ì¸»» ¿®» ¼»½®·¾»¼ ±² ¿ »°¿®¿¬» ¸¿²¼±«¬ò Ì¸» ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ¿®» °®±°±»¼ ¬± ¬»¬ ¿ ®¿²¹» ±º ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ ¹®±©¬¸ ±°¬·±² ·² ¬¸» ËÙßò Ì¸» °®»´·³·²¿®§ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ³¿§ ¾» ®»º·²»¼ ¿ ¿ ®»«´¬ ±º ¬¸» Ú»¾®«¿®§ îðïí °«¾´·½ ³»»¬·²¹ ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ Ý±«²¬§ ¼»½··±²ó³¿µ»® ·²°«¬ò Ú±´´±©·²¹ ¿²¿´§· ·² ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ Û×Í ¿²¼ °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¿ ¼®¿º¬ °´¿² ·² °®·²¹ îðïíô ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¿²¼ ¼»½··±²ó³¿µ»® ©·´´ ¸¿ª» ¿²±¬¸»® ½¸¿²½» ¬± ©»·¹¸ ·² ¬± ¸»´° »´»½¬ ¿ °®»º»®®»¼ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ·² º¿´´ îðïíò Ì¸» °®»º»®®»¼ ¸» °®»º»®®»¼ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ©·´´ ¾» ·² ¬¸» ®¿²¹» ±º ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ Û×Í ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»ò Ø±© ¼± × ½±³³»²¬á Ç±« ³¿§ ½±³³»²¬ ¿¬ °«¾´·½ ³»»¬·²¹ ¿²¼ º±®«³ô «½¸ ¿ ¬¸» Ð®»´·³·²¿®§ ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ³»»¬·²¹ ¸»´¼ Ú»¾®«¿®§ ïîô îðïíò Ó±®» ³»»¬·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ½¸»¼«´»¼ ·² ¬¸» º«¬«®» °´»¿» »» ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ©»¾·¬» ø»» ´·²µ ¾»´±©÷ò Ç±« ³¿§ ¿´± ½±³³»²¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ©»¾·¬» ¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ø»» ´·²µ ¾»´±©÷ò Ð«¾´·½ ½±³³»²¬ ©·´´ ¾» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º±´´±©·²¹ ¬¸» °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ °´¿² ¿²¼ ¼®¿º¬ Û×Íò Ì¸» ¼®¿º¬ °´¿² ¿²¼ ¼®¿º¬ Û×Í ¿®» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ·² ´¿¬» °®·²¹ îðïíò ß ³·²·³«³ íðó ¼¿§ ½±³³»²¬ °»®·±¼ ©·´´ ¾» ¸»´¼ò Ú±® Ó±®» ×²º±®³¿¬·±²æ ÃÃÆ£·_ÃÉ©©©ò¹±®¬©¿¬»®¸»¼ò½±³ ß´´·±² Ü¿²·»´ô Ý·¬§ Ð´¿²²»® Ð¸±²»æ íêðòìéíòëèìë ß´´·±²òÜ¿²·»´à½·ò¾®»³»®¬±²ò©¿ò« Ý·¬§ ±º Þ®»³»®¬±² Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ íìë ê¬¸ Í¬®»»¬ô Í«·¬» êðð Þ®»³»®¬±²ô Éß çèííé Ú»¾®«¿®§ îðïí Ú¿½¬ Í¸»»¬ Ð¿¹» î ±º î ßÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ ï ÒÑ ßÝÌ×ÑÒ Ê×Í×ÑÒ Õ×ÌÍßÐ ÝÑËÒÌÇ ÝÑÓÐÎÛØÛÒÍ×ÊÛ ÐÔßÒ Ì¸» Ù±®¬ Ë®¾¿² Ù®±©¬¸ ß®»¿ øËÙß÷ · ¿ ®»´¿¬·ª»´§ ³¿´´ ¸·¹¸©¿§ó±®·»²¬»¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿²¼ ·²¼«¬®·¿´ ½»²¬»®ò ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ï Ô¿²¼ Ë» Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² Ë®¾¿² Ø·¹¸ó×²¬»²·¬§ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ñÓ·¨»¼ Ë» Ì¸· ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² °®·³¿®·´§ º±½«» ±² ´¿®¹»® ½±³³»®½·¿´ ½»²¬»®ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» ¬¸¿¬ ®»¯«·®» ´¿®¹» ·¬» ¿²¼ ¼®¿© ½«¬±³»® ¿¬ ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ ¿²¼ ®»¹·±²¿´ ½¿´»ò Û¨¿³°´» ±º ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¬± ¬¸· ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ·²½´«¼» ¾«¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± «°»®¬±®»ô ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬ ¬±®»ô ¿«¬±³±¬·ª» °¿®¬ ¿²¼ ¿´»ô ¸±³» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬±®»ô ¸±¬»´ ¿²¼ ³±¬»´ô ¿²¼ ®»¬¿«®¿²¬ò Ó·¨»¼ «» ¼»ª»´±° ·²½±®°±®¿¬·²¹ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ¿®» ¿´± ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ·² ¬¸· ¼»·¹²¿¬·±²ò Æ±²» ¬¸¿¬ ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² Ø·¹¸ó×²¬»²·¬§ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ñÓ·¨»¼ Ë» ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ·²½´«¼»æ Ø·¹¸©¿§ Ì±«®·¬ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ô Î»¹·±²¿´ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ô ¿²¼ Ó·¨»¼ Ë»ò Ó·²»®¿´ Î»±«®½» Ñª»®´¿§ Ì¸» ·²¬»²¬ ±º ¬¸» Ó·²»®¿´ Î»±«®½» Ñª»®´¿§ · ¬± °®±¬»½¬ ¿²¼ô ¹®¿ª»´ô ¿²¼ ®±½µ ¼»°±·¬ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ò Ý±³³»®½·¿´ ¯«¿´·¬§ ¼»°±·¬ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¿ ²±²ó®»²»©¿¾´» ®»±«®½» ¿²¼ ³¿²¿¹»¼ ¿½½±®¼·²¹´§ò Ë®¾¿² ×²¼«¬®·¿´ Ì¸· ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ·²½´«¼» ¾±¬¸ ·²¼«¬®·¿´ ¿²¼ ¾«·²» «»ô «½¸ ¿ ´·¹¸¬ ³¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ô ¸·ó¬»½¸ô ©¿®»¸±«·²¹ô ¾·±ó¬»½¸ô °¿®µó´·µ» ¾«·²»ô ì »¼«½¿¬·±²¿´ ·²¬·¬«¬·±²ô »¯«·°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ª»¸·½´» ®»°¿·®ô ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¸»¿ª§ ·²¼«¬®·¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬·» ¿²¼ ¬¸±» ®»¯«·®·²¹ ¿½½» ¬± ³¿¶±® ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ½±®®·¼±®ò Æ±²» ¬¸¿¬ ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² ×²¼«¬®·¿´ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ·²½´«¼»æ Þ«·²» Ý»²¬»®ô Þ«·²» Ð¿®µô ×²¼«¬®·¿´ô ¿²¼ ß·®°±®¬ò Ë®¾¿² Ô±©óÜ»²·¬§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ì¸· ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² °®·³¿®·´§ º±½«» ±² ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ ¾«¬ ¿´± ³¿§ ·²½´«¼» ·²²±ª¿¬·ª» ¬§°» «½¸ ¿ ½´«¬»®»¼ ¸±«·²¹ò ×¬ ¿´± ·²½´«¼» ®»¹«´¿¬»¼ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´´§ ½®·¬·½¿´ ¿®»¿ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ËÙß ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¿®»¿ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ º±® ´±©ó¼»²·¬§ «®¾¿² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Æ±²» ¬¸¿¬ ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² Ô±©óÜ»²·¬§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ·²½´«¼»æ Ë®¾¿² Î»¬®·½¬»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ô ×´´¿¸»» Ù®»»²¾»´¬ Æ±²»ô Ë®¾¿² Ô±© Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ô ¿²¼ Ë®¾ Ý´«¬»® Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿²¼ Í»²·±® Ô·ª·²¹ Ø±³»¬»¿¼ò Ì¸» ½±³³»®½·¿´ ½±®®·¼±® ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² °®±ª·¼» ´±½¿¬·±² º±® ¸·¹¸ ·²¬»²·¬§ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» »®ª·²¹ ¬¸» »²¬·®» ½±³³«²·¬§ ©¸·´» °®»»®ª·²¹ ³¿®·¬·³» ª·»©ô º±®»¬»¼ ¿®»¿ô ¿²¼ ¾«ºº»®·²¹ ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿®»¿ò Ì¸» ½±®®·¼±® ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ¿½½» ¬± ¾«·²»» ¾§ ¿«¬±³±¾·´» ©¸·´» ¿´± ½®»¿¬·²¹ ¿ °»¼»¬®·¿²óº®·»²¼´§ô ¬®¿²·¬ó«°°±®¬·²¹ ½±®®·¼±®ò ß °´¿²²»¼ ¿½¬·±² ©±«´¼ ²±¬ ¿°°´§ ©¿¬»®©¿®¼ ±º ÍÎ ïê ¿²¼ ÍÎ íô ¿´±²¹ Í·²½´¿·® ×²´»¬ò Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ó·¨»¼ Ë» Ì¸· ¼·¬®·½¬ °®±³±¬» ´±© ¿²¼ ³»¼·«³ ¼»²·¬§ ¸±«·²¹ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ·²¹´» º¿³·´§ô ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ·²¹´» º¿³·´§ô ½±¬¬¿¹»ô ¬±©²¸±³»ô ³¿´´ ½¿´» º´¿¬ô ¿²¼ ¿½½»±®§ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ò Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿®» ¿½½±³°´·¸»¼ ·² ¿² »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´´§ «¬¿·²¿¾´» °¿¬¬»®²ô «½¸ ¿ ½´«¬»®·²¹ô ´±© ·³ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬»½¸²·¯«»ô »²»®¹§ ½±²»®ª¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ·³·´¿® ³»¬¸±¼ò Í³¿´´ ½¿´» ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» ¬¸¿¬ »®ª» ´±½¿´ ®»·¼»²½» ¿®» ¿´´±©»¼ò Ð«¾´·½ ¿²¼ °®·ª¿¬» ±°»² °¿½» ¿®» ¿´± °®±³±¬»¼ò Ô±© Ü»²·¬§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ì¸» ·²¬»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ´±© ¼»²·¬§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² · ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ ¾§ ·²º·´´·²¹ ¿¬ ¿ ®¿²¹» ±º ´±¬ ·¦» ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ «®¾¿² ¹®±©¬¸ °¿¬¬»®²ò Í±³» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ ³¿§ ¾» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ©¸»² ®»°±²¼·²¹ ¬± »²·¬·ª» ¿®»¿ ±® ©·¬¸ ·²²±ª¿¬·ª» ¼»·¹²ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿¬ ¸·¹¸»® ¼»²·¬·» · »²½±«®¿¹»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» »¼¹» ±º ¼»·¹²¿¬»¼ ½»²¬»®ò Ñ°»² Í°¿½»ñÎ»½®»¿¬·±² Ì¸» Ñ°»² Í°¿½»ñÎ»½®»¿¬·±² ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ¿´´±© º±® ¿½¬·ª» ¿²¼ °¿·ª» °¿®µô ®»½®»¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ±°»² °¿½» º¿½·´·¬·»ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ «» ·²½´«¼» ¿½½»±®§ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «½¸ ¿ ½±²½»·±²ô ®»½®»¿¬·±² »¯«·°³»²¬ ®»²¬¿´ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ³¿´´ó½¿´» º¿½·´·¬·» ¬¸¿¬ «°°±®¬ ¿²¼ »²¸¿²½» °«¾´·½ ¿½½» ®»½®»¿¬·±²ò ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ½¸±·½» ·² ½´«¬»®»¼ °¿¬¬»®²ò ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» í Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ïò Ô±© ×²¬»²·¬§ É¿¬»®º®±²¬ Ì¸» ´±© ·²¬»²·¬§ ©¿¬»®º®±²¬ ¼·¬®·½¬ ¿´´±© ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» ¬± »®ª» ¬¸» ¬®¿ª»´·²¹ °«¾´·½ ·² ¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °¿¬¬»®² ¬¸¿¬ ®»¼«½» ·³°»®ª·±« «®º¿½»ô °®±³±¬» ¸±®»´·²» ®»½´¿³¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ±°»² °¿½»ô °®±³±¬» ´¿²¼½¿°» ¿²¼ ¬®»»¬½¿°» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ô °®±³±¬» °»¼»¬®·¿² ¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ ½±³º±®¬ô ¿²¼ ·³°®±ª» ª»¸·½«´¿® ¿½½»ò Ý±³³»®½·¿´ «» ©±«´¼ ±½½«® ±² ³¿´´»® ·³°»®ª·±« º±±¬°®·²¬ ·²¬»®°»®»¼ ¾§ ¬®¿·´ô °¿®µô ¿²¼ ®»½´¿·³»¼ ¸¿¾·¬¿¬ò îò Ù±®¬ Ó·¨»¼ Ë» Ì¸» Ù±®¬ Ó·¨»¼ Ë» ¼·¬®·½¬ °®±³±¬» ³·¨»¼ «» ®»¬¿·´ô ¸±¬»´ô ±ºº·½»ô »®ª·½»ô ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ·² ¸±®·¦±²¬¿´ ±® ³¿´´ ½¿´» ª»®¬·½¿´ °¿¬¬»®² ®»¹·±²¿´ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» ¼»·¹²»¼ ¬± ³¿¨·³·¦» ¸±®»´·²» ª·»© ¿²¼ ¿´´±© ¬®»¿³·¼» °«¾´·½ ¿½½» ©¸»®» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»ò ß ³±®» ·² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °¿¬¬»®² · º±«²¼ ·² Ý»²¬®¿´ Ù±®¬ ¿²¼ ¿ ´» ·²¬»²·ª» °¿¬¬»®² · º±«²¼ ±² Ù±®¬ Ý®»»µô É»¬ Þ»´º¿·® Î±¿¼ô Í¿³ Ý¸®·¬±°¸»®±² Î±¿¼ É»¬ô ¿²¼ É»¬ Ú®±²¬¿¹» Î±¿¼ñ É»¬ Ú®±²» Ü®·ª»ò Ù±®¬ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ Ì¸» ¼·¬®·½¬ ¿°°´·» ¬± ¿®»¿ ¬¸¿¬ °®±ª·¼» ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» ¬± »®ª» ¬¸» ¬®¿ª»´·²¹ °«¾´·½ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿´±²¹ ³¿¶±® ¬®¿ºº·½ ½±®®·¼±® ·² «®¾¿² ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ ¿¬ ¸·¹¸©¿§ ·²¬»®½¸¿²¹»ô ¿²¼ º±® ½±³³»®½·¿´ »¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬ ®»¯«·®·²¹ ´¿®¹» ·¬»ò Ì¸· ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ¿´± ®»½±¹²·¦» ³¿´´ ½¿´» ´·¹¸¬ ·²¼«¬®·¿´ ¿²¼ ±ºº·½» ¿ »½±²¼¿®§ «»ò Í·¬» °´¿²²·²¹ °®±³±¬·²¹ ½±±®¼·²¿¬»¼ ´¿²¼½¿°» ¬®»¿¬³»²¬ô °»¼»¬®·¿² ¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ ½±³º±®¬ ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¼·®»½¬»¼ ª»¸·½«´¿® ¿½½» ¿®» º»¿¬«®» ±º ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ «¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ìò Ó»¼·«³ Ü»²·¬§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ì¸· ¼·¬®·½¬ °®±³±¬» ¿ ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¿²¼ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ´±© ¿²¼ ³»¼·«³ ¼»²·¬§ ¸±«·²¹ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ·²¹´» º¿³·´§ô ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ·²¹´» º¿³·´§ô ½±¬¬¿¹»ô ³¿´´ ½¿´» º´¿¬ô ¬±©²¸±³»ô ¿²¼ ¿½½»±®§ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ò Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿®» ¼»·¹²»¼ ·² ¿² »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´´§ «¬¿·²¿¾´» °¿¬¬»®²ô «½¸ ¿ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ½´«¬»®·²¹ô ´±© ·³°¿½¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬»½¸²·¯«»ô »²»®¹§ ½±²»®ª¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ·³·´¿® ³»¬¸±¼ò Ù±®¬ Ý®»»µ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ù±®¬ Ý®»»µ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼·¬®·½¬ ¿°°´·» ¬± ´±© ¼»²·¬§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿²¼ ´¿®¹» ´±¬ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿®»¿ ¿´±²¹ Ù±®¬ Ý®»»µô ©¸»®» ´±© ·³°¿½¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ®·°¿®·¿² ¿²¼ ©»¬´¿²¼ ¦±²» °®±¬»½¬·±² ¿®» °®·±®·¬·»ò Ý´«¬»®»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °¿¬¬»®² ¿²¼ ·²½»²¬·ª» º±® ¬®»¿³ ®»¬±®¿¬·±² ¿®» °®±³±¬»¼ò êò Ñ°»² Í°¿½»ñÎ»½®»¿¬·±² Ì¸» Ñ°»² Í°¿½»ñÎ»½®»¿¬·±² ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ¿´´±© º±® ¿½¬·ª» ¿²¼ °¿·ª» °¿®µô ®»½®»¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ±°»² °¿½» º¿½·´·¬·»ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ «» ·²½´«¼» ¿½½»±®§ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «½¸ ¿ ½±²½»·±²ô ®»½®»¿¬·±² »¯«·°³»²¬ ®»²¬¿´ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ³¿´´ó½¿´» º¿½·´·¬·» ¬¸¿¬ «°°±®¬ ¿²¼ »²¸¿²½» °«¾´·½ ¿½½» ¿²¼ ®»½®»¿¬·±²ò