The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearings: An Ordinance Concerning Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Housing; Amending the West University Refinement Plan; and Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.6410, and 9.6420 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and An Ordinance Concerning Building Height in the University Area and Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and An Ordinance Establishing the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone (S-JW); Applying that Zone to Specific Properties; Amending the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan; Amending the Westside Neighborhood Plan; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2161, 9.2170, 9.2171, 9.8030, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Sections 9.3600, 9.3605, 9.3615, 9.3625, 9.3626, 9.3630, 9.3631, 9.3640 to that Code Meeting Date: November 16, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Terri Harding www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5635 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will hold public hearings to consider the first round of amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code (Chapter 9) recommended by the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team. BACKGROUND In response to City Council direction to address residential infill compatibility, a task team of neighborhood representatives and professional developers, designers, and housing advocates was created and met monthly from November 2007, to September 2009. As a result of almost two years of research, public outreach, proposal development and refinement, the task team passed 17 recommendations. In August 2009, the Planning Commission directed three proposals to proceed to the public hearing phase: Parking Strategies, Building Height, and Special Area Zone – Jefferson Westside. These proposals constitute the first round of forwarded recommendations. Additional recommendations will be forwarded to the council in the spring of 2010. The Planning Commission held well-attended public hearings on October 20, and deliberated on the proposals on October 26. The Planning Commission recommended approval of all three ordinances, as follows: ? Building Height Alternate B, as presented; ? Special Area Zone – Jefferson Westside, as presented; Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091116\S0911161.doc ? Parking Strategies, with minor revisions related to tandem parking and definition of bedroom. The Planning Commission also requested a car-sharing credit option, which would allow multiple-family developments near the University of Oregon requiring at least 15 parking spaces to reduce their required parking by three spaces if a professionally managed shared car is provided. A summary of the three proposals is included as Attachment A. Draft ordinances reflecting the Planning Commission’s recommendations are attached as Attachments B, C and D. Attachment E contains the Planning Commission’s requested car-sharing credit option for the Parking Ordinance. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission’s October 20, 2009, public hearing and October 26, 2009, meeting are provided as Attachments F and G. Testimony received through November 6 is found in Attachment H. Next Steps The City Council is scheduled to take action on the proposed ordinances at a work session on December 14, 2009. This timing is consistent with a motion passed by the council on October 12, while considering the Minor Code Amendment Remand Ordinances, which directed staff to bring the ICS Parking Strategies recommendations for final council action by December 14, 2009. Background material on the key elements of the ordinances, as well as evidence and testimony provided to the Planning Commission will be available for review in the City Council office. RELATED CITY POLICIES The City Council has included Infill Compatibility Standards as a priority item on the Planning Division Work Program. COUNCIL OPTIONS No formal action is required at this time. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION These items are scheduled for public hearings only. No action is required at this time. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is proposed as no action is required at this time. ATTACHMENTS A.Summary of Round One ICS Planning Commission Recommendations B.Draft Ordinance and Findings – Parking Strategies C.Draft Ordinance and Findings – Building Height D.Draft Ordinance and Findings – S-JW E.Planning Commission Requested Car-Sharing Option for Parking Strategies Ordinance F.Draft Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes from October 20, 2009 G.Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 26, 2009 H.Public Testimony Received by November 6, 2009 Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091116\S0911161.doc FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Terri Harding Telephone: 541/682-5635 Staff E-Mail: terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us Project Website: www.eugene-or.gov/infill Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091116\S0911161.doc Summary of ICS Round One Planning Commission Recommendations: Parking Strategies The purpose of this package of regulations is to improve the compatibility of new multi- family development by tying parking requirements directly to the unique needs of certain types of development. The proposed regulations will affect property near the University of Oregon as follows: require more off-street parking for apartments with 3 or more bedrooms allow tandem (one behind the other) parking to count toward the minimum off-street parking requirements amend the West University Refinement Plan (Policy 3A) regarding parking for consistency with the new code The proposed regulations will affect property city-wide as follows: require less parking for low-income, senior and disabled housing developments clarify the city’s requirements for off-site parking leases adjust dimensional standards for parking spaces along alleys to allow for more backup space In addition to the above, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a code language option that would allow parking space reductions for multiple-family developments utilizing a shared car program in the University area. One such option is included as Attachment E. Building Height The purpose of these regulations is to provide for greater infill compatibility in neighborhoods west and south of the University of Oregon by lowering building height limits and providing a gradual transition in building height to single family areas, while still allowing buildings in high-density (R-3 and R-4) zones to meet the city’s density targets and accommodate additional residents. Allowable building height is proposed to be reduced in the R-3 zone from 50 feet to 35 feet, and in the R-4 zone from 120 feet to 35, 50, 75, or 90 feet, depending on location and size of the development site. If adopted, these regulations will replace those recently reinstated as part of the city’s MiCAP (Minor Code Amendments) process. Special Area Zone-Jefferson Westside The purpose of this special zone is to provide for more compatible infill development by limiting the number of dwellings per lot, lowering allowable building heights, and establishing new development requirements related to roof form, setbacks, parking, and open space in areas currently zoned R-2, while still achieving housing densities within the medium density range. The Jefferson-Far West and Westside Refinement Plans are also proposed to be amended to include references to the new zone. ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING; AMENDING THE WEST UNIVERSITY REFINEMENT PLAN; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.6410 AND 9.6420 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding the following definitions in alphabetical order to provide: 9.0500Definitions . As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases mean: Bedroom. Within a multiple-family dwelling, a bedroom is any room that either: (A) Is designated as a bedroom on a development plan submitted to the city; (B) Is included in the number of bedrooms stated in an advertisement, rental or sales contract, marketing material, loan application, or any other written document in which the owner, or an authorized agent of the owner, makes a representation regarding the number of bedrooms available in the dwelling; or (C) Meets all of the following: 1. Is a room that is a “habitable space” as defined by the current Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) or Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC); 2. Meets the OSSC or OSRC bedroom requirements for natural light, ventilation, and emergency escape and rescue windows; 3. Is a room that is accessed by a door on an interior wall and that does not provide access to another room except for a bathroom, toilet room, closet, hall, or storage or utility space. Subsidized Low-Income Disabled Housing. Subsidized low-Income housing exclusively for low-income individuals with physical or mental disabilities and/or low-income families with physical or mental disabilities. For the purposes of this definition, low-income means having income at or below 80 percent of the area median income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Subsidized Low-Income Housing. A controlled income and rent housing project of any dwelling type(s) exclusively for low-income individuals and/or families where all units are subsidized. For the purposes of this definition, low-income means having income at or below 80 percent of the area median income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Page 1 of 7 Ordinance - Subsidized Low-Income Senior Housing. Subsidized low-income housing exclusively for low-income individuals of age 62 and older. For the purposes of this definition, low-income means having income at or below 80 percent of the area median income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Subsidized Low-Income Senior Housing Partial. A controlled income and rent housing project consisting of any dwelling type(s) where at least 50% of the housing units are exclusively for low-income individuals of age 62 and older and these units are subsidized. For the purposes of this definition, low- income means having income at or below 80 percent of the area median income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Subsidized Low-Income Specialized Housing. A controlled income and rent housing project of any dwelling type(s) exclusively for extra low-income individuals and/or families where all units are subsidized. For the purposes of this definition, extra low-income means having income at or below 50 percent of the area median income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Tandem Parking Space. A permanently maintained space with proper access for two motor vehicles parked one in front of the other in tandem. The first motor vehicle does not have independent access, and the second motor vehicle must move to provide access to the first motor vehicle. Section 2. Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by: amending subsection (1); amending the “Dwelling” section in the “Residential” portion of Table 9.6410; and adding subsection (5), to provide: 9.6410Motor Vehicle Parking Standards. (1) Location of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. Required off-street parking shall be on the development site or within 1/4 mile or 1320 feet of the development site that the parking is required to serve. (a) All required parking shall be under the same ownership as the development site served, except through a city approved agreement The off-street that binds the parking area to the development site. parking space requirement for a multi-family dwelling may be satisfied through an agreement that provides parking located on another multi-family dwelling’s development site only if the party requesting approval demonstrates that, after the agreement is executed, both development sites will meet the current code’s minimum off-street parking space requirement. Each parking space provided through a city approved agreement must have a permanent sign of at least 1 square foot that indicates the name or address of the multi-family dwelling for which the parking is reserved. Page 2 of 7 Ordinance - (b) Parking areas may be located in required setbacks only as permitted in EC 9.6745 Setbacks - Intrusions Permitted. (c) Tandem parking spaces may be utilized to meet off-street parking requirements for multi-family dwellings in the R-3 and R-4 zones within the boundaries of the City recognized West University Neighbors and South University Neighborhood Association. (For tandem parking on alleys, see Figure 9.6410(1)(c)). Tandem parking spaces may not be utilized to meet off-street parking requirements for other types of development in any area. Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking Uses Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Residential Dwelling One-Family Dwelling 1 per dwelling. One-Family Dwelling - Flag Lot 2 per dwelling. Secondary Dwelling (Either attached or 1 per dwelling. detached from primary one-family dwelling on same lot) Rowhouse (One-Family on own lot 1 per dwelling. attached or adjacent residence on separate lot with garage or carport access to the rear of the lot) Duplex (Two-Family attached on same 1 per dwelling. lot) Triplex (Three-Family attached on same 1 per dwelling. lot) Four-Plex (Four-Family attached on 1 per dwelling. same lot) - MultipleFamily (3 or more dwellings on 1 per dwelling not specifically addressed same lot) elsewhere in this Table. Multiple-Family in the R-3 and R-4 1 space for each studio, 1 bedroom or 2 bedroom zones within the boundaries of the dwelling City recognized West University Neighbors and South University 1.5 spaces for each 3 bedroom dwelling* Neighborhood Association * .5 spaces required for each additional bedroom beyond a 3 bedroom dwelling. Fractions of .5 or more are rounded up to the next whole number. Rounding shall occur after the total number of minimum spaces is calculated for the multi-family development. One tandem space shall be counted as two parking spaces. Tandem spaces shall not be allowed for studio or 1- or 2-bedroom dwellings. Multiple-Family Subsidized Low-.67 per dwelling or 3 spaces, whichever is greater Income Housing in any area (see (5) Page 3 of 7 Ordinance - below) Multiple-Family Subsidized Low-.33 per dwelling or 3 spaces, whichever is greater Income Senior Housing in any area (see (5) below) Multiple-Family Subsidized Low-.33 per dwelling or 3 spaces, whichever is greater Income Disabled Housing in any area (see (5) below) Multiple-Family Subsidized Low- .67 per dwelling or 3 spaces, whichever is greater Income Senior Housing Partial in any area (see (5) below) Multiple-Family Subsidized Low-.33 per dwelling or 3 spaces, whichever is greater Income Specialized Housing in any area (see (5) below) Manufactured Home Park 1 per dwelling. Controlled Income and Rent Housing 1 per dwelling. (CIR) where density is above that usually permitted in the zoning, yet not to exceed 150% (5) Special Standards for Table 9.6410. For Multiple-Family Subsidized Low- Income Housing, Subsidized Low-Income Senior Housing, Subsidized Low-Income Senior Housing Partial, and Subsidized Low-Income Specialized Housing, the following standards apply: (a) At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant must submit documentation demonstrating that the housing units will be used for the intended population for a minimum of ten years. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, an application form submitted to receive subsidy from the city or state. (b) Upon a change in occupancy from subsidized housing to another use, the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces is as required for the new use. Section 3. Subsection (1) of Section 9.6420 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.6420Parking Area Standards. (1) Dimensions and Striping. All parking spaces shall be striped or marked in a manner consistent with Table 9.6420(1) Motor Vehicle Parking Dimensions. All tandem parking spaces shall be striped and marked in a manner consistent with Table 9.6420(1) Motor Vehicle Parking Dimensions for (See Figure 9.6420(1) Motor Vehicle Parking Tandem Parking. Dimensions.) (a)Carpool and Vanpool Parking. New commercial and industrial developments with 20 or more employee parking spaces shall designate at least 5 percent of the employee parking spaces for carpool or vanpool parking. Employee carpool and vanpool parking shall be located closer to the building entrance or the employee entrance than other employee parking with the exception of parking for those with disability permits. The carpool/vanpool spaces shall be clearly marked "Reserved - Carpool/Vanpool Only" by use of signs painted on the parking spaces or posted. Page 4 of 7 Ordinance - Table 9.6420(1) Motor Vehicle Parking Dimensions (Dimensions in Feet) MinimumStallMinimum Clear Parking Angle in MinimumMinimum Clear AisleDistanceBay DegreesStall WidthStall Depth Widthat BaysideWidth 8.07.512.015.0 19.5 Parallel 8.08.012.022.0 20.0 * 8.01412.015.0 26.0 8.016.012.016.0 28.0 8.516.412.017.0 28.4 /single 30 degrees 9.016.812.018.0 28.8 9.517.312.019.0 29.3 10.0 17.712.020.0 29.7 8.030.812.015.0 -- 8.032.012.016.0 -- 8.532.812.017.0 -- 30 degrees/tandem 9.033.612.018.0 -- 9.534.612.019.0 -- 10.0 35.412.020.0 -- * 8.016.012.010.6 28.0 8.018.414.011.3 32.4 8.518.713.512.0 32.2 /single 45 degrees 9.019.113.012.7 32.1 9.519.413.013.4 32.4 10.0 19.813.014.1 32.8 -- 8.035.112.010.6 -- 8.036.814.011.3 -- 8.537.413.512.0 45 degrees/tandem -- 9.038.213.012.7 -- 9.538.813.013.4 -- 10.039.613.014.1 * 8.016.715.08.631.7 8.019.719.09.2 38.7 8.520.018.59.8 38.5 /single 60 degrees 9.020.318.010.4 38.3 9.520.518.011.0 38.5 10.0 20.818.011.5 38.8 -- 8.037.015.08.6 -- 8.039.419.09.2 -- 8.540.018.59.8 60 degrees/tandem -- 9.040.618.010.4 -- 9.541.018.011.0 -- 10.041.618.011.5 *8.0 8.015.022.0[7.5]37.0 8.018.025.08.0 43.0 8.518.025.08.5 43.0 /single 90 degrees 9.018.024.09.0 42.0 9.518.024.09.5 42.0 10.0 18.024.010.0 42.0 -- 8.033.022.08.0 90 degrees/tandem Page 5 of 7 Ordinance - -- 8.036.025.08.0 -- 8.536.025.08.5 -- 9.036.024.09.0 -- 9.536.024.09.5 -- 10.036.024.010.0 Shaded figures are the minimum dimensions for compact parking spaces. Any minimum parking dimensions, such as stall width, may be exceeded. All spaces shall be clearly marked as compact parking spaces if any of the parking dimensions are less than that shown in the unshaded area. All tandem spaces must be marked as such. * For non-parallel parking spaces that are created to serve a multi-family dwelling and that are located directly off an alley with a right-of-way width of 14-feet or less, the minimum stall depth for compact parking space shall be increased to the minimum stall depth indicated for a non- compact space with a minimum stall width of 8-feet. Section 4. Figure 9.6410(1)(c) as referenced in this Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A and shall be numerically incorporated in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 5. Chapter V, Policy 3 of the West University Refinement Plan is amended as follows: 3. The City of Eugene will update its Land Use Code and that effort shall particularly take into account the need to: -- reduce non-residential uses permitted in the R-3 and R-4 zones. -- redefine usable open space. -- enable infilling on newly created small lots. -- enable alley access as the primary access to newly created lots. -- reduce the minimum lot size. -- increase the flexibility of development standards (for example to enable more efficient use of open space, shared open space, shared parking, and more extensive use of public rights-of-way). -- review parking requirements for residential development [with the purpose of reducing the required number of spaces per unit] in the plan to respond to changing circumstances, such as development area trends, parking and transportation supply and demand trends . -- amend the commercial zoning in the City Code to provide a greater range of commercial zones. Section 6. The legislative findings attached as Exhibit B hereto are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect pursuant to Section 32 of the Eugene Charter 2002, or on the date of its acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever is later. Page 6 of 7 Ordinance - Section 8. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the consent of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein, or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ___ day of ____________, 2009 ____ day of _____________, 2009 ____________________________ _____________________________ City Recorder Mayor Page 7 of 7 Ordinance - Ì¿²¼»³ Ð¿®µ·²¹ ±² ß´´»§ Ú·¹«®» çòêìïð øï÷ø½÷ ßÔÔÛÇ íí º¬ò Ó·²ò ÞË×ÔÜ×ÒÙ EXHIBIT B Ü®¿º¬Ú·²¼·²¹º±®ÝßðçðéôÎßðçðí ×ÝÍÐ¿®µ·²¹Í¬®¿¬»¹·» Ý±¼»ß³»²¼³»²¬Û«¹»²»Ý±¼»Í»½¬·±²çòèðêë®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹¿°°®±ª¿´½®·¬»®·¿ø·²¾±´¼ ¿²¼·¬¿´·½÷¾»¿°°´·»¼¬±¿½±¼»¿³»²¼³»²¬æ øï÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿°°´·½¿¾´»¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´¿¼±°¬»¼¾§¬¸»Ô¿²¼ Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²¿²¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬Ý±³³··±²ò Ù±¿´ïÝ·¬·¦»²×²ª±´ª»³»²¬ò Ì±¼»ª»´±°¿½·¬·¦»²·²ª±´ª»³»²¬°®±¹®¿³¬¸¿¬·²«®»¬¸»±°°±®¬«²·¬§ º±®½·¬·¦»²¬±¾»·²ª±´ª»¼·²¿´´°¸¿»±º¬¸»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»ò Ì¸»Ý·¬§¸¿¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼°®±ª··±²º±®½·¬·¦»²·²ª±´ª»³»²¬©¸·½¸»²«®»¬¸»±°°±®¬«²·¬§º±® ½·¬·¦»²¬±¾»·²ª±´ª»¼·²¿´´°¸¿»±º¬¸»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»¿²¼»¬±«¬®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®«½¸ ·²ª±´ª»³»²¬òÌ¸»°®±½»º±®¿¼±°¬·²¹¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬©¿½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»Ã?YÅ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬¿²¼°®±ª·¼»¼²«³»®±«¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®·²¬»®»¬»¼°¿®¬·»¬±°¿®¬·½·°¿¬»·² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬òØ·¹¸´·¹¸¬¿®»´·¬»¼¾»´±©ò ÷ô°®±¶»½¬µ·½µ±ºº ×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼Ð®±¶»½¬ò Ð®±¶»½¬©»¾·¬»ø©©©ò»«¹»²»±®ñ·²º·´´ ³»»¬·²¹ô»³¿·´²»©´»¬¬»®«°¼¿¬»¬±·²¬»®»¬»¼°¿®¬§´·¬±º²»¿®´§ìðð°»±°´»ô¬¸®»»°«¾´·½ ©±®µ¸±°ôº±½«¹®±«°³»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ý¸¿³¾»®±ºÝ±³³»®½»ôØ±³»¾«·´¼»®ß±½·¿¬·±²ô Ø·¬±®·½Î»ª·»©Þ±¿®¼ôØ±«·²¹Ð±´·½§Þ±¿®¼ôÍ«¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§Ý±³³··±²Ô¿²¼Ë»¿²¼ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»»ô¿²¼´±©·²½±³»®»·¼»²¬ô·²º·´´¬±«®©·¬¸Ñ°°±®¬«²·¬§Í·¬·²¹ ¿²¼×ÝÍÌ¿µÌ»¿³ô®¿¼·±°®±¹®¿³¼·½«·±²øÕÔÝÝÍ«²¼¿§¿¬Ò±±²÷ôÝ·¬§Ý´«¾°®»»²¬¿¬·±²ò Ó«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹×²º·´´Ý±³³·¬¬»»±º¬¸»×ÝÍÌ¿µÌ»¿³ò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´©±®µ©·¬¸Í±«¬¸ Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù®±«°¿²¼É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¼»ª»´±°·²¹ô®»º·²·²¹ô¿²¼·´´«¬®¿¬·²¹ ½±²½»°¬º±®¬¸»°¿®µ·²¹°®±°±¿´¿²¼®»½±³³»²¼·²¹¿¼®¿º¬½±¼»°®±°±¿´¬±¬¸»Ì¿µÌ»¿³ ·²»¿®´§Ó¿®½¸îððçò ×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼Ì¿µÌ»¿³ò Ó±²¬¸´§³»»¬·²¹º®±³Ò±ª»³¾»®îððéÍ»°¬»³¾»® îððçòß½¬·±²¬¿µ»²¬±«°°±®¬¬¸»°¿®µ·²¹°®±°±¿´¿¬¬¸»Ó¿®½¸¿²¼Í»°¬»³¾»®îððç ³»»¬·²¹ò Ð¿®µ·²¹Í¬®¿¬»¹·»×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²Ì»¿³ò×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²¹®±«°½±²·¬·²¹±º¿Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±²»®ôÓ«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹Ý±³³·¬¬»»³»³¾»®ôÌ¿µÌ»¿³³»³¾»®ô«²·ª»®·¬§ ®»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª»ôß®½¸·¬»½¬ô¿²¼¬¿ºº³»³¾»®¬±®»º·²»¬¸»°®±°±¿´¿²¼¼»ª»´±°¼®¿º¬½±¼» ´¿²¹«¿¹»ò Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®ò Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼²»©´»¬¬»®»²¬¬±»ª»®§¿¼¼®»·²ÍËÒßô ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼«®ª»§¿²¼«³³¿®§®»°±®¬ô¹»²»®¿´³»³¾»®¸·°³»»¬·²¹ô»¨»½«¬·ª»¾±¿®¼ ³»»¬·²¹¼·½«·±²¿²¼¼»´·¾»®¿¬·±²ô³»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ø±³»¾«·´¼»®ß±½·¿¬·±² ®»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª»¿²¼´±½¿´¼»·¹²°®±º»·±²¿´ò É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®ò Ô·¿·±²±²Ó«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹×²º·´´½±³³·¬¬»»ô»³¿·´«°¼¿¬»¿²¼ ¹»²»®¿´³»³¾»®¸·°³»»¬·²¹ô»¨»½«¬·ª»¾±¿®¼¼·½«·±²¿²¼¼»´·¾»®¿¬·±²ô°¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±²·² ÍËÒÐÙ³»»¬·²¹¿²¼¼·½«·±²òÐ®±¼«½¬·±²±º¬¿¾´»¼»¬¿·´·²¹»¨·¬·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¼»²·¬§ ¿²¼¿³±«²¬±º°¿®µ·²¹ò Ì¸»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²¸»´¼¿°«¾´·½©±®µ»·±²±²¬¸»×ÝÍ°¿®µ·²¹®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²±² Í»°¬»³¾»®ïì¬¸îððçòÌ¸»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²°«¾´·½¸»¿®·²¹±²¬¸»½±¼»¿³»²¼³»²¬©¿¼«´§ ²±¬·½»¼¬±¬¸»Ý·¬§±ºÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ôÔ¿²»Ý±«²¬§ô¿´´²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²ô¿©»´´¿½±³³«²·¬§ ¹®±«°¿²¼·²¼·ª·¼«¿´©¸±¸¿ª»®»¯«»¬»¼²±¬·½»ò×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô²±¬·½»±º¬¸»°«¾´·½¸»¿®·²¹©¿¿´± °«¾´·¸»¼·²¬¸»Î»¹·¬»®Ù«¿®¼òÌ¸»°«¾´·½¸»¿®·²¹½¸»¼«´»¼º±®¬¸»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²¿²¼Ý·¬§ ¬¸¬¸ Ý±«²½·´¿®»Ñ½¬±¾»®îð¿²¼Ò±ª»³¾»®ïêô®»°»½¬·ª»´§ò Ì¸»°®±½»º±®¿¼±°¬·²¹¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬½±³°´·»©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ï·²½»·¬ ½±³°´·»©·¬¸ô¿²¼«®°¿»¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±º¬¸»Â??Å½·¬·¦»²·²ª±´ª»³»²¬°®±ª··±²ò Ù±¿´îÔ¿²¼Ë»Ð´¿²²·²¹ò Ì±»¬¿¾´·¸¿´¿²¼«»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»¿²¼°±´·½§º®¿³»©±®µ¿¿¾¿· º±®¿´´¼»½··±²¿²¼¿½¬·±²®»´¿¬»¼¬±«»±º´¿²¼¿²¼¬±¿«®»¿²¿¼»¯«¿¬»º¿½¬«¿´¾¿·º±®«½¸ ¼»½··±²¿²¼¿½¬·±²ò Ì¸»Û«¹»²»Ô¿²¼Ë»Ý±¼»°»½·º·»¬¸»°®±½»¼«®»¿²¼½®·¬»®·¿¬¸¿¬¿®»¬±¾»«»¼·²½±²·¼»®·²¹ ¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±¬¸»½±¼»òÌ¸»®»½±®¼º±®¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬·²½´«¼»«¾¬¿²¬·¿´º¿½¬«¿´ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²«°°±®¬·²¹¬¸»°®±°±»¼±®¼·²¿²½»òÌ¸»Ù±¿´î½±±®¼·²¿¬·±²®»¯«·®»³»²¬·³»¬©¸»² ¬¸»Ý·¬§»²¹¿¹»·²¿²»¨½¸¿²¹»ô±®·²ª·¬»«½¸¿²»¨½¸¿²¹»ô¾»¬©»»²¬¸»Ý·¬§¿²¼¿²§¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´«²·¬òÌ±½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸»Ù±¿´î½±±®¼·²¿¬·±²®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô¬¸»Ý·¬§»²¹¿¹»¼·²¿² »¨½¸¿²¹»¿¾±«¬¬¸»«¾¶»½¬±º¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬©·¬¸¿´´±º¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´«²·¬ò Í°»½·º·½¿´´§ô¬¸»Ý·¬§°®±ª·¼»¼²±¬·½»±º¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿½¬·±²¿²¼±°°±®¬«²·¬§¬±½±³³»²¬¬±Ô¿²» Ý±«²¬§ôÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼¿²¼¬¸»Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬±ºÔ¿²¼Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²¿²¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì¸»®»¿®»²±Ù±¿´îÛ¨½»°¬·±²®»¯«·®»¼º±®¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®» ½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´îò Ù±¿´íß¹®·½«´¬«®¿´Ô¿²¼ò Ì±°®»»®ª»¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´´¿²¼ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»º±®°®±°»®¬§´±½¿¬»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§¿²¼¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ´¿²¼¼»·¹²¿¬»¼º±®¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´í¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ìÚ±®»¬Ô¿²¼ò Ì±½±²»®ª»º±®»¬´¿²¼ò Ì¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»º±®°®±°»®¬§´±½¿¬»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§¿²¼¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ´¿²¼¼»·¹²¿¬»¼º±®º±®»¬«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ì¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ëÑ°»²Í°¿½»ôÍ½»²·½¿²¼Ø·¬±®·½ß®»¿ô¿²¼Ò¿¬«®¿´Î»±«®½»òÌ±½±²»®ª»±°»²°¿½»¿²¼ °®±¬»½¬²¿¬«®¿´¿²¼½»²·½®»±«®½»ò ÑßÎêêððîíðîëðøí÷°®±ª·¼»æÔ±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿®»²±¬®»¯«·®»¼¬±¿°°´§Ù±¿´ë·² ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²±º¿ÐßÐß«²´»¬¸»ÐßÐß¿ºº»½¬¿Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»òÚ±®°«®°±»±º¬¸·»½¬·±²ô ¿ÐßÐß©±«´¼¿ºº»½¬¿Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±²´§·ºæ ø¿÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß½®»¿¬»±®¿³»²¼¿®»±«®½»´·¬±®¿°±®¬·±²±º¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼°´¿²±®´¿²¼ Ú·²¼·²¹î «»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿¼±°¬»¼·²±®¼»®¬±°®±¬»½¬¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±®¬±¿¼¼®» °»½·º·½®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ëå ø¾÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß¿´´±©²»©«»¬¸¿¬½±«´¼¾»½±²º´·½¬·²¹«»©·¬¸¿°¿®¬·½«´¿®·¹²·º·½¿²¬ Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»·¬»±²¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼®»±«®½»´·¬å±® ø½÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß¿³»²¼¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ËÙÞ¿²¼º¿½¬«¿´·²º±®³¿¬·±²·«¾³·¬¬»¼ ¼»³±²¬®¿¬·²¹¬¸¿¬¿®»±«®½»·¬»ô±®¬¸»·³°¿½¬¿®»¿±º«½¸¿·¬»ô··²½´«¼»¼·²¬¸» ¿³»²¼»¼ËÙÞ¿®»¿ò Ì¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬½®»¿¬»±®¿³»²¼¬¸»Ã?YÅ´·¬±ºÙ±¿´ë®»±«®½»ô¼±²±¬¿³»²¼¿ ½±¼»°®±ª··±²¿¼±°¬»¼·²±®¼»®¬±°®±¬»½¬¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±®¬±¿¼¼®»°»½·º·½ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ëô¼±²±¬¿´´±©²»©«»¬¸¿¬½±«´¼¾»½±²º´·½¬·²¹«»©·¬¸¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬ Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»·¬»¿²¼¼±²±¬¿³»²¼¬¸»¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ËÙÞòÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ù±¿´ë¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´êß·®ôÉ¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼Î»±«®½»Ï«¿´·¬§ò Ì±³¿·²¬¿·²¿²¼·³°®±ª»¬¸»¯«¿´·¬§±º¬¸»¿·®ô ©¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼®»±«®½»±º¬¸»¬¿¬»ò Ù±¿´ê¿¼¼®»»©¿¬»¿²¼°®±½»¼·½¸¿®¹»º®±³¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼·¿·³»¼¿¬°®±¬»½¬·²¹ ¿·®ô©¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼º®±³·³°¿½¬º®±³¬¸±»¼·½¸¿®¹»òÌ¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸» Ã?YÅ¿¾·´·¬§¬±°®±ª·¼»º±®½´»¿²¿·®ô©¿¬»®±®´¿²¼®»±«®½»òË²¼»®¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿ºº»½¬·²¹´¿²¼²»¿®¬¸»Ë²·ª»®·¬§±ºÑ®»¹±²ô¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿½¿²¬·´´¿½¸·»ª·²¹¬¸»³¿¨·³«³ ¼»²·¬·»¿´´±©»¼·²¬¸»Îí¿²¼Îì¦±²»¿²¼·¬·®»¿±²¿¾´»¬±½±²½´«¼»¬¸¿¬¬¸»¿·®¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬±º½±³³«¬·²¹¬±¬¸»Ë²·ª»®·¬§©·´´¾»«²¿ºº»½¬»¼òË²¼»®¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿ºº»½¬·²¹°®±°»®¬§½·¬§©·¼»ô°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬©·´´¾»¼»½®»¿»¼ô°±¬»²¬·¿´´§·³°®±ª·²¹¿·® ¯«¿´·¬§òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´êò Ù±¿´éß®»¿Í«¾¶»½¬¬±Ò¿¬«®¿´Ü·¿¬»®¿²¼Ø¿¦¿®¼ò Ì±°®±¬»½¬´·º»¿²¼°®±°»®¬§º®±³ ²¿¬«®¿´¼·¿¬»®¿²¼¸¿¦¿®¼ò Ù±¿´é®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬´±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬°´¿²²·²¹°®±¹®¿³·²½´«¼»°®±ª··±²¬±°®±¬»½¬°»±°´» ¿²¼°®±°»®¬§º®±³²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼«½¸¿º´±±¼ô´¿²¼´·¼»ô»¿®¬¸¯«¿µ»¿²¼®»´¿¬»¼¸¿¦¿®¼ô ¬«²¿³·¿²¼©·´¼º·®»òÌ¸»Ù±¿´°®±¸·¾·¬¿¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼¿®»¿©·¬¸±«¬ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»¿º»¹«¿®¼òÌ¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ®»¬®·½¬·±²±² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¿®»¿«¾¶»½¬¬±²¿¬«®¿´¼·¿¬»®¿²¼¸¿¦¿®¼òÚ«®¬¸»®ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼± ²±¬¿´´±©º±®²»©¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¸¿¬½±«´¼®»«´¬·²¿²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼» Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´é¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´èÎ»½®»¿¬·±²¿´Ò»»¼ò Ì±¿¬·º§¬¸»®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´²»»¼±º¬¸»½·¬·¦»²±º¬¸»¬¿¬»¿²¼ ª··¬±®ô¿²¼©¸»®»¿°°®±°®·¿¬»ô¬±°®±ª·¼»º±®¬¸»·¬·²¹±º²»½»¿®§®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´º¿½·´·¬·» ·²½´«¼·²¹¼»¬·²¿¬·±²®»±®¬ò Ù±¿´è»²«®»¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´º¿½·´·¬·»¬±Ñ®»¹±²½·¬·¦»²¿²¼·°®·³¿®·´§ ½±²½»®²»¼©·¬¸¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸±»º¿½·´·¬·»·²²±²«®¾¿²¿®»¿±º¬¸»¬¿¬»òÌ¸»½±¼» ¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²º±®®»½®»¿¬·±²¿®»¿ôº¿½·´·¬·»±®®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´è¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ú·²¼·²¹í Ù±¿´çÛ½±²±³·½Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»¿¼»¯«¿¬»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬¬¸»¬¿¬»º±®¿ ª¿®·»¬§±º»½±²±³·½¿½¬·ª·¬·»ª·¬¿´¬±¬¸»¸»¿´¬¸ô©»´º¿®»ô¿²¼°®±°»®·¬§±ºÕ?Ð£ªÅ½·¬·¦»²ò Ì¸»ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»Î«´»º±®Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´çøÑßÎêêðôÜ·ª··±²ç÷®»¯«·®»½·¬·»¬± »ª¿´«¿¬»¬¸»«°°´§¿²¼¼»³¿²¼±º½±³³»®½·¿´´¿²¼®»´¿¬·ª»¬±½±³³«²·¬§»½±²±³·½ ±¾¶»½¬·ª»òÌ¸»Û«¹»²»Ý±³³»®½·¿´Ô¿²¼Í¬«¼§øÑ½¬±¾»®ïççî÷©¿¿¼±°¬»¼¾§¬¸»Ý·¬§±º Û«¹»²»¿¿®»º·²»³»²¬±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ô¿²¼½±³°´·»©·¬¸¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ç¿²¼ ·¬ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»Î«´»òÌ¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬·³°¿½¬¬¸»«°°´§±º·²¼«¬®·¿´±®½±³³»®½·¿´ ´¿²¼ô¿¬¸»§±²´§¿°°´§¬±®»·¼»²¬·¿´´§¦±²»¼´¿²¼òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®» ½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´çò Ù±¿´ïðØ±«·²¹ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»º±®¬¸»¸±«·²¹²»»¼±º½·¬·¦»²±º¬¸»¬¿¬»ò Ù±¿´ïð®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬½±³³«²·¬·»°´¿²º±®¿²¼³¿·²¬¿·²¿²·²ª»²¬±®§±º¾«·´¼¿¾´»®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²¼º±®²»»¼»¼¸±«·²¹«²·¬òß´¬¸±«¹¸¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿¼¼®»®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô¬¸»§¼±²±¬·³°¿½¬¬¸»«°°´§±®¿ª¿·´¿¾·´·¬§±º®»·¼»²¬·¿´´¿²¼·²½´«¼»¼·²¬¸» ¼±½«³»²¬»¼«°°´§±ºÂkÃ±±±ªÁ¬¸¿¬·¿ª¿·´¿¾´»º±®®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿ ·²ª»²¬±®·»¼·²¬¸»¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ïçççÎ»·¼»²¬·¿´Ô¿²¼Í¬«¼§ò Ì¸»¿¾±ª»º·²¼·²¹¼»³±²¬®¿¬»½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïðò×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô»ª·¼»²½»·²¬¸»®»½±®¼ ¸±©¬¸¿¬¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼°®±°»®¬·»½¿²¿½¸·»ª»¼»²·¬·»©·¬¸·²¬¸»°´¿²²»¼ ®¿²¹»¿º¬»®¬¸»°®±°±»¼°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬¿®»¿°°´·»¼òÌ¸»¬¿¾´»«¾³·¬¬»¼¾§Í¬»ª»² ¬¸ ¸±©¿¿³°´»±º³«´¬·º¿³·´§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿°°®±ª»¼¾»¬©»»²îððð Þ¿µ»®±²Ñ½¬±¾»®îð ¿²¼îððç·²¬¸»É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¿²¼Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼òÌ¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®¿²¹»º®±³¬©±«²·¬¬±º±®¬§«²·¬ô¿²¼¼»²·¬·»±ºïì¬±ïïî«²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»ò Ì¸»®»·¿©·¼»®¿²¹»±º°¿®µ·²¹¬±«²·¬ñ¾»¼®±±³®¿¬·±ô¾«¬·²¹»²»®¿´ô¬¸»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿°°®±¿½¸·²¹³¿¨·³«³¿´´±©¿¾´»¼»²·¬§©·¬¸·²¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»¦±²·²¹¼·¬®·½¬¿½¸·»ª»¼¬¸¿¬ ¼»²·¬§©¸·´»¿´±°®±ª·¼·²¹±²·¬»°¿®µ·²¹·²²«³¾»®«ºº·½·»²¬¬±½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸»°¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬¾»·²¹°®±°±»¼òÚ®±³¬¸·»ª·¼»²½»ô·¬½¿²¾»½±²½´«¼»¼¬¸¿¬¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ·²½®»¿»·²°¿®µ·²¹º±®«²·¬©·¬¸¬¸®»»±®³±®»¾»¼®±±³©·´´²±¬½±³°®±³·»¬¸»¿¾·´·¬§±º °®±°»®¬·»©·¬¸·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿¬±³»»¬¼»²·¬§®»¯«·®»³»²¬¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿¬«½¸ ¼»²·¬·»·´·µ»´§¬±½±²¬·²«»ò ò Ì±°´¿²¿²¼¼»ª»´±°¿¬·³»´§ô±®¼»®´§¿²¼»ºº·½·»²¬ Ù±¿´ïïÐ«¾´·½Ú¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼Í»®ª·½» ¿®®¿²¹»³»²¬±º°«¾´·½º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»¬±»®ª»¿¿º®¿³»©±®µº±®«®¾¿²¿²¼®«®¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²±º°«¾´·½º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïï¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïîÌ®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»¿²¼»²½±«®¿¹»¿¿º»ô½±²ª»²·»²¬¿²¼»½±²±³·½ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²§¬»³ò Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïî··³°´»³»²¬»¼¬¸®±«¹¸¬¸»Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð´¿²²·²¹Î«´»øÌÐÎ÷ô¿ Ú·²¼·²¹ì ¼»º·²»¼·²Ñ®»¹±²ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»Î«´»ÑßÎêêððïîððððô»¬»¯òÌ¸»Û«¹»²»Í°®·²¹º·»´¼ Ó»¬®±°±´·¬¿²ß®»¿Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð´¿²øÌ®¿²Ð´¿²÷°®±ª·¼»¬¸»®»¹·±²¿´°±´·½§º®¿³»©±®µ ¬¸®±«¹¸©¸·½¸¬¸»ÌÐÎ··³°´»³»²¬»¼¿¬¬¸»´±½¿´´»ª»´ò Ì¸»Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð´¿²²·²¹Î«´»øÑßÎêêððïîððêð÷½±²¬¿·²¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬æ øï÷ß³»²¼³»²¬¬±º«²½¬·±²¿´°´¿²ô¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼½±³°®»¸»²·ª»°´¿²ô¿²¼´¿²¼«» ®»¹«´¿¬·±²©¸·½¸·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§¸¿´´¿«®»¬¸¿¬¿´´±©»¼ ´¿²¼«»¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»·¼»²¬·º·»¼º«²½¬·±²ô½¿°¿½·¬§ô¿²¼°»®º±®³¿²½»¬¿²¼¿®¼ ø»ò¹ò´»ª»´±º»®ª·½»ôª±´«³»¬±½¿°¿½·¬§®¿¬·±ô»¬½ò÷±º¬¸»º¿½·´·¬§òòòò øî÷ß°´¿²±®´¿²¼«»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿³»²¼³»²¬·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§·º·¬æ ø¿÷Ý¸¿²¹»¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿²»¨·¬·²¹±®°´¿²²»¼¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§å ø¾÷Ý¸¿²¹»¬¿²¼¿®¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¿º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²§¬»³å ø½÷ß´´±©¬§°»±®´»ª»´±º´¿²¼«»©¸·½¸©±«´¼®»«´¬·²´»ª»´±º¬®¿ª»´±®¿½½» ©¸·½¸¿®»·²½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§å ±® ø¼÷É±«´¼®»¼«½»¬¸»°»®º±®³¿²½»¬¿²¼¿®¼±º¬¸»º¿½·´·¬§¾»´±©¬¸»³·²·³«³ ¿½½»°¬¿¾´»´»ª»´·¼»²¬·º·»¼·²¬¸»ÌÍÐ Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬½¸¿²¹»¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿²»¨·¬·²¹±®°´¿²²»¼ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§ô¼±²±¬½¸¿²¹»¬¸»¬¿²¼¿®¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¿º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²ô¼± ²±¬¿´´±©¬§°»±®´»ª»´±º´¿²¼«»©¸·½¸©±«´¼®»«´¬·²´»ª»´±º¬®¿ª»´±®¿½½»©·¬¸¿®» ·²½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§¿²¼©·´´²±¬®»¼«½»¬¸» °»®º±®³¿²½»¬¿²¼¿®¼±º¿º¿½·´·¬§¾»´±©¬¸»³·²·³¿´¿½½»°¬¿¾´»´»ª»´·¼»²¬·º·»¼·²¬¸»ÌÍÐò Ì¸»°¿½µ¿¹»±º°¿®µ·²¹¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±»²±¬½¸¿²¹»¿²§¿´´±©»¼´¿²¼«»ô·²¬»¿¼¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬®»«´¬·²¿¼¶«¬³»²¬¬±®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹³·²·³«³òÝ«®®»²¬´§ô¼»ª»´±°»® ½±²¬®«½¬·²¹³«´¬·¾»¼®±±³¿°¿®¬³»²¬·²¬¸»Ë²·ª»®·¬§¿®»¿¿®»®»¯«·®»¼¬±°®±ª·¼»±²´§±²» ±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°»®¿°¿®¬³»²¬ô¾«¬¬¸»¬«¼»²¬©¸±¸¿®»¬¸±»¿°¿®¬³»²¬¬»²¼¬± ¾®·²¹³±®»¬¸¿²±²»½¿®°»®¿°¿®¬³»²¬òÌ¸»»ºº»½¬±º®»¯«·®·²¹³±®»±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹°¿½» ©·´´¾»¬±°®±ª·¼»±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹¬±½¿®¬¸¿¬©±«´¼¾»¬®¿ª»´´·²¹¬¸»¬®»»¬±º¬¸»Í±«¬¸¿²¼ É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¿²§©¿§òÌ¸»¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»©·´´²±¬·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ¿¼¼²»©½¿®¿²¼©·´´·³°´§®»¼«½»¬¸»½±²¹»¬·±²¬¸¿¬·¹»²»®¿¬»¼©¸»²¬¸»½¿®±©²»¼¾§ ¿°¿®¬³»²¬®»·¼»²¬¿®»¼®·ª»²¿®±«²¼·²»¿®½¸±º±²»±º¬¸»´·³·¬»¼«°°´§±º±²¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹°¿½»ò Ì¸»ÌÐÎ°®±ª··±²¿¬ÑßÎêêððïîðìëøë÷ô¿³±²¹±¬¸»®¬¸·²¹ô®»¯«·®»¬¸»½·¬§¬±¿¼±°¬´¿²¼ «»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬±®»¼«½»®»´·¿²½»±²¬¸»¿«¬±³±¾·´»òß°®±ª·¼»¼¾»´±©ô¬¸»°¿®µ·²¹ ¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸»ÌÐÎ¿¬ÑßÎêêððïîððìëò×¬ °®±ª·¼»æ øë÷×²ÓÐÑ¿®»¿ô´±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬¸¿´´¿¼±°¬´¿²¼«»¿²¼«¾¼·ª··±²®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬± ®»¼«½»®»´·¿²½»±²¬¸»¿«¬±³±¾·´»©¸·½¸æ Ú·²¼·²¹ë ø½÷×³°´»³»²¬¿°¿®µ·²¹°´¿²©¸·½¸æ øß÷ß½¸·»ª»¿ïðû®»¼«½¬·±²·²¬¸»²«³¾»®±º°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°»®½¿°·¬¿·²¬¸» ÓÐÑ¿®»¿±ª»®¬¸»°´¿²²·²¹°»®·±¼òÌ¸·³¿§¾»¿½½±³°´·¸»¼¬¸®±«¹¸¿ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±²±º®»¬®·½¬·±²±²¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º²»©°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»¿²¼ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬¬¸¿¬»¨·¬·²¹°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»¾»®»¼»ª»´±°»¼¬±±¬¸»®«»å øÞ÷ß·¼·²¿½¸·»ª·²¹¬¸»³»¿«®¿¾´»¬¿²¼¿®¼»¬·²¬¸»ÌÍÐ·²®»°±²»¬±ÑßÎ êêððïîððíëøì÷å øÝ÷×²½´«¼»´¿²¼«»¿²¼«¾¼·ª··±²®»¹«´¿¬·±²»¬¬·²¹³·²·³«³¿²¼ ³¿¨·³«³°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬·²¿°°®±°®·¿¬»´±½¿¬·±²ô«½¸¿ ¼±©²¬±©²ô¼»·¹²¿¬»¼®»¹·±²¿´±®½±³³«²·¬§½»²¬»®ô¿²¼¬®¿²·¬±®·»²¬»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬å¿²¼ øÜ÷×½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¼»³¿²¼³¿²¿¹»³»²¬°®±¹®¿³ô¬®¿²·¬±®·»²¬»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¯«·®»³»²¬¿²¼°´¿²²»¼¬®¿²·¬»®ª·½»ò Ì±½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºøë÷ô¬¸»Ý·¬§±ºÛ«¹»²»·²·¬·¿¬»¼¬¸»Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Î«´» ×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²Ð®±¶»½¬øÌÎ×Ð÷¿²¼¿¼±°¬»¼¿²±®¼·²¿²½»øÑ®¼·²¿²½»Ò±òïççìê÷¿³»²¼·²¹¬¸» Ã?YÅ´¿²¼«»½±¼»·²ïççíòÌ¸»ÌÎ×Ð±®¼·²¿²½»¿³»²¼»¼²«³»®±«°®±ª··±²±º¬¸»Û«¹»²» Ý±¼»¿¼¼®»·²¹ª»¸·½´»¿²¼¾·½§½´»°¿®µ·²¹ô¬®¿²·¬º¿½·´·¬·»ô¿²¼°»¼»¬®·¿²¿²¼¾·½§½´»¿½½»ò Ì¸»³±¬®»´»ª¿²¬¿³»²¼³»²¬©¿±²»¬¸¿¬®»¼«½»¼¬¸»½·¬§©·¼»³·²·³«³°¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®³«´¬·º¿³·´§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬º®±³ïòë°¿½»°»®¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬¬±ï°¿½»°»® ¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°´«¿²¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´îëû®»¼«½¬·±²òÜ±½«³»²¬¿¬·±²®»´¿¬»¼¬±¬¸»ïççíÌÎ×Ð ±®¼·²¿²½»³¿µ»·¬½´»¿®¬¸¿¬¬¸·ïççí®»¼«½¬·±²·²¬¸»³·²·³«³°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬©¿ ¿¼±°¬»¼¬±½±³°´§©·¬¸ÑßÎêêððïîððìëøë÷ø½÷øß÷òß»¨°´¿·²»¼¾»´±©ô¬¸»°®±°±»¼ °¿½µ¿¹»±º°¿®µ·²¹¿³»²¼³»²¬©·´´²±¬½¿«»¬¸»Û«¹»²»Ý±¼»¬±¾»·²½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ÑßÎ êêððïîððìëøë÷ø½÷øß÷ò Ì¸»°¿®µ·²¹¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±³°®·»¼±º¬¸®»»³¿·²°¿®¬òÌ¸»»¿®»æï÷¿²·²½®»¿»·² °¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®¿°¿®¬³»²¬²»¿®¬¸»«²·ª»®·¬§ô¾¿»¼±²²«³¾»®±º¾»¼®±±³åî÷¿² ¿´´±©¿²½»º±®¬¿²¼»³°¿®µ·²¹·²¬¸»¿³»¿®»¿¿ºº»½¬»¼¾§¬¸»°¿®µ·²¹·²½®»¿»å¿²¼í÷¿½·¬§ ©·¼»¼»½®»¿»·²°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®«¾·¼·¦»¼¸±«·²¹òÉ¸·´»¬¸»º·®¬½±³°±²»²¬ ®»°®»»²¬¿²·²½®»¿»·²³·²·³«³°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô·¬¿°°´·½¿¬·±²·´·³·¬»¼¬±í±®³±®» ¾»¼®±±³¿°¿®¬³»²¬·²³«´¬·º¿³·´§²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼²»¿®¬¸»Ë²·ª»®·¬§±ºÑ®»¹±²ò Ú«®¬¸»®³±®»ô¬¸··²½®»¿»·±ºº»¬¾§¬¸»¿´´±©¿²½»±º¬¿²¼»³°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»·²¬¸»¿³» ¹»±¹®¿°¸·½¿®»¿ô©¸·½¸°®±ª·¼»³±®»º´»¨·¾·´·¬§·²¸±©¬¸»®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹½¿²¾» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼±²·¬»ô¿²¼¾§¬¸»½·¬§©·¼»¼»½®»¿»·²°¿®µ·²¹º±®«¾·¼·¦»¼¸±«·²¹ò Ñª»®¬¸»´¿¬¬»²§»¿®øîðððîððç÷ô¬¸»®»¸¿¾»»²¿²¿ª»®¿¹»±ºéï«¾·¼·¦»¼¸±«·²¹«²·¬ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼°»®§»¿®ô½·¬§©·¼»òÜ«®·²¹¬¸»¿³»¬·³»°»®·±¼ô¬¸»¿ª»®¿¹»²«³¾»®±º³«´¬· º¿³·´§¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬½±²¬®«½¬»¼·²ÍËÒß¿²¼ÉËÒ©¿ìí°»®§»¿®òÞ¿»¼±²½«®®»²¬ ³·²·³«³°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬±º±²»°»®¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬ô¬¸·©±«´¼®»«´¬·²éï¿²¼ìí ®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»®»°»½¬·ª»´§ø±®ëì¿²¼íí·º¬¸»¿«¬±³¿¬·½®»¼«½¬·±²±ºîëû·¬¿µ»² ·²¬±¿½½±«²¬÷òÌ¸»°®±°±»¼¼»½®»¿»·²®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹º±®«¾·¼·¦»¼¸±«·²¹©±«´¼®»«´¬ ·²¿ëðéëû®»¼«½¬·±²ô¼»°»²¼·²¹±²¬¸»¬§°»±º¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°®±°±»¼ô©¸»®»¿¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ·²½®»¿»·²ÉËÒúÍËÒß©±«´¼®»«´¬·²¿ìðèðû·²½®»¿»·²®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹ô¼»°»²¼·²¹±² ¾»¼®±±³³·¨ô¾¿»¼±²·²º±®³¿¬·±²·²¬¸»®»½±®¼òß½¬«¿´°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬©·´´ª¿®§¾¿»¼ Ú·²¼·²¹ê ±²¬¸»¬§°»±º¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°®±°±»¼ô¾«¬·¬·®»¿±²¿¾´»¬±¿«³»¬¸¿¬¬¸»²»¬»ºº»½¬±º¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹¿³»²¼³»²¬©±«´¼²±¬¾»¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬·²½®»¿»·²®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹¿²¼¿«½¸ô ¿¼±°¬·±²±º¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±»²±¬¿ºº»½¬½±³°´·¿²½»ÑßÎêêððïîððìëøë÷ø½÷øß÷ò ß´¬¸±«¹¸¬¸»¿¾±ª»º·²¼·²¹¿®»¿¼»¯«¿¬»¬±¼»³±²¬®¿¬»½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸ÑßÎêêððïî ððìëøë÷ø½÷øß÷ôº«®¬¸»®«°°±®¬¬¸¿¬¬¸»°¿®µ·²¹¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸· »½¬·±²±º¬¸»ÌÐÎ½¿²¾»º±«²¼·²Ì®¿²Ð´¿²òß½±³°®»¸»²·ª»«°¼¿¬»±ºÌ®¿²Ð´¿²ø¬¸»´±½¿´ ¿²¼®»¹·±²¿´¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²§¬»³°´¿²÷©¿¿¼±°¬»¼·²îððï¿²¼©¿¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼¿ ½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»ÌÐÎòÌ®¿²Ð´¿²·ª»®§°»½·º·½¿¬±¸±©¬¸»Ý·¬§½±³°´·»©·¬¸ÑßÎêêð ðïîððìëøë÷ø½÷øß÷ò×²½´«¼»¼·²Ì®¿²Ð´¿²·¿°±´·½§¿²¼¬®¿¬»¹·»®»´¿¬»¼¬±°¿®µ·²¹ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬òÌ¸»º±´´±©·²¹»¨½»®°¬¿²¼¬¿¾´»·º®±³ÂÆ???íæÐ´¿²ñ«?±«ª??Ã£ªÁ«²¼»® ÂÉ?´ÃªÐÓ¿²¿¹»³»²¬É±ªËÁ¬±·³°´»³»²¬ÑßÎêêððïîðìëøë÷ø½÷øß÷æ ÌÐÎÎ»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®Ð¿®µ·²¹Í°¿½»Î»¼«½¬·±² Ì¸»ÌÐÎ®»¯«·®»¿°¿®µ·²¹°´¿²¬¸¿¬¿½¸·»ª»¿ïð°»®½»²¬®»¼«½¬·±²·²¬¸» ²«³¾»®±º°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°»®½¿°·¬¿·²¬¸»³»¬®±°±´·¬¿²¿®»¿±ª»®¬¸»îð §»¿®°´¿²²·²¹°»®·±¼òÚ±®¬¸»Û«¹»²»Í°®·²¹º·»´¼®»¹·±²ô¬¸»ÌÐÎ®»¼«½¬·±² ¹±¿´·òëïìò×º¬¸»´»ª»´±º°¿®µ·²¹¼»²·¬§ø°¿½»°»®¼»ª»´±°»¼¿½®»÷ ®»³¿·²½±²¬¿²¬¿²¼¬¸»´¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼°±°«´¿¬·±²º±®»½¿¬¿®» ¿½½«®¿¬»ô¬¸»²¬¸»´»ª»´±º°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°»®½¿°·¬¿©·´´¾»®»¼«½»¼¾§³±®» ¬¸¿²¬¸»ïð°»®½»²¬®»¼«½¬·±²®»¯«·®»¼¾§¬¸»ÌÐÎò Û¬·³¿¬»¼Ð¿®µ·²¹Í«°°´§ïççë¬±îðïë ïççëîðïëîðïëÌÐÎÙ±¿´ Æ±²»ñÐ´¿² Í°¿½»Ý¿°·¬¿Í°¿½»Ý¿°·¬¿Í°¿½»Ý¿°·¬¿ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² Ý±³³»®½·¿´ëïôîëçòîîçëéôèêëòïçìêïôêïèòîðé ×²¼«¬®·¿´îéôêîîòïîìíðôîððòïðïííôîðëòïïï ×²¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ìèôêçîòîïèìçôðêéòïêëëèôëíìòïçê Ì±¬¿´ïîéôëéíòëéïïíéôïíîòìêðïëíôíëéòëïì ß¸±©²·²¬¸»¿¾±ª»¬¿¾´»ô©¸»²Ì®¿²Ð´¿²©¿¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼¿½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ÑßÎêêð ðïîððìëøë÷ô®»·¼»²¬·¿´°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬©»®»²±¬¿½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²òÌ¸»Ý·¬§ø©·¬¸·¬½± ¿¼±°¬»®÷¼»³±²¬®¿¬»¼¿²¼ÜÔÝÜ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼¿°´¿²¬¸¿¬©±«´¼®»«´¬·²¿ïð°»®½»²¬ ®»¼«½¬·±²·²°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°»®ÑßÎêêððïîððìëøë÷ø½÷øß÷©·¬¸±«¬®»¹¿®¼¬±®»·¼»²¬·¿´ °¿®µ·²¹òÌ¸»¬¿¾´»¸±©»¼¬¸¿¬¬¸»´»ª»´±º°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°»®½¿°·¬¿©±«´¼¾»®»¼«½»¼¾§ ³±®»¬¸¿²¬¸»ïð°»®½»²¬®»¼«½¬·±²®»¯«·®»¼¾§¬¸»ÌÐÎòß«½¸ô¬¸»½«®®»²¬´§°®±°±»¼ °¿®µ·²¹¬®¿¬»¹·»ô©¸·½¸¿ºº»½¬®»·¼»²¬·¿´°¿®µ·²¹ø·²½®»¿·²¹®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹º±®³«´¬·º¿³·´§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©·¬¸¬¸®»»±®³±®»¾»¼®±±³·²¿´·³·¬»¼¹»±¹®¿°¸·½¿®»¿ô¿²¼ ¼»½®»¿·²¹®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹º±®«¾·¼·¦»¼¸±«·²¹½·¬§©·¼»÷¼±»²±¬·³°¿½¬¬¸»¿¾·´·¬§±º¬¸» ³»¬®±°±´·¬¿²¿®»¿¬±³»»¬¬¸»ÌÐÎ®»¯«·®»³»²¬±º®»¼«½·²¹°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°»®½¿°·¬¿¾§ïð °»®½»²¬ô¿²¼©·´´²±¬½¿«»¬¸»Û«¹»²»Ý±¼»¬±¾»·²½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ÑßÎêêððïîððìëøë÷ò Ú·²¿´´§ô·¬·©±®¬¸½´¿®·º§·²¹¬¸¿¬ô¿´¬¸±«¹¸¬¸»Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¿²¼¿°±®¬·±²±º ¬¸»É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¿®»·¼»²¬·º·»¼·²Ì®¿²Ð´¿²¿¾»·²¹¿°¿®¬±º¿ÂÉ£?ª?Ã± Ú·²¼·²¹é Ò±¼¿´Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬?ËÁ²±°±®¬·±²±º¬¸»»¿®»¿¸¿®»½»·ª»¼¬¸»Ò±¼¿´Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ß®»¿ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±²·²¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¿²¼²±°±®¬·±²¸¿¾»»²®»¦±²»¼¬±·²½´«¼»¬¸»ñÒÜÒ±¼¿´ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬±ª»®´¿§¦±²»ò×¬·²±¬½´»¿®¬¸¿¬¿²§±º¬¸»¿®»¿¿ºº»½¬»¼¾§¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·´´¾»¼»·¹²¿¬»¼¿²¼¦±²»¼¿²±¼¿´¿®»¿òß«½¸ôÌ®¿²Ð´¿²°±´·½·»°»®¬¿·²·²¹¬±²±¼¿´ ¿®»¿¿®»²±¬¿°°´·½¿¾´»ò Þ¿»¼±²¬¸»¿¾±ª»º·²¼·²¹ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïîò ò Ì±½±²»®ª»»²»®¹§ò Ù±¿´ïíÛ²»®¹§Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±² Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïí½¿´´º±®´¿²¼«»¬±¾»³¿²¿¹»¼¿²¼½±²¬®±´´»¼Â£¿¬±³¿¨·³·¦» ¬¸»½±²»®ª¿¬·±²±º¿´´º±®³±º»²»®¹§ô¾¿»¼«°±²±«²¼»½±²±³·½??ÃªÃ?±ÈÁÙ±¿´ïí· ¼·®»½¬»¼¿¬¬¸»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º´±½¿´»²»®¹§°±´·½·»¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹°®±ª··±²¿²¼¼±»²±¬ ¬¿¬»®»¯«·®»³»²¬©·¬¸®»°»½¬¬±±¬¸»®¬§°»±º´¿²¼«»¼»½··±²ò×¬·²±¬½´»¿®¬¸¿¬¬¸» ¹±¿´¸¿¿²§¾»¿®·²¹±²¬¸»°®±°±»¼±®¼·²¿²½»òÌ¸»®»·²±·³°´»³»²¬·²¹®«´»¬¸¿¬½´¿®·º·» ¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ïíòÌ±¬¸»»¨¬»²¬¬¸¿¬Ù±¿´ïí½±«´¼¾»¿°°´·»¼¬±¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ½¸¿²¹»ô¬¸»§¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïí¾»½¿«»·¬·®»¿±²¿¾´»¬±»¨°»½¬¬¸¿¬º«¬«®» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬«²¼»®¬¸»±®¼·²¿²½»©·´´³¿µ»»ºº·½·»²¬«»±º»²»®¹§òß³±®»¸±«·²¹¸¿¾»»² ¾«·´¬²»¿®½¿³°«ô®¿¬»±º¼®·ª·²¹¬±¹»¬¬±½¿³°«¸¿ª»¼®¿³¿¬·½¿´´§¼»½´·²»¼ô¿½½±®¼·²¹¬± «²·ª»®·¬§¬®¿ª»´«®ª»§®»«´¬òÌ¸»¬«¼»²¬©¸±¼±¸¿ª»¿½¿®²»¿®½¿³°«¼±²±¬¹»²»®¿´´§ ²»»¼¬±«»·¬»ª»®§¼¿§òÌ¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬º¿½·´·¬¿¬»¾»¬¬»®³¿²¿¹»³»²¬±º°¿®µ·²¹ º±®¬¸±»ª»¸·½´»ô·²½´«¼·²¹«¬·´·¦·²¹¬¿²¼»³°¿®µ·²¹©¸·½¸·»°»½·¿´´§¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º±®ª»¸·½´» ¬¸¿¬¿®»²±¬«»¼»ª»®§¼¿§ò ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»º±®¿²±®¼»®´§¿²¼»ºº·½·»²¬¬®¿²·¬·±²º®±³®«®¿´¬±«®¾¿² Ù±¿´ïìË®¾¿²·¦¿¬·±² ´¿²¼«»ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²®»¹¿®¼·²¹¬¸»¬®¿²·¬·±²±º´¿²¼º®±³®«®¿´ ¬±«®¾¿²«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïì¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïëÉ·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§òÌ±°®±¬»½¬ô½±²»®ª»ô»²¸¿²½»¿²¼³¿·²¬¿·²¬¸»²¿¬«®¿´ô ½»²·½ô¸·¬±®·½¿´ô¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ô»½±²±³·½¿²¼®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´¯«¿´·¬·»±º´¿²¼¿´±²¹¬¸»É·´´¿³»¬¬» Î·ª»®¿¬¸»É·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±²±¬½±²¬¿·²¿²§½¸¿²¹»¬¸¿¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»®»¹«´¿¬·±²±º¿®»¿©·¬¸·²¬¸» É·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïë¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïê¬¸®±«¹¸ïçÛ¬«¿®·²»Î»±«®½»ôÝ±¿¬¿´Í¸±®»´¿²¼ôÞ»¿½¸»¿²¼Ü«²»ô¿²¼Ñ½»¿² Î»±«®½»ò Ì¸»®»¿®»²±½±¿¬¿´ô±½»¿²ô»¬«¿®·²»ô±®¾»¿½¸¿²¼¼«²»®»±«®½»®»´¿¬»¼¬±¬¸»°®±°»®¬·» ¿ºº»½¬»¼¾§¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»»¹±¿´¿®»²±¬®»´»ª¿²¬¿²¼¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·´´²±¬¿ºº»½¬½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïê¬¸®±«¹¸ïçò Ú·²¼·²¹è øî÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿°°´·½¿¾´»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¿²¼ ¿°°´·½¿¾´»¿¼±°¬»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ò ß°°´·½¿¾´»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²Ð±´·½·» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßçæ Û¬¿¾´·¸¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»·²´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ ¬¸»¾®±¿¼¼»²·¬§½¿¬»¹±®·»±º¬¸·°´¿²ò Ó»¼·«³¼»²·¬§òÑª»®ïð¬¸®±«¹¸îð¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°»®¹®±¿½®»ø½±«´¼¬®¿²´¿¬»¬±±ª»® ïìòîè«²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»¬¸®±«¹¸îèòëê«²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»¼»°»²¼·²¹±²»¿½¸¶«®·¼·½¬·±² ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²³»¿«®»¿²¼´¿²¼«»¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬½±¼»ò÷ Ø·¹¸¼»²·¬§òÑª»®îð¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°»®¹®±¿½®»ø½±«´¼¬®¿²´¿¬»¬±±ª»®îèòëê«²·¬°»®²»¬ ¿½®»¼»°»²¼·²¹±²»¿½¸¶«®·¼·½¬·±²·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²³»¿«®»¿²¼´¿²¼«»¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬½±¼»ò÷ Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼»²·¬§°±´·½·»òÌ¸»Ã?YÅ¦±²·²¹ °®±ª··±²·²¬¸»Û«¹»²»Ý±¼»¿´´±©·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¸·¹¸»®¼»²·¬·»·²¬¸»Îí¿²¼Îì¦±²»¬¸¿² ¿®»®»¯«·®»¼¾§Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²Ð±´·½§ßòç¿²¼¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬½¸¿²¹»¬¸»¦±²·²¹ ±º¿²§°®±°»®¬§òÌ¸»®»·²±»ª·¼»²½»·²¬¸»®»½±®¼¬¸¿¬¼»³±²¬®¿¬»¬¸¿¬ô·²°¿·²¹¬¸» °®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬ô¬¸»½·¬§©·´´¾»«²¿¾´»¬±½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸»îèòëê¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°»®²»¬ ¿½®»¬¸¿¬·»¬¾§Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²Ð±´·½§ßòçòÌ¸»¬¿¾´»«¾³·¬¬»¼¾§Í¬»ª»²Þ¿µ»®±²Ñ½¬±¾»® ¬¸ ¸±©¿¿³°´»±º³«´¬·º¿³·´§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿°°®±ª»¼¾»¬©»»²îððð¿²¼îððç·²¬¸» îð É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¿²¼Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼òÌ¸»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®¿²¹» º®±³¬©±«²·¬¬±º±®¬§«²·¬ô¿²¼¼»²·¬·»±ºïì¬±ïïî«²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»ò Ì¸»®»·¿©·¼»®¿²¹»±º°¿®µ·²¹¬±«²·¬ñ¾»¼®±±³®¿¬·±ô¾«¬·²¹»²»®¿´ô¬¸»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿°°®±¿½¸·²¹³¿¨·³«³¿´´±©¿¾´»¼»²·¬§©·¬¸·²¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»¦±²·²¹¼·¬®·½¬¿½¸·»ª»¼¬¸¿¬ ¼»²·¬§©¸·´»¿´±°®±ª·¼·²¹±²·¬»°¿®µ·²¹·²²«³¾»®«ºº·½·»²¬¬±½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸»°¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬¾»·²¹°®±°±»¼òÚ®±³¬¸·»ª·¼»²½»ô·¬½¿²¾»½±²½´«¼»¼¬¸¿¬¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ·²½®»¿»·²°¿®µ·²¹º±®«²·¬©·¬¸¬¸®»»±®³±®»¾»¼®±±³©·´´²±¬½±³°®±³·»¬¸»¿¾·´·¬§±º °®±°»®¬·»©·¬¸·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿¬±³»»¬¼»²·¬§®»¯«·®»³»²¬¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿¬«½¸ ¼»²·¬·»·´·µ»´§¬±½±²¬·²«»ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßïíæ ×²½®»¿»±ª»®¿´´®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»²·¬§·²¬¸»³»¬®±°±´·¬¿²¿®»¿¾§½®»¿¬·²¹³±®»±°°±®¬«²·¬·» º±®»ºº»½¬·ª»´§¼»·¹²»¼·²º·´´ô®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼³·¨»¼«»©¸·´»½±²·¼»®·²¹·³°¿½¬±º ·²½®»¿»¼®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»²·¬§±²¸·¬±®·½ô»¨·¬·²¹¿²¼º«¬«®»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ì¸»°®±°±¿´©·´´½±²¬·²«»¬±°®±ª·¼»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¾«¬©·´´¾»¬¬»®»²«®»¬¸¿¬·¬»¼»·¹²·²¬¸»·²º·´´¿®»¿©·´´°®»»®ª»¬¸»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ô¼·®»½¬´§·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¬¸·°±´·½§ò Findings 9 Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßïìæ Î»ª·»©´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²°»®·±¼·½¿´´§¬±®»³±ª»¾¿®®·»®¬±¸·¹¸»® ¼»²·¬§¸±«·²¹¿²¼¬±³¿µ»°®±ª··±²º±®¿º«´´®¿²¹»±º¸±«·²¹±°¬·±²ò Ì¸·°±´·½§®»½±¹²·¦»¬¸¿¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ¿¾·´·¬§¬±°®»¼·½¬¬¸»«´¬·³¿¬»·³°¿½¬±º´¿²¼«» ®»¹«´¿¬·±²±²¸±«·²¹¼»²·¬§¿²¼±°¬·±²¿¬¬¸»¬·³»±º´¿²¼«»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿®»¿¼±°¬»¼±® ¿³»²¼»¼··³°»®º»½¬ò×¬·³°´§®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬¬¸»½·¬§¿»¿²¼½±®®»½¬ô±²¿°»®·±¼·½¾¿·ô ¿²§´¿²¼«»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬°®±ª»¬±¾»¿¾¿®®·»®¬±¸±«·²¹¼»²·¬§±®°®±ª·¼·²¹¿º«´´®¿²¹» ±º¸±«·²¹±°¬·±²òÉ¸·´»¬¸·°±´·½§°®±¾¿¾´§©±«´¼¾¿®¬¸»½·¬§º®±³¿¼±°¬·²¹¿´¿²¼«» ®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬±²·¬º¿½»©±«´¼¾»¿¾¿®®·»®¬±¿½¸·»ª·²¹¼»·®»¼¸±«·²¹¼»²·¬§±®¸±«·²¹ ±°¬·±²ô¬¸»»ª·¼»²½»·²¬¸»®»½±®¼¼±»²±¬«°°±®¬«½¸¿½±²½´«·±²¿¾±«¬¬¸·±®¼·²¿²½»ò Ì¸»°®±°±¿´°»½·º·½¿´´§·²½´«¼»®»¼«½¬·±²·²°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®«¾·¼·¦»¼¸±«·²¹ô ®»³±ª·²¹¿°±¬»²¬·¿´¾¿®®·»®¬±¬¸·º±®³±º¸·¹¸»®¼»²·¬§¸±«·²¹òß©»´´ô¬¿²¼»³°¿®µ·²¹ º¿½·´·¬¿¬»»ºº·½·»²¬«»±º´¿²¼¦±²»¼º±®³«´¬·º¿³·´§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬òÛª·¼»²½»·²¬¸»®»½±®¼ ¸±©¬¸¿¬¬¸»´·¹¸¬·²½®»¿»°®±°±»¼º±®¿°¿®¬³»²¬©·¬¸¬¸®»»±®³±®»¾»¼®±±³²»¿®¬¸» «²·ª»®·¬§©·´´²±¬°®»»²¬¿¾¿®®·»®¬±¬¸»½±²¬®«½¬·±²±º¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§¸±«·²¹ô»·¬¸»®ø»» ¿¾±ª»º·²¼·²¹±º½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸Ð±´·½§ßç÷ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»·¹²¿²¼Ó·¨»¼Ë»Ð±´·½§ßîíæ Î»¼«½»·³°¿½¬±º¸·¹¸»®¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¿²¼³·¨»¼«»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±²«®®±«²¼·²¹«» ¾§½±²·¼»®·²¹·¬»ô´¿²¼½¿°»ô¿²¼¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼±®¹«·¼»´·²»·²´±½¿´¦±²·²¹ ¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²ò Ì¸»°®±°±¿´«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§¾§»¬¿¾´·¸·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¿²¼¿®¼¬¸¿¬·³°®±ª»¬¸» ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬±º±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹òÌ¸»»¬¿²¼¿®¼©·´´´»»²¬¸»·³°¿½¬±º¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§·²º·´´ ±²«®®±«²¼·²¹«»ô¿½±³°¿®»¼¬±¼»ª»´±°³»²¬½«®®»²¬´§¿´´±©»¼¾§¬¸»»¨·¬·²¹±²»·¦» º·¬¿´´°¿®µ·²¹¬¿²¼¿®¼òÌ¸»²»©®»¹«´¿¬·±²«¬·´·¦»¿²»©©¿§¬±³¿²¿¹»°¿®µ·²¹¾§¬§·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬³±®»½´±»´§¬±¬¸»¬§°»±º³«´¬·º¿³·´§«»ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»·¹²¿²¼Ó·¨»¼Ë»Ð±´·½§ßîìæ Ý±²·¼»®¿¼±°¬·²¹±®³±¼·º§·²¹´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬±°®±ª·¼»¿ ¼·½®»¬·±²¿®§¼»·¹²®»ª·»©°®±½»±®½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª»¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼ô·²±®¼»®¬± ¿¼¼®»·«»±º½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§ô¿»¬¸»¬·½ô±°»²°¿½»ô¿²¼±¬¸»®½±³³«²·¬§½±²½»®²ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼°¿®µ·²¹¬®¿¬»¹·»·³°´»³»²¬¬¸·°±´·½§¾»½¿«»¬¸»§¿®»½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª» ¬¿²¼¿®¼¬¸¿¬¿¼¼®»·«»±º½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§¿²¼±¬¸»®½±³³«²·¬§½±²½»®²ô·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿ºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§¿²¼²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼½¸¿®¿½¬»®ò ßºº±®¼¿¾´»ôÍ°»½·¿´Ò»»¼¿²¼Ú¿·®Ø±«·²¹Ð±´·½§ßííæ Ý±²·¼»®´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬?Ðk±?Ã£ªÅ·³°¿½¬±²¬¸»½±¬±º¸±«·²¹ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¼·®»½¬´§«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§¾§®»¼«½·²¹°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±® ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´»¸±«·²¹ò×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô¬¸»¬¿²¼»³°¿®µ·²¹°®±ª··±²¿´´±©³±®»·¬»¼»·¹² º´»¨·¾·´·¬§ô°±¬»²¬·¿´´§®»¼«½·²¹½±¬òÉ·¬¸®»¹¿®¼¬±¬¸»´·¹¸¬·²½®»¿»·²®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹º±® Findings 10 ¿°¿®¬³»²¬©·¬¸¬¸®»»±®³±®»¾»¼®±±³²»¿®¬¸»«²·ª»®·¬§ô°®±ª·¼·²¹³±®»±²·¬»°¿®µ·²¹· ´·µ»´§¬±·²½®»¿»¬¸»½±¬¿±½·¿¬»¼©·¬¸½±²¬®«½¬·²¹¬¸±»«²·¬òÌ¸·°±¬»²¬·¿´·³°¿½¬¸¿ ¾»»²©»·¹¸»¼¿¹¿·²¬¬¸»´·µ»´§°«¾´·½¾»²»º·¬²±¬»¼·²°«¾´·½¬»¬·³±²§®»¹¿®¼·²¹¬¸»²»»¼º±® ¬¸»·²½®»¿»ô¿²¼·¬·®»¿±²¿¾´»¬±½±²½´«¼»¬¸»°±¬»²¬·¿´½±¬·³°¿½¬¿®»©¿®®¿²¬»¼«²¼»® ¬¸»½·®½«³¬¿²½»ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð±´·½§Úòíæ Ð®±ª·¼»º±®¬®¿²·¬«°°±®¬·ª»´¿²¼«»°¿¬¬»®²¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô·²½´«¼·²¹¸·¹¸»®·²¬»²·¬§ô ¬®¿²·¬±®·»²¬»¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿´±²¹³¿¶±®¬®¿²·¬½±®®·¼±®¿²¼²»¿®¬®¿²·¬¬¿¬·±²ô³»¼·«³ ¿²¼¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©·¬¸·²d³·´»±º¬®¿²·¬¬¿¬·±²ô³¿¶±®¬®¿²·¬ ½±®®·¼±®ô»³°´±§³»²¬½»²¬»®ô¿²¼¼±©²¬±©²¿®»¿å¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·²¼»·¹²¿¬»¼¿®»¿¬¸¿¬¿®»±®½±«´¼¾»©»´´»®ª»¼¾§»¨·¬·²¹±®°´¿²²»¼¬®¿²·¬ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§òÌ¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿¿®»°´¿²²»¼º±®¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§ ¬¸¬¸ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼¿®»»®ª»¼¾§¬®¿²·¬±²Û¿¬ïïôÛ¿¬ïíô¿²¼Û¿¬ïç¬¸ßª»²«»ôØ·´§¿®¼ô Ð¿¬¬»®±²ô¿²¼ß´¼»®Í¬®»»¬òÛ¨·¬·²¹¼»²·¬§·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿¿´®»¿¼§»¨½»»¼¬¸»¸·¹¸ ¼»²·¬§¬¸®»¸±´¼±ºîð«²·¬°»®¹®±¿½®»òÌ¸»²»©¬¿²¼¿®¼°®±ª·¼»¹®»¿¬»®½»®¬¿·²¬§¬¸¿¬ ²»©½±²¬®«½¬·±²©·´´¾»¬¬»®¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¬¸»¼»³¿²¼±ºíõ¾»¼®±±³¿°¿®¬³»²¬ô¿²¼ ¾»¬¬»®³¿²¿¹»°¿®µ·²¹¾§¿´´±©·²¹¬¸»¬¿²¼»³±°¬·±²¿²¼·³°®±ª»¼»ºº·½¿½§±º±ºº·¬»´»¿·²¹ô ¬¸»®»¾§®»¼«½·²¹²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼±°°±·¬·±²¬±·²º·´´¿²¼«°°±®¬·²¹®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º½»²¬®¿´´§ ´±½¿¬»¼ô¬®¿²·¬¿½½»·¾´»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô¬¸»®»¼«½¬·±²·²®»¯«·®»¼°¿®µ·²¹º±® «¾·¼·¦»¼¸±«·²¹«°°±®¬¿ºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§¿²¼¿½½»¬±¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»³±¼»ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð±´·½§Úòéæ ×²½®»¿»¬¸»«»±º³±¬±®ª»¸·½´»°¿®µ·²¹³¿²¿¹»³»²¬¬®¿¬»¹·»·²»´»½¬»¼¿®»¿ ¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬¬¸»Û«¹»²»Í°®·²¹º·»´¼³»¬®±°±´·¬¿²¿®»¿ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼°¿½µ¿¹»±º¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±»·²½®»¿»¬¸»«»±º°¿®µ·²¹¼»³¿²¼³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ¬»½¸²·¯«»òÝ¸¿²¹·²¹¬¸»¿³±«²¬±º°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»¼¼»°»²¼·²¹±²¬¸»½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¬·½±º¬¸» °¿®¬·½«´¿®«»·¿°¿®µ·²¹³¿²¿¹»³»²¬¬®¿¬»¹§òÌ¸»¬¿²¼»³°¿®µ·²¹°®±ª··±²³¿µ» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»¿²»©±°¬·±²º±®¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·²¹ª»¸·½´»©¸»®»°¿½»·¬·¹¸¬òÌ¸»·³°®±ª»³»²¬¬± ±ºº·¬»´»¿·²¹°®±ª·¼»º±®¾»¬¬»®¬®¿½µ·²¹¿²¼³±²·¬±®·²¹±º¬¸»±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹«°°´§·²¬¸» ¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿òß²¼ô¬¸»°®±°±»¼½¸¿²¹»¬±°¿®µ·²¹¬¿´´¼·³»²·±²·³°®±ª»¿º»¬§¿²¼ ³¿²»«ª»®¿¾·´·¬§º±®ª»¸·½´»°¿®µ»¼±²¿´´»§ò Ì¸»Ü±©²¬±©²Ð´¿²¿²¼¬¸»É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²¿®»¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»®»º·²»³»²¬ °´¿²º±®¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬®»´¿¬»¼¬±·²½®»¿·²¹°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®³«´¬·º¿³·´§ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¬¸»«²·ª»®·¬§¿®»¿òÚ·²¼·²¹¿¼¼®»·²¹®»´»ª¿²¬°®±ª··±²±º¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿®»°®±ª·¼»¼¾»´±©ò Ð«¾´·½Ú¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼Í»®ª·½»Ð±´·½§Ùòïéò ×²½´«¼»³»¿«®»·²´±½¿´´¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬³·²·³·¦»¬¸»¿³±«²¬±º ·³°»®ª·±««®º¿½»·²²»©¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¿³¿²²»®¬¸¿¬®»¼«½»¬±®³©¿¬»®°±´´«¬·±²ô ®»¼«½»¬¸»²»¹¿¬·ª»»ºº»½¬º®±³·²½®»¿»·²®«²±ººô¿²¼·½±³°¿¬·¾´»©·¬¸Ó»¬®±Ð´¿² Findings 11 °±´·½·»ò Ì¸·°±´·½§¼±»²±¬°®±¸·¾·¬¿²§¿³»²¼³»²¬±º¬¸»½±¼»¬¸¿¬³·¹¸¬´»¿¼¬±·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¸¿¬·²½´«¼»³±®»·³°»®ª·±««®º¿½»òÎ¿¬¸»®ô·¬®»¯«·®»¬¸»½·¬§¬±·²½´«¼» ³»¿«®»·²·¬´¿²¼«»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬©·´´³·²·³·¦»·³°»®ª·±««®º¿½»å·¬·²±¬¿¾´¿²µ»¬ ¾¿²±²´¿²¼«»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿³»²¼³»²¬¬¸¿¬³·¹¸¬ô·²°¿®¬·½«´¿®½¿»ô´»¿¼¬±³±®» ·³°»®ª·±««®º¿½»ò×º°¿®µ·²¹·°®±ª·¼»¼«²¼»®²»¿¬¸³«´¬·°´»º¿³·´§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¬¸»®» ©±«´¼¾»²±·²½®»¿»·²»¨°±»¼·³°»®ª·±««®º¿½»¿¬¿´´òÌ¸»®»·«ºº·½·»²¬»ª·¼»²½»·²¬¸» ®»½±®¼¬±«°°±®¬¬¸»½±²½´«·±²¬¸¿¬¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬³¿§²±¬®»«´¬·²¿²±ª»®¿´´ ·²½®»¿»·²·³°»®ª·±««®º¿½»ò Ü±©²¬±©²Ð´¿² ß®»ª·»©±º¬¸»Ü±©²¬±©²Ð´¿²º±«²¼²±°±´·½·»¬¸¿¬¿°°´§¬±¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬ò É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿² Ô¿²¼Ë»Ð±´·½§íÌ¸»Ý·¬§±ºÛ«¹»²»©·´´«°¼¿¬»·¬Ô¿²¼Ë»Ý±¼»¿²¼¬¸¿¬»ºº±®¬¸¿´´ : °¿®¬·½«´¿®´§¬¿µ»·²¬±¿½½±«²¬¬¸»²»»¼¬±æ ®»¼«½»²±²®»·¼»²¬·¿´«»°»®³·¬¬»¼·²¬¸»Îí¿²¼Îì¦±²»ò ®»¼»º·²»«¿¾´»±°»²°¿½»ò »²¿¾´»·²º·´´·²¹±²²»©´§½®»¿¬»¼³¿´´´±¬ò »²¿¾´»¿´´»§¿½½»¿¬¸»°®·³¿®§¿½½»¬±²»©´§½®»¿¬»¼´±¬ò ®»¼«½»¬¸»³·²·³«³´±¬·¦»ò ·²½®»¿»¬¸»º´»¨·¾·´·¬§±º¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¿²¼¿®¼øº±®»¨¿³°´»¬±»²¿¾´»³±®» »ºº·½·»²¬«»±º±°»²°¿½»ô¸¿®»¼±°»²°¿½»ô¸¿®»¼°¿®µ·²¹ô¿²¼³±®» »¨¬»²·ª»«»±º°«¾´·½®·¹¸¬±º©¿§÷ò ®»ª·»©°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»°«®°±»±º ®»¼«½·²¹¬¸»®»¯«·®»¼²«³¾»®±º°¿½»°»®«²·¬·²¬¸»°´¿²¿®»¿ò ¿³»²¼¬¸»½±³³»®½·¿´¦±²·²¹·²¬¸»Ý·¬§Ý±¼»¬±°®±ª·¼»¿¹®»¿¬»®®¿²¹»±º ½±³³»®½·¿´¦±²»ò Ý±²½«®®»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»½±¼»¿³»²¼³»²¬ô¬¸»½·¬§°®±°±»¬±¿³»²¼¬¸»¿¾±ª»°±´·½§¬±®»¿¼¿ º±´´±©æ Ô¿²¼Ë»Ð±´·½§íæ ®»ª·»©°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¬¸»°´¿²¿®»¿¬± ®»°±²¼¬±½¸¿²¹·²¹½·®½«³¬¿²½»ô«½¸¿¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬®»²¼ô°¿®µ·²¹¿²¼ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²«°°´§¿²¼¼»³¿²¼¬®»²¼ò Ý±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿°°®±ª¿´½®·¬»®·¿·±«¬´·²»¼¾»´±©¿¬ÛÝçòèìîìò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²¿²¼Ð¿®µ·²¹Ð±´·½§ïæ Ì¸»«»±º¾·½§½´»ô³¿¬®¿²·¬ô©¿´µ·²¹ô½¿®°±±´·²¹ô¿²¼±¬¸»®¿°°®±°®·¿¬»¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ³±¼»±º¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²ô»°»½·¿´´§¾§»³°´±§»»·²¬¸»°´¿²¿®»¿ô¸¿´´¾»¿½¬·ª»´§ »²½±«®¿¹»¼¿²¼°®±ª·¼»¼º±®·²±®¼»®¬±®»¼«½»¿«¬±³±¾·´»¼»°»²¼»²½»¿²¼¿´´»ª·¿¬»¬®¿ºº·½ Findings 12 ¿²¼°¿®µ·²¹°®±¾´»³ò Ì¸»Ý·¬§ôÔ¿²»Ì®¿²·¬Ü·¬®·½¬ô¿²¼¬¸»Ë²·ª»®·¬§±ºÑ®»¹±²¿´´¿½¬·ª»´§«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§ ¬¸®±«¹¸¬¸»·®¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²¼»³¿²¼³¿²¿¹»³»²¬¿²¼°¿®µ·²¹°®±¹®¿³òÌ¸»«¾¶»½¬ ¿³»²¼³»²¬©·´´²±¬½¸¿²¹»¬¸±»°®±¹®¿³ô¾«¬®¿¬¸»®©±®µ©·¬¸¬¸»³¬±¿¼¼®»ª¿®·±« °·»½»±º¬¸»°«¦¦´»òÌ¸»½·¬§®»¹«´¿¬»²»©¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô°®±ª·¼»¾·½§½´»¿²¼°»¼»¬®·¿² °¿¬¸ô®±«¬»ô°®±¹®¿³¿²¼·²º±®³¿¬·±²ô»²º±®½»°¿®µ·²¹®«´»·²¬¸»®·¹¸¬±º©¿§ô¿²¼ ³¿²¿¹»¬¸»Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ð¿®µ·²¹Ð»®³·¬°®±¹®¿³òÌ¸»«²·ª»®·¬§°®±ª·¼»¾«°¿»¬±¿´´ º¿½«´¬§ô¬¿ººô¿²¼¬«¼»²¬ô°®±ª·¼»¾·½§½´»¿²¼°»¼»¬®·¿²°¿¬¸ô®±«¬»ô°®±¹®¿³¿²¼ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ô¿²¼´·³·¬¿²¼½¸¿®¹»¸·¹¸°®·½»º±®±²½¿³°«°¿®µ·²¹òÔ¿²»Ì®¿²·¬Ü·¬®·½¬ °®±ª·¼»¾«»®ª·½»ô¬®·°°´¿²²·²¹»®ª·½»ô»ª»²¬¸«¬¬´»ô¿²¼±¬¸»®¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²°®±¹®¿³ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²¿²¼Ð¿®µ·²¹Ð±´·½§îæ Ì¸»Ý·¬§©·´´³¿µ»¬¸»°´¿²¿®»¿¿³¿¶±®¬¿®¹»¬º±®¼»ª»´±°·²¹¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¬¸»®·¼» ¸¿®·²¹½¿®°±±´·²¹ô¿²¼±¬¸»®°®±¹®¿³¼»·¹²»¼¬±®»¼«½»¿«¬±³±¾·´»¬®¿ºº·½ò Ì¸»Ý·¬§°¿®¬²»®©·¬¸Ô¿²»Ì®¿²·¬Ü·¬®·½¬·²±ºº»®·²¹¬¸»»»®ª·½»òÌ¸»Ë²·ª»®·¬§±ºÑ®»¹±² ¿²¼³¿¶±®»³°´±§»®´·µ»Ð»¿½»Ø»¿´¬¸¿®»µ»§°¿®¬·½·°¿²¬·²ÔÌÜ°®±¹®¿³¿²¼»®ª·½» ¼»·¹²»¼¬±®»¼«½»¿«¬±³±¾·´»¬®¿ºº·½òÌ¸»«¾¶»½¬¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±½¸¿²¹»¬¸»°®±¹®¿³ ±ºº»®»¼®»´¿¬»¼¬±®·¼»¸¿®·²¹¿²¼½¿®°±±´·²¹ô¾«¬®¿¬¸»®©±®µ©·¬¸¬¸»³·²°®±ª·¼·²¹¿ ½±³°®»¸»²·ª»¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²¿²¼°¿®µ·²¹¬®¿¬»¹§º±®¬¸»¿®»¿ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²¿²¼Ð¿®µ·²¹Ð±´·½§ìæ Ì¸»¿¼ª»®»»ºº»½¬±º³±¬±®ª»¸·½´»³±ª»³»²¬¿²¼°¿®µ·²¹¸¿´´¾»³·¬·¹¿¬»¼¿³«½¸¿ °±·¾´»ò Ì¸»«¾¶»½¬°¿½µ¿¹»±º¿³»²¼³»²¬··²¬»²¼»¼°®·³¿®·´§¬±®»¼«½»¬¸»·³°¿½¬¿±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸°¿®µ·²¹¿²¼³±¬±®ª»¸·½´»¬®¿ºº·½òÌ¸»°®±ª··±²©±®µ¬±¹»¬¸»®¬±³¿µ»»ºº·½·»²¬«»±º ´¿²¼ô´»»²¬¸»·³°¿½¬±º¸·¹¸°¿®µ·²¹¼»³¿²¼±²²»¿®¾§²»·¹¸¾±®ô¿²¼°®±ª·¼»¿º·²»® ¹®¿·²»¼¿°°®±¿½¸¬±°¿®µ·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®ª¿®·±«¬§°»±º³«´¬·º¿³·´§¸±«·²¹ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²¿²¼Ð¿®µ·²¹Ð±´·½§êæ Í¬»°¸¿´´¾»¬¿µ»²¬±¹¿·²¾»¬¬»®«¿¹»±º»¨·¬·²¹±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹º¿½·´·¬·»·²¬¸»°´¿² ¿®»¿ò ß»¨°´¿·²»¼¿¾±ª»ô¬¸»°®±°±»¼°¿½µ¿¹»±º¿³»²¼³»²¬½±²¬®·¾«¬»¬±¬¸»»ºº·½·»²¬«»±º ´¿²¼¾§°®±³±¬·²¹¬¿²¼»³°¿®µ·²¹ô·³°®±ª·²¹±ºº·¬»´»¿·²¹³»½¸¿²·³ô¿²¼®»ª··²¹½»®¬¿·² ¼·³»²·±²¿´¬¿²¼¿®¼òÌ¸»»³»¿«®»½±³¾·²»¬±»ºº»½¬¾»¬¬»®«¿¹»±º±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹ º¿½·´·¬·»·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿ò øí÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ÛÝçòíðîðÝ®·¬»®·¿º±®Û¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿²ÍÍ°»½·¿´ ß®»¿Æ±²»ô·²¬¸»½¿»±º»¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»ò Findings 13 Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬»¬¿¾´·¸¿°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸·½®·¬»®·±²¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ ¬±¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬ò ÛÝçòèìîìÎ»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²ß³»²¼³»²¬ß°°®±ª¿´Ý®·¬»®·¿òÌ¸»°´¿²²·²¹½±³³··±²¸¿´´ »ª¿´«¿¬»°®±°±»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬¾¿»¼±²¬¸»½®·¬»®·¿»¬º±®¬¸¾»´±©ô ¿²¼º±®©¿®¼¿®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²¬±¬¸»½·¬§½±«²½·´òÌ¸»½·¬§½±«²½·´¸¿´´¼»½·¼» ©¸»¬¸»®¬±¿½¬±²¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ò×º¬¸»½·¬§½±«²½·´¼»½·¼»¬±¿½¬ô·¬¸¿´´¿°°®±ª»ô ¿°°®±ª»©·¬¸³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²±®¼»²§¿°®±°±»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬ò ß°°®±ª¿´ô±®¿°°®±ª¿´©·¬¸³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²¸¿´´¾»¾¿»¼±²½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹½®·¬»®·¿æ øï÷Ì¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿´´±º¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹æ ø¿÷Í¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ò ø¾÷ß°°´·½¿¾´»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ò ø½÷Î»³¿·²·²¹°±®¬·±²±º¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ò Ì¸»±²´§°±´·½§·²¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¼·®»½¬´§¿ºº»½¬»¼·¬¸»°±´·½§°®±°±»¼¬±¾»¿³»²¼»¼ô ¿¼·½«»¼¿¾±ª»òÌ¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»®»ª·»¼°´¿²°±´·½§å»»¿¾±ª» º±®¼·½«·±²±º¬¸»«ª«ª?Å½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ôÓ»¬®±Ð´¿² °±´·½·»ô¿²¼¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²°±´·½·»¬¸¿¬®»´¿¬»¬±°¿®µ·²¹¿²¼¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² øî÷Ì¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬¿¼¼®»»±²»±®³±®»±º¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹æ ø¿÷ß²»®®±®·²¬¸»°«¾´·½¿¬·±²±º¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ò ø¾÷Ò»©·²ª»²¬±®§³¿¬»®·¿´©¸·½¸®»´¿¬»¬±¿¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ò ø½÷Ò»©±®¿³»²¼»¼½±³³«²·¬§°±´·½·»ò ø¼÷Ò»©±®¿³»²¼»¼°®±ª··±²·²¿º»¼»®¿´´¿©±®®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô¬¿¬»¬¿¬«¬»ô ¬¿¬»®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ô±®¬¿¬»¿¹»²½§´¿²¼«»°´¿²ò ø»÷ß½¸¿²¹»±º½·®½«³¬¿²½»·²¿«¾¬¿²¬·¿´³¿²²»®¬¸¿¬©¿²±¬¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¿¬¬¸»¬·³»¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²©¿¿¼±°¬»¼ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬¿¼¼®»ø»÷¿¾±ª»òÌ¸»½¸¿²¹»·²½·®½«³¬¿²½» ¬¸¿¬±½½«®®»¼·²½»¬¸»°´¿²©¿¿¼±°¬»¼îé§»¿®¿¹±·¿¬®»²¼¬±©¿®¼³±®»¿°¿®¬³»²¬ °®±°±·²¹¬¸®»»ôº±«®ôº·ª»ô±®³±®»¾»¼®±±³ø¿²¼¿¿¹»²»®¿´®«´»ô¬¸®»»ôº±«®ôº·ª»±®³±®» ±½½«°¿²¬÷òß¬¬¸»¬·³»¬¸»°´¿²©¿©®·¬¬»²ô¬¸»º·²¼·²¹¬¿¬»¼¬¸¿¬¬¸»¿ª»®¿¹»²«³¾»®±º °»±°´»°»®¸±«»¸±´¼·²¬¸»°´¿²¿®»¿©¿³¿´´»®¬¸¿²¬¸»½·¬§¿¿©¸±´»ô¿²¼¬¸»¸±«·²¹ «²·¬·¦»©¿³¿´´»®±²¬¸»¿ª»®¿¹»øÉËÐô°òìê÷òÝ«®®»²¬´§ôkÐªÅ¿ª»®¿¹»¸±«»¸±´¼·¦» ·îòîëøÛÝÔßôîððç÷¿²¼¼»½´·²·²¹ô®»º´»½¬·²¹²¿¬·±²¿´¼±©²©¿®¼¬®»²¼·²½»¬¸»ïçéðò Ü¿¬¿½±´´»½¬»¼¿²¼«¾³·¬¬»¼¾§Í¬»ª»²Þ¿µ»®ôÉ»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®ô«·²¹½·¬§®»½±®¼ ¿²¼¾«·´¼·²¹³¿²¿¹»®°¸±²»½¿´´¿±«®½»ô¸±©¬¸¿¬³«´¬·º¿³·´§°®±¶»½¬²»¿®¬¸» «²·ª»®·¬§·²ïççë¿²¼ïççê·²½´«¼»¼¿º»©ì¾»¼®±±³«²·¬ô¿²¼²±ë±®ê¾»¼®±±³«²·¬òÑº ¬¸»«²·¬«®ª»§»¼º±®îððìô²±«²·¬¸¿¼³±®»¬¸¿²¬¸®»»¾»¼®±±³òÍ¬¿®¬·²¹·²îððëô¬¸» ¬®»²¼¬±©¿®¼·²½®»¿·²¹²«³¾»®±º¾»¼®±±³¾»¹¿²¬±»³»®¹»ô°»¿µ·²¹·²îððé©¸»²»ª»®¿´ ¿°¿®¬³»²¬°®±¶»½¬°®±°±»¼º·ª»±®·¨¾»¼®±±³°»®«²·¬ò Findings 14 Ì¸»°±°«´¿¬·±²®»²¬·²¹¬¸»¿°¿®¬³»²¬²»¿®¬¸»«²·ª»®·¬§¬»²¼¬±¾»´¿®¹»´§³¿¼»«°±º «²·ª»®·¬§¬«¼»²¬¸±«»¸±´¼ô±º¬»²³«´¬·°´»¿¼«´¬·²¼·ª·¼«¿´òß½®±¬¸»½·¬§ô¸±«»¸±´¼ ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¬·½ª¿®§³±®»©·¼»´§¿²¼³¿§·²½´«¼»°»®±²±º¼·ºº»®»²¬¿¹»º®±³½¸·´¼®»²¬± »²·±®ô·²¿¼¼·¬·±²¬±³«´¬·°´»¿¼«´¬òË²·ª»®·¬§¬«¼»²¬¼±²±¬¹»²»®¿´´§²»»¼¬±«»¿½¿®¬± ¹»¬¬±½¿³°«ô¿²¼«²·ª»®·¬§°®±¹®¿³»²½±«®¿¹»«»±º±¬¸»®³±¼»±º¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ø°®±ª·¼·²¹ÔÌÜ¾«°¿»ô¾·½§½´»°¿¬¸¿²¼®¿½µ±²½¿³°«ô¸·¹¸°®·½»¿²¼´·³·¬»¼ ¿ª¿·´¿¾·´·¬§±º°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»±²½¿³°«÷òØ±©»ª»®ô¼»°·¬»´±©®¿¬»±º¿«¬±¬®¿ª»´¬±½¿³°«ô ¿²¼»¨°¿²¼»¼½·¬§»ºº±®¬©·¬¸¬¸»Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ð»®³·¬Ð¿®µ·²¹°®±¹®¿³ô±²¬®»»¬¿²¼·´´»¹¿´ °¿®µ·²¹®»³¿·²¿²·«»·²¬¸»»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ûª·¼»²½»·²¬¸»®»½±®¼«¹¹»¬¬¸¿¬½¿®±©²»®¸·°·¿¸·¹¸¿éðû±º«²·ª»®·¬§¬«¼»²¬ ²¿¬·±²¿´´§ô¿½½±®¼·²¹¬±¿Ø¿®®·°±´´òß´¬¸±«¹¸·³·´¿®²«³¾»®¸¿ª»²±¬¾»»²½±²º·®³»¼º±® Û«¹»²»ô¬»¬·³±²§«¹¹»¬¬¸¿¬¿¬´»¿¬±³»¬«¼»²¬²»»¼¿½¿®¬±¬®¿ª»´¬±¶±¾ô±«¬±º¬±©² ±®¸±³»º±®¸±´·¼¿§ô»¬½ô¿²¼¬¸¿¬¬¸»²«³¾»®±º½¿®»»µ·²¹±ºº¬®»»¬°¿®µ·²¹·¬±±º¿®±«¬ ±º¾¿´¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸»¿³±«²¬±º°¿®µ·²¹½«®®»²¬´§¿ª¿·´¿¾´»±®¿±½·¿¬»¼©·¬¸±³»±º¬¸»²»© ½±²¬®«½¬·±²òÓ±¬²»©¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿®»·²º¿½¬°®±ª·¼·²¹°¿®µ·²¹·²²«³¾»®¬¸¿¬½±³°´§ ©·¬¸¬¸»°®±°±»¼®¿¬·±ô¿²¼»ª»®¿´¼»ª»´±°»®¿²¼¼»·¹²»®¸¿ª»¬»¬»¼¬¸»°®±°±¿´¿²¼ ±°·²»¼¬¸¿¬¬¸»®¿¬·±¿®»®»¿±²¿¾´»¿²¼²±¬»¨½»·ª»ò Ì¸»»½·®½«³¬¿²½»©¿®®¿²¬¿²»©¿°°®±¿½¸¬±®»¹«´¿¬·²¹°¿®µ·²¹º±®¬¸±»¿°¿®¬³»²¬©·¬¸ ¬¸®»»±®³±®»¾»¼®±±³ô´·¹¸¬´§·²½®»¿·²¹¬¸»²«³¾»®±º°¿½»®»¯«·®»¼º±®¬¸±»«²·¬ò Findings 15 Attachment C ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA AND AMENDING SECTION 9.2751 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection (3) of Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 9.2751Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750. (3)Building Height. in (b) and (c) (a) Except as provided below, in the R-3 and R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 30 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1. (b) For that area bound by Patterson Street to the west, Agate Street to thth the east, East 18 Avenue to the north and East 20 Avenue to the south: thth 1. In the R-3 zone between 19 and 20 Avenues, the maximum building height is 35 feet. 2. In the R-4 zone west of Hilyard Street, the maximum building height is 75 feet, except that on a development site of 10,000 square feet or more, a building may be up to 90 feet in height. 3. In the R-4 zone east of Hilyard Street, the maximum building height is: th a. 35 feet within the area south of 19 Avenue; b. 50 feet within the half block abutting the north side of th 19 Avenue; c. 75 feet within the half block abutting the south side of th 18 Avenue, except that on a development site of 10,000 square feet or more, a building may be up to 90 feet in height. (See Figure 9.2751(3)). Kincaid (c) For that area bound by Hilyard Street to the west, [Agate] th th 13 Alley Street to the east, East [18Avenue]to the north and East th th 18 the maximum building height is 75 [20]Avenue to the south feet, except that on a development site of 10,000 square feet or more, a building may be up to 90 feet in height. (See Figure 9.2751(3)). [: 1.In the R-3 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 160 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1. 2.In the R-4 zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 35 feet for that portion of the building located within 50 feet from the abutting boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1. It shall be limited to 50 feet for that portion of the building located within 175 feet from land zoned R-3, and shall be limited to 75 feet for that portion of the building located within 176 feet and 225 feet of land zoned R-3.] d (b) An additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for roof slopes of 6:12 ,and R-4 or steeper in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones. Section 2. Figure 9.2751(3), as referenced in this Ordinance, is attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be numerically incorporated in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 3. The legislative findings attached as Exhibit B hereto are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect pursuant to Section 32 of the Eugene Charter 2002, or on the date of its acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever is later. Section 5. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the consent of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein, or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ___ day of ______________, 2009 ____ day of ______________, 2009 ____________________________ _____________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - Page 2 of 2 Ord.(v2) Figure 9.2751(3) Figure 9.2751(3) Building Heights Building Heights E 14th Ave E 15th Ave E 16th Ave E 17th Ave E 18th Ave E 19th Ave E 20th Ave E 21st Ave R-3 Zoning: 35' Maximum Building Height R-4 Zoning: 35' Maximum Building Height R-4 Zoning: 50' Maximum Building Height R-4 Zoning: 75' Maximum building height - except that on a development site of 10,000 square feet or more, a building 05250001,000 may be up to 90 feet in height Feet 10/8/09 EXHIBIT B Ü®¿º¬Ú·²¼·²¹º±®Ýßðçðê Þ«·´¼·²¹Ø»·¹¸¬ Ý±¼»ß³»²¼³»²¬Û«¹»²»Ý±¼»Í»½¬·±²çòèðêë®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹¿°°®±ª¿´½®·¬»®·¿ø·²¾±´¼ ¿²¼·¬¿´·½÷¾»¿°°´·»¼¬±¿½±¼»¿³»²¼³»²¬æ øï÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿°°´·½¿¾´»¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´¿¼±°¬»¼¾§¬¸»Ô¿²¼ Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²¿²¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬Ý±³³··±²ò Ù±¿´ïÝ·¬·¦»²×²ª±´ª»³»²¬ò Ì±¼»ª»´±°¿½·¬·¦»²·²ª±´ª»³»²¬°®±¹®¿³¬¸¿¬·²«®»¬¸»±°°±®¬«²·¬§ º±®½·¬·¦»²¬±¾»·²ª±´ª»¼·²¿´´°¸¿»±º¬¸»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»ò Ì¸»Ý·¬§¸¿¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼°®±ª··±²º±®½·¬·¦»²·²ª±´ª»³»²¬©¸·½¸»²«®»¬¸»±°°±®¬«²·¬§º±® ½·¬·¦»²¬±¾»·²ª±´ª»¼·²¿´´°¸¿»±º¬¸»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»¿²¼»¬±«¬®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®«½¸ ·²ª±´ª»³»²¬òÌ¸»°®±½»º±®¿¼±°¬·²¹¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬©¿½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»Ã?YÅ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬¿²¼°®±ª·¼»¼²«³»®±«¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®·²¬»®»¬»¼°¿®¬·»¬±°¿®¬·½·°¿¬»·² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬òØ·¹¸´·¹¸¬¿®»´·¬»¼¾»´±©ò ÷ô°®±¶»½¬µ·½µ±ºº ×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼Ð®±¶»½¬ò Ð®±¶»½¬©»¾·¬»ø©©©ò»«¹»²»±®ñ·²º·´´ ³»»¬·²¹ô»³¿·´²»©´»¬¬»®«°¼¿¬»¬±·²¬»®»¬»¼°¿®¬§´·¬±º²»¿®´§ìðð°»±°´»ô¬¸®»»°«¾´·½ ©±®µ¸±°ôº±½«¹®±«°³»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ý¸¿³¾»®±ºÝ±³³»®½»ôØ±³»¾«·´¼»®ß±½·¿¬·±²ô Ø·¬±®·½Î»ª·»©Þ±¿®¼ôØ±«·²¹Ð±´·½§Þ±¿®¼ôÍ«¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§Ý±³³··±²Ô¿²¼Ë»¿²¼ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»»ô¿²¼´±©·²½±³»®»·¼»²¬ô·²º·´´¬±«®©·¬¸Ñ°°±®¬«²·¬§Í·¬·²¹ ¿²¼×ÝÍÌ¿µÌ»¿³ô®¿¼·±°®±¹®¿³¼·½«·±²øÕÔÝÝÍ«²¼¿§¿¬Ò±±²÷ôÝ·¬§Ý´«¾°®»»²¬¿¬·±²ò Ó«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹×²º·´´Ý±³³·¬¬»»±º¬¸»×ÝÍÌ¿µÌ»¿³ò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´©±®µ©·¬¸Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§ Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù®±«°¿²¼É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¼»ª»´±°·²¹½±²½»°¬º±®¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼¿²¼®»½±³³»²¼·²¹¿¼®¿º¬½±¼»°®±°±¿´¬±¬¸»Ì¿µÌ»¿³·²»¿®´§Ó¿®½¸îððçò ×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼Ì¿µÌ»¿³ò Ó±²¬¸´§³»»¬·²¹º®±³Ò±ª»³¾»®îððéÍ»°¬»³¾»® îððçòß½¬·±²¬¿µ»²¬±«°°±®¬¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬°®±°±¿´¿¬¬¸»Ó¿®½¸îððç³»»¬·²¹ò Þ«·´¼·²¹Ø»·¹¸¬×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²Ì»¿³ò×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²¹®±«°½±²·¬·²¹±º¿Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±²»®ôÓ«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹Ý±³³·¬¬»»³»³¾»®ôÌ¿µÌ»¿³³»³¾»®ôß®½¸·¬»½¬ô¾«·´¼·²¹ ¼»·¹²»®ñØ±³»¾«·´¼»®ß±½·¿¬·±²®»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª»ô¿²¼¬¿ºº³»³¾»®¬±®»º·²»¬¸»°®±°±¿´ ¿²¼¼»ª»´±°¼®¿º¬½±¼»´¿²¹«¿¹»ò Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®ò Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼²»©´»¬¬»®»²¬¬±»ª»®§¿¼¼®»·²ÍËÒßô ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼«®ª»§¿²¼«³³¿®§®»°±®¬ô¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º¬¸®»»°¿°»®®»´¿¬»¼¬±¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬·«»æ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§ôÞ«·´¼·²¹Ø»·¹¸¬Î»¹«´¿¬·±²¿²¼Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ù®±«°æÞ«·´¼·²¹Ø»·¹¸¬Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ô¹»²»®¿´³»³¾»®¸·°³»»¬·²¹ô»¨»½«¬·ª»¾±¿®¼³»»¬·²¹ ¼·½«·±²¿²¼¼»´·¾»®¿¬·±²ô³»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ø±³»¾«·´¼»®ß±½·¿¬·±²®»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª»¿²¼ ´±½¿´¼»·¹²°®±º»·±²¿´ò É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®ò Ô·¿·±²±²Ó«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹×²º·´´½±³³·¬¬»»ô»³¿·´«°¼¿¬»¿²¼ ¹»²»®¿´³»³¾»®¸·°³»»¬·²¹ô»¨»½«¬·ª»¾±¿®¼¼·½«·±²¿²¼¼»´·¾»®¿¬·±²ô°¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±²·² ÍËÒÐÙ³»»¬·²¹¿²¼¼·½«·±²òÐ®±¼«½¬·±²±º¬¿¾´»¼»¬¿·´·²¹»¨·¬·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¼»²·¬§ ¿²¼¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬ò Ì¸»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²¸»´¼¿°«¾´·½©±®µ»·±²±²¬¸»×ÝÍ¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²±² ¬¸ Í»°¬»³¾»®ïìôîððçòÌ¸»°«¾´·½¸»¿®·²¹½¸»¼«´»¼º±®¬¸»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²¿²¼Ý·¬§Ý±«²½·´ ¬¸¬¸ ¿®»Ñ½¬±¾»®îð¿²¼Ò±ª»³¾»®ïêô®»°»½¬·ª»´§ò Þ¿»¼±²¬¸··²º±®³¿¬·±²ô¬¸»°®±½»º±´´±©»¼·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïò Ù±¿´îÔ¿²¼Ë»Ð´¿²²·²¹ò Ì±»¬¿¾´·¸¿´¿²¼«»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»¿²¼°±´·½§º®¿³»©±®µ¿¿¾¿· º±®¿´´¼»½··±²¿²¼¿½¬·±²®»´¿¬»¼¬±«»±º´¿²¼¿²¼¬±¿«®»¿²¿¼»¯«¿¬»º¿½¬«¿´¾¿·º±®«½¸ ¼»½··±²¿²¼¿½¬·±²ò Ì¸»Û«¹»²»Ô¿²¼Ë»Ý±¼»°»½·º·»¬¸»°®±½»¼«®»¿²¼½®·¬»®·¿¬¸¿¬¿®»¬±¾»«»¼·²½±²·¼»®·²¹ ¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±¬¸»½±¼»òÌ¸»®»½±®¼º±®¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬·²½´«¼»«¾¬¿²¬·¿´º¿½¬«¿´ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²«°°±®¬·²¹¬¸»°®±°±»¼±®¼·²¿²½»òÌ¸»Ù±¿´î½±±®¼·²¿¬·±²®»¯«·®»³»²¬·³»¬©¸»² ¬¸»Ý·¬§»²¹¿¹»·²¿²»¨½¸¿²¹»ô±®·²ª·¬»«½¸¿²»¨½¸¿²¹»ô¾»¬©»»²¬¸»Ý·¬§¿²¼¿²§¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´«²·¬òÌ±½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸»Ù±¿´î½±±®¼·²¿¬·±²®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô¬¸»Ý·¬§»²¹¿¹»¼·²¿² »¨½¸¿²¹»¿¾±«¬¬¸»«¾¶»½¬±º¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬©·¬¸¿´´±º¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´«²·¬ò Í°»½·º·½¿´´§ô¬¸»Ý·¬§°®±ª·¼»¼²±¬·½»±º¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿½¬·±²¿²¼±°°±®¬«²·¬§¬±½±³³»²¬¬±Ô¿²» Ý±«²¬§ôÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼¿²¼¬¸»Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬±ºÔ¿²¼Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²¿²¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì¸»®»¿®»²±Ù±¿´îÛ¨½»°¬·±²®»¯«·®»¼º±®¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®» ½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´îò Ù±¿´íß¹®·½«´¬«®¿´Ô¿²¼ò Ì±°®»»®ª»¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´´¿²¼ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»º±®°®±°»®¬§´±½¿¬»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§¿²¼¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ´¿²¼¼»·¹²¿¬»¼º±®¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´í¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ìÚ±®»¬Ô¿²¼ò Ì±½±²»®ª»º±®»¬´¿²¼ò Ì¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»º±®°®±°»®¬§´±½¿¬»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§¿²¼¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ´¿²¼¼»·¹²¿¬»¼º±®º±®»¬«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ì¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ëÑ°»²Í°¿½»ôÍ½»²·½¿²¼Ø·¬±®·½ß®»¿ô¿²¼Ò¿¬«®¿´Î»±«®½»òÌ±½±²»®ª»±°»²°¿½»¿²¼ °®±¬»½¬²¿¬«®¿´¿²¼½»²·½®»±«®½»ò ÑßÎêêððîíðîëðøí÷°®±ª·¼»æÔ±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿®»²±¬®»¯«·®»¼¬±¿°°´§Ù±¿´ë·² ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²±º¿ÐßÐß«²´»¬¸»ÐßÐß¿ºº»½¬¿Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»òÚ±®°«®°±»±º¬¸·»½¬·±²ô ¿ÐßÐß©±«´¼¿ºº»½¬¿Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±²´§·ºæ ø¿÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß½®»¿¬»±®¿³»²¼¿®»±«®½»´·¬±®¿°±®¬·±²±º¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼°´¿²±®´¿²¼ «»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿¼±°¬»¼·²±®¼»®¬±°®±¬»½¬¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±®¬±¿¼¼®» °»½·º·½®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ëå ø¾÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß¿´´±©²»©«»¬¸¿¬½±«´¼¾»½±²º´·½¬·²¹«»©·¬¸¿°¿®¬·½«´¿®·¹²·º·½¿²¬ Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»·¬»±²¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼®»±«®½»´·¬å±® Findings 2 ø½÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß¿³»²¼¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ËÙÞ¿²¼º¿½¬«¿´·²º±®³¿¬·±²·«¾³·¬¬»¼ ¼»³±²¬®¿¬·²¹¬¸¿¬¿®»±«®½»·¬»ô±®¬¸»·³°¿½¬¿®»¿±º«½¸¿·¬»ô··²½´«¼»¼·²¬¸» ¿³»²¼»¼ËÙÞ¿®»¿ò Ì¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬½®»¿¬»±®¿³»²¼¬¸»Ã?YÅ´·¬±ºÙ±¿´ë®»±«®½»ô¼±²±¬¿³»²¼¿ ½±¼»°®±ª··±²¿¼±°¬»¼·²±®¼»®¬±°®±¬»½¬¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±®¬±¿¼¼®»°»½·º·½ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ëô¼±²±¬¿´´±©²»©«»¬¸¿¬½±«´¼¾»½±²º´·½¬·²¹«»©·¬¸¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬ Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»·¬»¿²¼¼±²±¬¿³»²¼¬¸»¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ËÙÞòÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ù±¿´ë¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´êß·®ôÉ¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼Î»±«®½»Ï«¿´·¬§ò Ì±³¿·²¬¿·²¿²¼·³°®±ª»¬¸»¯«¿´·¬§±º¬¸»¿·®ô ©¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼®»±«®½»±º¬¸»¬¿¬»ò Ù±¿´ê¿¼¼®»»©¿¬»¿²¼°®±½»¼·½¸¿®¹»º®±³¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼·¿·³»¼¿¬°®±¬»½¬·²¹ ¿·®ô©¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼º®±³·³°¿½¬º®±³¬¸±»¼·½¸¿®¹»òÌ¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸» Ã?YÅ¿¾·´·¬§¬±°®±ª·¼»º±®½´»¿²¿·®ô©¿¬»®±®´¿²¼®»±«®½»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ù±¿´ê¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´éß®»¿Í«¾¶»½¬¬±Ò¿¬«®¿´Ü·¿¬»®¿²¼Ø¿¦¿®¼ò Ì±°®±¬»½¬´·º»¿²¼°®±°»®¬§º®±³ ²¿¬«®¿´¼·¿¬»®¿²¼¸¿¦¿®¼ò Ù±¿´é®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬´±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬°´¿²²·²¹°®±¹®¿³·²½´«¼»°®±ª··±²¬±°®±¬»½¬°»±°´» ¿²¼°®±°»®¬§º®±³²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼«½¸¿º´±±¼ô´¿²¼´·¼»ô»¿®¬¸¯«¿µ»¿²¼®»´¿¬»¼¸¿¦¿®¼ô ¬«²¿³·¿²¼©·´¼º·®»òÌ¸»Ù±¿´°®±¸·¾·¬¿¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼¿®»¿©·¬¸±«¬ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»¿º»¹«¿®¼òÌ¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ®»¬®·½¬·±²±² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¿®»¿«¾¶»½¬¬±²¿¬«®¿´¼·¿¬»®¿²¼¸¿¦¿®¼òÚ«®¬¸»®ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼± ²±¬¿´´±©º±®²»©¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¸¿¬½±«´¼®»«´¬·²¿²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼» Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´é¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´èÎ»½®»¿¬·±²¿´Ò»»¼ò Ì±¿¬·º§¬¸»®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´²»»¼±º¬¸»½·¬·¦»²±º¬¸»¬¿¬»¿²¼ ª··¬±®ô¿²¼©¸»®»¿°°®±°®·¿¬»ô¬±°®±ª·¼»º±®¬¸»·¬·²¹±º²»½»¿®§®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´º¿½·´·¬·» ·²½´«¼·²¹¼»¬·²¿¬·±²®»±®¬ò Ù±¿´è»²«®»¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´º¿½·´·¬·»¬±Ñ®»¹±²½·¬·¦»²¿²¼·°®·³¿®·´§ ½±²½»®²»¼©·¬¸¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸±»º¿½·´·¬·»·²²±²«®¾¿²¿®»¿±º¬¸»¬¿¬»òÌ¸»½±¼» ¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²º±®®»½®»¿¬·±²¿®»¿ôº¿½·´·¬·»±®®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´è¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´çÛ½±²±³·½Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»¿¼»¯«¿¬»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬¬¸»¬¿¬»º±®¿ ª¿®·»¬§±º»½±²±³·½¿½¬·ª·¬·»ª·¬¿´¬±¬¸»¸»¿´¬¸ô©»´º¿®»ô¿²¼°®±°»®·¬§±ºÕ?Ð£ªÅ½·¬·¦»²ò Ì¸»ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»Î«´»º±®Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´çøÑßÎêêðôÜ·ª··±²ç÷®»¯«·®»½·¬·»¬± »ª¿´«¿¬»¬¸»«°°´§¿²¼¼»³¿²¼±º½±³³»®½·¿´´¿²¼®»´¿¬·ª»¬±½±³³«²·¬§»½±²±³·½ ±¾¶»½¬·ª»òÌ¸»Û«¹»²»Ý±³³»®½·¿´Ô¿²¼Í¬«¼§øÑ½¬±¾»®ïççî÷©¿¿¼±°¬»¼¾§¬¸»Ý·¬§±º Û«¹»²»¿¿®»º·²»³»²¬±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ô¿²¼½±³°´·»©·¬¸¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ç¿²¼ Findings 3 ·¬ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»Î«´»òÌ¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬·³°¿½¬¬¸»«°°´§±º·²¼«¬®·¿´±®½±³³»®½·¿´ ´¿²¼òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´çò Ù±¿´ïðØ±«·²¹ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»º±®¬¸»¸±«·²¹²»»¼±º½·¬·¦»²±º¬¸»¬¿¬»ò Ù±¿´ïð®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬½±³³«²·¬·»°´¿²º±®¿²¼³¿·²¬¿·²¿²·²ª»²¬±®§±º¾«·´¼¿¾´»®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²¼º±®²»»¼»¼¸±«·²¹«²·¬òß´¬¸±«¹¸¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿¼¼®»®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô¬¸»§¼±²±¬·³°¿½¬¬¸»«°°´§±®¿ª¿·´¿¾·´·¬§±º®»·¼»²¬·¿´´¿²¼·²½´«¼»¼·²¬¸» ¼±½«³»²¬»¼«°°´§±ºÂkÃ±±±ªÁ¬¸¿¬·¿ª¿·´¿¾´»º±®®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿ ·²ª»²¬±®·»¼·²¬¸»¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ïçççÎ»·¼»²¬·¿´Ô¿²¼Í¬«¼§òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïðò ×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô»ª·¼»²½»¸±©¬¸¿¬¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼°®±°»®¬·»·´·µ»´§¬±¿½¸·»ª» ¼»²·¬·»©·¬¸·²¬¸»°´¿²²»¼®¿²¹»¿º¬»®¬¸»°®±°±»¼¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬®»¼«½¬·±²¿®»¿°°´·»¼ò ×²º±®³¿¬·±²¼»½®·¾·²¹®»½»²¬¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°®±¶»½¬½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¬·½ô·²½´«¼·²¹²«³¾»®±º«²·¬ô ¼»²·¬§ô¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬ô¿²¼±²·¬»°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°®±ª·¼»¼ô¸±©¬¸»¬¿´´»¬¾«·´¼·²¹®»½»²¬´§ ¬¸ ¿°°®±ª»¼¬±³»¿«®»ëìº»»¬øÍ¬»ª»²Þ¿µ»®ôÑ½¬±¾»®îð¬»¬·³±²§÷ Ì¸»»ª·¼»²½»¸±©¬¸¿¬¼»²·¬·»¿°°®±¿½¸·²¹¬¸»³¿¨·³«³¿´´±©»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»Îì¦±²»¿®» ¿½¸·»ª¿¾´»©·¬¸·²¾«·´¼·²¹±ºº±«®¬±®·»±®´»ô¿²¼¼»²·¬·»¿°°®±¿½¸·²¹¬¸»³¿¨·³«³ ¿´´±©»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»Îí¦±²»¿®»¿½¸·»ª¿¾´»©·¬¸·²¾«·´¼·²¹±º¬¸®»»¬±®·»±®´»øß´Ý±«°»® ¬¸ ¬»¬·³±²§ôÑ½¬±¾»®çîððç÷òÞ¿»¼±²¿®»¿±²¿¾´»¿ª»®¿¹»³¿¨·³«³¬±®§¸»·¹¸¬±ºïìº»»¬ô ¿«»¼¾§¬¸»Ý±²¹®»º±®¬¸»Ò»©Ë®¾¿²·³©¸»²®»½±³³»²¼·²¹¾«·´¼·²¹º±®³®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô ¿º±«®¬±®§¾«·´¼·²¹©±«´¼¸¿ª»¿®»¿±²¿¾´»³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬±ºëêº»»¬ô¿²¼¿¬¸®»»¬±®§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ôìîº»»¬òÌ¸»»²«³¾»®¿®»¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼¾§¬¸»°®±°±»¼¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬´·³·¬æ ¬¸»´±©»¬³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬°®±°±»¼·²Îì·ëðº»»¬ô°´«¿²¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´éº»»¬±º¸»·¹¸¬©¸»² ¿®±±º©·´´¸¿ª»¿´±°»±º¿¬´»¿¬êæïî¿²¼¬¸»´±©»¬³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬·²Îí·íëº»»¬ô°´«¿² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´éº»»¬±º¸»·¹¸¬©¸»²¿®±±º©·´´¸¿ª»¿´±°»±º¿¬´»¿¬êæïîò Ù±¿´ïïÐ«¾´·½Ú¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼Í»®ª·½»ò Ì±°´¿²¿²¼¼»ª»´±°¿¬·³»´§ô±®¼»®´§¿²¼»ºº·½·»²¬ ¿®®¿²¹»³»²¬±º°«¾´·½º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»¬±»®ª»¿¿º®¿³»©±®µº±®«®¾¿²¿²¼®«®¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²±º°«¾´·½º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïï¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïîÌ®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»¿²¼»²½±«®¿¹»¿¿º»ô½±²ª»²·»²¬¿²¼»½±²±³·½ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²§¬»³ò Ì¸»Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð´¿²²·²¹Î«´»øÑßÎêêððïîððêð÷½±²¬¿·²¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬æ øï÷ß³»²¼³»²¬¬±º«²½¬·±²¿´°´¿²ô¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼½±³°®»¸»²·ª»°´¿²ô¿²¼´¿²¼«» ®»¹«´¿¬·±²©¸·½¸·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§¸¿´´¿«®»¬¸¿¬¿´´±©»¼ ´¿²¼«»¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»·¼»²¬·º·»¼º«²½¬·±²ô½¿°¿½·¬§ô¿²¼°»®º±®³¿²½»¬¿²¼¿®¼ ø»ò¹ò´»ª»´±º»®ª·½»ôª±´«³»¬±½¿°¿½·¬§®¿¬·±ô»¬½ò÷±º¬¸»º¿½·´·¬§òòòò Findings 4 øî÷ß°´¿²±®´¿²¼«»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿³»²¼³»²¬·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§·º·¬æ ø¿÷Ý¸¿²¹»¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿²»¨·¬·²¹±®°´¿²²»¼¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§å ø¾÷Ý¸¿²¹»¬¿²¼¿®¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¿º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²§¬»³å ø½÷ß´´±©¬§°»±®´»ª»´±º´¿²¼«»©¸·½¸©±«´¼®»«´¬·²´»ª»´±º¬®¿ª»´±®¿½½» ©¸·½¸¿®»·²½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§å ±® ø¼÷É±«´¼®»¼«½»¬¸»°»®º±®³¿²½»¬¿²¼¿®¼±º¬¸»º¿½·´·¬§¾»´±©¬¸»³·²·³«³ ¿½½»°¬¿¾´»´»ª»´·¼»²¬·º·»¼·²¬¸»ÌÍÐ Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïîòÌ¸»§¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º ¿º»ô½±²ª»²·»²¬¿²¼»½±²±³·½¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²§¬»³¿²¼¼±²±¬·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬·»òÌ¸»¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬®»¼«½¬·±²©·´´¬·´´¿´´±©¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼°®±°»®¬·»¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»°´¿²²»¼¼»²·¬·»ô¿¸±©²¾§¬¸»¬¿¾´»·²¬¸»®»½±®¼¼±½«³»²¬·²¹»¨·¬·²¹ ¬¸ «»ô¼»²·¬·»ô¿²¼¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬øÍ¬»ª»²Þ¿µ»®ôÑ½¬±¾»®îðôîððç÷òÌ¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬ °®±ª·¼»¹®»¿¬»®½»®¬¿·²¬§º±®¬¸»½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§±ºº«¬«®»·²º·´´ô´»»²·²¹²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ±°°±·¬·±²¿²¼¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·²¹¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´·²º·´´·²¿²¿®»¿©»´´»®ª»¼¾§¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®»ò ÑßÎêêððïîððìëô×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²±º¬¸»Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Í§¬»³Ð´¿²ô½±²¬¿·²¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬æ øë÷×²ÓÐÑ¿®»¿ô´±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬¸¿´´¿¼±°¬´¿²¼«»¿²¼«¾¼·ª··±²®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬± ®»¼«½»®»´·¿²½»±²¬¸»¿«¬±³±¾·´»©¸·½¸æ ø¿÷ß´´±©¬®¿²·¬±®·»²¬»¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬øÌÑÜ÷±²´¿²¼¿´±²¹¬®¿²·¬®±«¬»å ß»¨°´¿·²»¼¾»´±©ô¬¸»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬»¬³¿¨·³«³¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬·²¬¸»Ã?YÅÎí¿²¼Îì ¦±²»¸¿ª»°´¿§»¼²±°¿®¬·²¬¸»Ã?YÅ®»°®»»²¬¿¬·±²±®âÅ¿½¬·±²®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»³»²¬º±®½±²·¬»²½§©·¬¸¬¸·ÑßÎò Ð®·±®¬±îððïô¬¸»Û«¹»²»Ý±¼»»¬¬¸»³¿¨·³«³¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬·²Îí¿¬ìðº»»¬ô¾«¬¼·¼²±¬ »¬¿¦±²»©·¼»³¿¨·³«³¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬·²¬¸»Îì¦±²»òÚ±®¾±¬¸¬¸»Îí¿²¼Îì¦±²»ô ¸±©»ª»®ô¬¸»³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬©¿´·³·¬»¼¬±îëº»»¬º±®¬¸¿¬°±®¬·±²±º¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹©·¬¸·²ëð º»»¬º®±³¬¸»¿¾«¬¬·²¹¾±«²¼¿®§±ºô±®¼·®»½¬´§¿½®±¿²¿´´»§º®±³ô¿²§±º´¿²¼¦±²»¼ßÙôÎß ±®Îïø¬¸»³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬·²¬¸»ßÙôÎß¿²¼Îï¦±²»©¿îëº»»¬÷ò ß½±³°®»¸»²·ª»«°¼¿¬»¬±¬¸»Ý·¬§±ºkÐªÅ´¿²¼«»½±¼»©¿¿¼±°¬»¼·²îððïòÌ¸»îððï «°¼¿¬»»¬²»©¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬³¿¨·³«³·²¬¸»Îí¿²¼Îì¦±²»±ºëðº»»¬¿²¼ïîðº»»¬ô ®»°»½¬·ª»´§òÚ±®¾±¬¸¬¸»Îí¿²¼Îì¦±²»ô¸±©»ª»®ô¬¸»³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬©¿´·³·¬»¼¬±íð º»»¬º±®¬¸¿¬°±®¬·±²±º¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹´±½¿¬»¼©·¬¸·²ëðº»»¬º®±³¬¸»¿¾«¬¬·²¹¾±«²¼¿®§±ºô±® ¼·®»½¬´§¿½®±¬¸»¿´´»§º®±³ô´¿²¼¦±²»¼ÎïÔ±©Ü»²·¬§Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ø¬¸»³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬·² Îï©¿íðº»»¬÷ò ×²îððèô¬¸»½·¬§¿¼±°¬»¼¿Ó·²±®Ý±¼»ß³»²¼³»²¬øÓ·ÝßÐ÷°®±ª··±²¿¼¼®»·²¹¹®¿¼«¿¬»¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬·²¬¸»Í±«¬¸Ë²·ª»®·¬§Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼òÌ¸»°®±ª··±²»¬¿¾´·¸»¼¿¬®¿²·¬·±²·² Findings 5 ¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬º®±³¬¸»Îì¦±²»¬±¬¸»²»¿®¾§Îï¦±²»ô¬®¿²·¬·±²·²¹º®±³ïîð¼±©²¬±ëð º»»¬ô¿²¼íëº»»¬·²¬¸»Îí¦±²»òÌ¸»»°®±ª··±²©»®»¿°°»¿´»¼¬±ÔËÞßô©¸·½¸®»³¿²¼»¼ ¬¸»³¾¿½µ¬±¬¸»½·¬§º±®¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´Ù±¿´ïîº·²¼·²¹òÌ¸»½·¬§®»¿¼±°¬»¼¬¸»Ó·ÝßÐ¸»·¹¸¬ ¬¸¬¸ °®±ª··±²±²Ñ½¬±¾»®ïîôîððçøÑ®¼·²¿²½»ýîðìíç÷òÌ¸»·®»ºº»½¬·ª»¼¿¬»·Ò±ª»³¾»®ïíô îððçò Ì¸»®»·²±»ª·¼»²½»¬¸¿¬«¹¹»¬¬¸»¸»·¹¸¬°®±ª··±²¼·½«»¼¿¾±ª»©»®»¿¼±°¬»¼±® ®»´·»¼«°±²¬±¼»³±²¬®¿¬»½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸ÑßÎêêðïîððìëøë÷ø¿÷òÉ®·¬¬»²º·²¼·²¹ ¿¼¼®»·²¹½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´¿²¼¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²©»®»°®»°¿®»¼º±® ¬¸»îððï´¿²¼«»½±¼»«°¼¿¬»øÑ®¼·²¿²½»Ò±òîðîîì÷òÌ¸±»º·²¼·²¹¼·½«»¼²«³»®±« ½±¼»°®±ª··±²¬¸¿¬¼»³±²¬®¿¬»¼½±²·¬»²½§©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïîÌ®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²òÌ¸»¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬³¿¨·³«³©»®»²±¬·²½´«¼»¼·²¬¸±»º·²¼·²¹¿¿¾¿·º±®½±²·¬»²½§©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïîò Þ¿»¼±²¬¸±»º·²¼·²¹ô¬¸»îððï½±¼»©¿¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼¿½±³°´§·²¹©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïî¿²¼¬¸» ÌÐÎô©·¬¸²±³»²¬·±²±º¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬³¿¨·³«³òÌ¸»Ã?YÅ½±²·¬»²½§©·¬¸ÑßÎêêð ïîððìëøë÷©¿²±¬¼»°»²¼»²¬±²¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬³¿¨·³«³ò ×¬©¿¿½¬«¿´´§¬¸»Ã?YÅ»¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿ñÌÜÌ®¿²·¬Ñ®·»²¬»¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬±ª»®´¿§¦±²»·² ïççí«²¼»®Ñ®¼·²¿²½»Ò±òïççìê¬¸¿¬°»½·º·½¿´´§¿¼¼®»»¼½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸ÑßÎêêððïî ððìëøë÷ø¿÷òÌ¸»¿®»¿©¸»®»¬¸»½«®®»²¬°®±°±¿´©±«´¼¿°°´§·²±¬©·¬¸·²¬¸»ñÌÜÌ®¿²·¬ Ñ®·»²¬»¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬±ª»®´¿§¦±²»¿²¼´»¿ª»âÅ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»³»²¬±º¬¸¿¬T£ªÅ ½±²·¬»²½§©·¬¸ÑßÎêêððïîððìëøë÷ø¿÷«²¼·¬«®¾»¼ò Ì¸»½«®®»²¬°®±°±¿´¬±®»¯«·®»³±®»¹®¿¼«¿¬»¼³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬·²°¿®¬±ºÉËÒ¿²¼ÍËÒß ·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ô¿²¼¼±»²±¬¸¿ª»¿²§»ºº»½¬±²¬¸»Ã?YÅ½«®®»²¬¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»³»²¬º±® ½±²·¬»²½§©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïî¿²¼°»½·º·½¿´´§ÑßÎêêððïîððìëøë÷ø¿÷ò Ù±¿´ïíÛ²»®¹§Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²ò Ì±½±²»®ª»»²»®¹§ò Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïí½¿´´º±®´¿²¼«»¬±¾»³¿²¿¹»¼¿²¼½±²¬®±´´»¼Â£¿¬±³¿¨·³·¦» ¬¸»½±²»®ª¿¬·±²±º¿´´º±®³±º»²»®¹§ô¾¿»¼«°±²±«²¼»½±²±³·½??ÃªÃ?±ÈÁÙ±¿´ïí· ¼·®»½¬»¼¿¬¬¸»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º´±½¿´»²»®¹§°±´·½·»¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹°®±ª··±²¿²¼¼±»²±¬ ¬¿¬»®»¯«·®»³»²¬©·¬¸®»°»½¬¬±±¬¸»®¬§°»±º´¿²¼«»¼»½··±²ò×¬·²±¬½´»¿®¬¸¿¬¬¸» ¹±¿´¸¿¿²§¾»¿®·²¹±²¬¸»°®±°±»¼±®¼·²¿²½»òÌ¸»®»·²±·³°´»³»²¬·²¹®«´»¬¸¿¬½´¿®·º·» ¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ïíòÌ±¬¸»»¨¬»²¬¬¸¿¬Ù±¿´ïí½±«´¼¾»¿°°´·»¼¬±¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ½¸¿²¹»ô¬¸»§¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïí¾»½¿«»·¬·®»¿±²¿¾´»¬±»¨°»½¬¬¸¿¬º«¬«®» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬«²¼»®¬¸»±®¼·²¿²½»©·´´³¿µ»»ºº·½·»²¬«»±º»²»®¹§ò Ù±¿´ïìË®¾¿²·¦¿¬·±²ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»º±®¿²±®¼»®´§¿²¼»ºº·½·»²¬¬®¿²·¬·±²º®±³®«®¿´¬±«®¾¿² ´¿²¼«»ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²®»¹¿®¼·²¹¬¸»¬®¿²·¬·±²±º´¿²¼º®±³®«®¿´ ¬±«®¾¿²«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïì¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïëÉ·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§òÌ±°®±¬»½¬ô½±²»®ª»ô»²¸¿²½»¿²¼³¿·²¬¿·²¬¸»²¿¬«®¿´ô ½»²·½ô¸·¬±®·½¿´ô¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ô»½±²±³·½¿²¼®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´¯«¿´·¬·»±º´¿²¼¿´±²¹¬¸»É·´´¿³»¬¬» Findings 6 Î·ª»®¿¬¸»É·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±²±¬½±²¬¿·²¿²§½¸¿²¹»¬¸¿¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»®»¹«´¿¬·±²±º¿®»¿©·¬¸·²¬¸» É·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïë¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïê¬¸®±«¹¸ïçÛ¬«¿®·²»Î»±«®½»ôÝ±¿¬¿´Í¸±®»´¿²¼ôÞ»¿½¸»¿²¼Ü«²»ô¿²¼Ñ½»¿² Î»±«®½»ò Ì¸»®»¿®»²±½±¿¬¿´ô±½»¿²ô»¬«¿®·²»ô±®¾»¿½¸¿²¼¼«²»®»±«®½»®»´¿¬»¼¬±¬¸»°®±°»®¬·» ¿ºº»½¬»¼¾§¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»»¹±¿´¿®»²±¬®»´»ª¿²¬¿²¼¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·´´²±¬¿ºº»½¬½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïê¬¸®±«¹¸ïçò (2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. ß°°´·½¿¾´»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²Ð±´·½·» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßçæ Û¬¿¾´·¸¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»·²´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ ¬¸»¾®±¿¼¼»²·¬§½¿¬»¹±®·»±º¬¸·°´¿²ò Ø·¹¸¼»²·¬§òÑª»®îð¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°»®¹®±¿½®»ø½±«´¼¬®¿²´¿¬»¬±±ª»®îèòëê«²·¬°»®²»¬ ¿½®»¼»°»²¼·²¹±²»¿½¸¶«®·¼·½¬·±²·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²³»¿«®»¿²¼´¿²¼«»¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬½±¼»ò÷ Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼»²·¬§°±´·½·»òÌ¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿ºº»½¬´¿²¼¼»·¹²¿¬»¼¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§±²¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼·¿¹®¿³òÌ¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬ ½¸¿²¹»¬¸»¦±²·²¹±º¿²§±º¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼°®±°»®¬·»ô¿²¼¬¸»¿´´±©¿¾´»¼»²·¬·»©·¬¸·²»¿½¸ ¦±²»¿®»¿½¸·»ª¿¾´»«²¼»®¬¸»°®±°±»¼®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô¾¿»¼±²·²º±®³¿¬·±²·²¬¸»®»½±®¼ò ×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô»ª·¼»²½»¸±©¬¸¿¬¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼°®±°»®¬·»·´·µ»´§¬±¿½¸·»ª» ¼»²·¬·»©·¬¸·²¬¸»°´¿²²»¼®¿²¹»¿º¬»®¬¸»°®±°±»¼¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬®»¼«½¬·±²¿®»¿°°´·»¼ò ×²º±®³¿¬·±²¼»½®·¾·²¹®»½»²¬¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°®±¶»½¬½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¬·½ô·²½´«¼·²¹²«³¾»®±º«²·¬ô ¼»²·¬§ô¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬ô¿²¼±²·¬»°¿®µ·²¹°¿½»°®±ª·¼»¼ô¸±©¬¸»¬¿´´»¬¾«·´¼·²¹®»½»²¬´§ ¬¸ ¿°°®±ª»¼¬±³»¿«®»ëìº»»¬øÍ¬»ª»²Þ¿µ»®ôÑ½¬±¾»®îð¬»¬·³±²§÷ò Ì¸»»ª·¼»²½»¸±©¬¸¿¬¼»²·¬·»¿°°®±¿½¸·²¹¬¸»³¿¨·³«³¿´´±©»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»Îì¦±²»¿®» ¿½¸·»ª¿¾´»©·¬¸·²¾«·´¼·²¹±ºº±«®¬±®·»±®´»ô¿²¼¼»²·¬·»¿°°®±¿½¸·²¹¬¸»³¿¨·³«³ ¿´´±©»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»Îí¦±²»¿®»¿½¸·»ª¿¾´»©·¬¸·²¾«·´¼·²¹±º¬¸®»»¬±®·»±®´»øß´Ý±«°»® ¬¸ ¬»¬·³±²§ôÑ½¬±¾»®çîððç÷òÞ¿»¼±²¿®»¿±²¿¾´»¿ª»®¿¹»³¿¨·³«³¬±®§¸»·¹¸¬±ºïìº»»¬ô ¿«»¼¾§¬¸»Ý±²¹®»º±®¬¸»Ò»©Ë®¾¿²·³©¸»²®»½±³³»²¼·²¹¾«·´¼·²¹º±®³®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô ¿º±«®¬±®§¾«·´¼·²¹©±«´¼¸¿ª»¿®»¿±²¿¾´»³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬±ºëêº»»¬ô¿²¼¿¬¸®»»¬±®§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ôìîº»»¬òÌ¸»»²«³¾»®¿®»¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼¾§¬¸»°®±°±»¼¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬´·³·¬æ Findings 7 ¬¸»´±©»¬³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬°®±°±»¼·²Îì·ëðº»»¬ô°´«¿²¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´éº»»¬±º¸»·¹¸¬©¸»² ¿®±±º©·´´¸¿ª»¿´±°»±º¿¬´»¿¬êæïî¿²¼¬¸»´±©»¬³¿¨·³«³¸»·¹¸¬·²Îí·íëº»»¬ô°´«¿² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´éº»»¬±º¸»·¹¸¬©¸»²¿®±±º©·´´¸¿ª»¿´±°»±º¿¬´»¿¬êæïîò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßïíæ ×²½®»¿»±ª»®¿´´®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»²·¬§·²¬¸»³»¬®±°±´·¬¿²¿®»¿¾§½®»¿¬·²¹³±®»±°°±®¬«²·¬·» º±®»ºº»½¬·ª»´§¼»·¹²»¼·²º·´´ô®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼³·¨»¼«»©¸·´»½±²·¼»®·²¹·³°¿½¬±º ·²½®»¿»¼®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»²·¬§±²¸·¬±®·½ô»¨·¬·²¹¿²¼º«¬«®»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ì¸»°®±°±¿´©·´´½±²¬·²«»¬±°®±ª·¼»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¾«¬©·´´¾»¬¬»®»²«®»¼»·¹²·²¬¸»·²º·´´¿®»¿©·´´°®»»®ª»¬¸»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸»»¨·¬·²¹ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ô¼·®»½¬´§·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¬¸·°±´·½§ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßïëæ Ü»ª»´±°¿©·¼»®®¿²¹»±º¦±²·²¹±°¬·±²«½¸¿²»©¦±²·²¹¼·¬®·½¬ô¬±º«´´§«¬·´·¦»»¨·¬·²¹ Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬©·´´²±¬½®»¿¬»²»©¦±²·²¹ô¾«¬©·´´°®±ª·¼»¿º·²»®¹®¿·²»¼ ¿°°®±¿½¸¬¸¿¬»²¿¾´»½±³°¿¬·¾´»¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿ò Ì¿·´±®·²¹¬¸»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¿²¼¿®¼¬±¬¸»²»»¼±º¬¸»¿®»¿»ºº»½¬·ª»´§·²½®»¿»¬¸»Ã?YÅ ®¿²¹»±º¬±±´¬±«¬·´·¦»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ø±«·²¹Ì§°»¿²¼Ì»²«®»Ð±´·½§ßïéæ Ð®±ª·¼»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®¿º«´´®¿²¹»±º½¸±·½»·²¸±«·²¹¬§°»ô¼»²·¬§ô·¦»ô½±¬ô¿²¼ ´±½¿¬·±²ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»´·µ»´§¬±®»¼«½»±°°±·¬·±²¬±²»©®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼ ·²°·®»º«®¬¸»®®»·²ª»¬³»²¬·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿²¼²»¿®¾§²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¾§±©²»®¿²¼ ®»·¼»²¬òÌ¸·©·´´·²½®»¿»¸±«·²¹±°°±®¬«²·¬·»ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»·¹²¿²¼Ó·¨»¼Ë»Ð±´·½§ßîíæ Î»¼«½»·³°¿½¬±º¸·¹¸»®¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¿²¼³·¨»¼«»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±²«®®±«²¼·²¹«» ¾§½±²·¼»®·²¹·¬»ô´¿²¼½¿°»ô¿²¼¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼±®¹«·¼»´·²»·²´±½¿´¦±²·²¹ ¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²ò Ì¸»°®±°±¿´«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§¾§»¬¿¾´·¸·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¿²¼¿®¼¬¸¿¬´·³·¬¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬¿¼¶¿½»²¬¬±¬¸»«²·ª»®·¬§¿²¼°®±¨·³¿¬»¬±·²¹´»º¿³·´§¿®»¿·²±®¼»®¬±´»»²¬¸» ·³°¿½¬±º¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§·²º·´´±²«®®±«²¼·²¹«»ô¿½±³°¿®»¼¬±¼»ª»´±°³»²¬½«®®»²¬´§ ¿´´±©»¼¾§¬¸»Îí¿²¼Îì¦±²»òÌ¸»²»©®»¹«´¿¬·±²«¬·´·¦»¿²»©©¿§¬±½±²¬®±´·¬»¼»·¹² ¾§¬§·²¹¿´´±©¿¾´»¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬¬±·¬»·¦»º±®½»®¬¿·²Îì¦±²»¼¿®»¿ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»·¹²¿²¼Ó·¨»¼Ë»Ð±´·½§ßîìæ Ý±²·¼»®¿¼±°¬·²¹±®³±¼·º§·²¹´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬±°®±ª·¼»¿ ¼·½®»¬·±²¿®§¼»·¹²®»ª·»©°®±½»±®½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª»¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼ô·²±®¼»®¬± Findings 8 ¿¼¼®»·«»±º½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§ô¿»¬¸»¬·½ô±°»²°¿½»ô¿²¼±¬¸»®½±³³«²·¬§½±²½»®²ò Ì¸»¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬¬¿²¼¿®¼·³°´»³»²¬¬¸·°±´·½§¾»½¿«»¬¸»§¿®»½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª» ¬¿²¼¿®¼¬¸¿¬¿¼¼®»·«»±º½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§ô¿»¬¸»¬·½ô±°»²°¿½»ô¿²¼±¬¸»®½±³³«²·¬§ ½±²½»®²ô·²½´«¼·²¹°»¼»¬®·¿²½¿´»¿²¼²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼½¸¿®¿½¬»®ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð±´·½§Úòíæ Ð®±ª·¼»º±®¬®¿²·¬«°°±®¬·ª»´¿²¼«»°¿¬¬»®²¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô·²½´«¼·²¹¸·¹¸»®·²¬»²·¬§ô ¬®¿²·¬±®·»²¬»¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿´±²¹³¿¶±®¬®¿²·¬½±®®·¼±®¿²¼²»¿®¬®¿²·¬¬¿¬·±²ô³»¼·«³ ¿²¼¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©·¬¸·²d³·´»±º¬®¿²·¬¬¿¬·±²ô³¿¶±®¬®¿²·¬ ½±®®·¼±®ô»³°´±§³»²¬½»²¬»®ô¿²¼¼±©²¬±©²¿®»¿å¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·² ¼»·¹²¿¬»¼¿®»¿¬¸¿¬¿®»±®½±«´¼¾»©»´´»®ª»¼¾§»¨·¬·²¹±®°´¿²²»¼¬®¿²·¬ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§òÌ¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿¿®»°´¿²²»¼º±®¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§ ¬¸¬¸ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼¿®»»®ª»¼¾§¬®¿²·¬±²Û¿¬ïïôÛ¿¬ïíô¿²¼Û¿¬ïç¬¸ßª»²«»ôØ·´§¿®¼ô Ð¿¬¬»®±²ô¿²¼ß´¼»®Í¬®»»¬òÛ¨·¬·²¹¼»²·¬§·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿¿´®»¿¼§»¨½»»¼¬¸»¸·¹¸ ¼»²·¬§¬¸®»¸±´¼±ºîð«²·¬°»®¹®±¿½®»òÌ¸»²»©¬¿²¼¿®¼°®±ª·¼»¹®»¿¬»®½»®¬¿·²¬§¬¸¿¬ ²»©½±²¬®«½¬·±²©·´´¾´»²¼·²©·¬¸»¨·¬·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¬¸»®»¾§®»¼«½·²¹²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ±°°±·¬·±²¬±·²º·´´¿²¼«°°±®¬·²¹®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º½»²¬®¿´´§´±½¿¬»¼ô¬®¿²·¬¿½½»·¾´» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò ß°°´·½¿¾´»É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²Ð±´·½·» Ò±°±´·½·»·²¬¸»É»¬Ë²·ª»®·¬§Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²°»¿µ¼·®»½¬´§¬±¬¸»¸»·¹¸¬±º¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´¾«·´¼·²¹òØ±©»ª»®ô¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹°®±°±¿´ø©·¬¸©¸·½¸½±²·¬»²½§·²±¬®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ÛÝçòèðêë÷¿´´«¼»¬±¬¸»¼»·®»¬±»²¸¿²½»¬¸»¯«¿´·¬§±º¬¸»®»·¼»²¬·¿´»²ª·®±²³»²¬æ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼Ü»·¹²Ð®±°±¿´ýçæ×²¬·¬«¬·±²¿´»¼¹»¸±«´¼¾»¼»·¹²»¼¿±º¬»¼¹»±® »¿³«·²¹¼»·¹²½±²½»°¬«½¸¿¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹æ¬¸»½¿´»±º¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¸±«´¼¾» ·³·´¿®±²¾±¬¸·¼»±º¬¸»»¼¹»ò Ì¸»°®±°±¿´¬±®»¼«½»³¿¨·³«³¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬¿´±²¹Õ·²½¿·¼Í¬®»»¬©¸»®»·¬¿¾«¬ ¬¸»«²·ª»®·¬§·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸·°®±°±¿´òÌ¸»«²·ª»®·¬§¹»²»®¿´´§´·³·¬²»© ½±²¬®«½¬·±²¬±º±«®¬±®·»·²¸»·¹¸¬ò øí÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ÛÝçòíðîðÝ®·¬»®·¿º±®Û¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿²ÍÍ°»½·¿´ ß®»¿Æ±²»ô·²¬¸»½¿»±º»¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬»¬¿¾´·¸¿°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸·½®·¬»®·±²¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ ¬±¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬ò Findings 9 ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE JEFFERSON-WESTSIDE SPECIAL AREA ZONE (S-JW); APPLYING THAT ZONE TO SPECIFIC PROPERTIES; AMENDING THE JEFFERSON-FAR WEST REFINEMENT PLAN; AMENDING THE WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.2161, 9.2170, 9.2171, 9.8030 AND 9.8865 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND ADDING SECTIONS 9.3600, 9.3605, 9.3615, 9.3625, 9.3626, 9.3630, 9.3631 AND 9.3640 TO THAT CODE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding the definitions of “Driveway,” “Lot and Parcel,” “Lot Line,” “Residential Building,” and Street-Fronting Lot” and amending the definition for “Interior Lot Line” to provide as follows: (Diagram references need to be inserted throughout) 9.0500Definitions . As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases mean: Driveway. For purposes of the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone provisions at EC 9.3600 through 9.3640, a surface area that is intended, prepared, or used for vehicle access to and about a lot. Interior Lot Line. (See Figure Any lot or parcel line that is not a front lot line. 9.0500 Lot Lines, Lot Frontage, Lot Width, Lot Depth.) For purposes of the S- JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone provisions at EC 9.3600 through 9.3640, any portion of a lot line that does not abut a street or alley. Lot and Parcel. For purposes of the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone provisions at EC 9.3600 through 9.3640, “lot” and “parcel” are used interchangeably in all cases, and both terms mean a “Legal Lot,” as defined in EC 9.0500. Lot Line. For purposes of the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone provisions at EC 9.3600 through 9.3640, unless more specifically defined in those standards, a lot line is single lot line segment, or continuous series of connected lot line segments. (See EC 9.3631(1)(c).) Residential Building. For purposes of the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone provisions at EC 9.3600 through 9.3640, a building that contains one or more dwellings. Street-Fronting Lot. For purposes of the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone provisions at EC 9.3600 through 9.3640, a lot or parcel that abuts a street for at least the minimum frontage length applicable to the lot as specified at EC 9.3630. Section 2. Subsection (6) of Section 9.2161 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.2161Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2160. (6) Residential Use Limitation in C-1 and C-2. Except for the Downtown Plan Area, residential dwellings are allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zones if the ground floor of the structure is used for commercial or non-residential purposes according to Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed-Use Residential Developments. Within the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, residential dwellings are allowed in C-1 and C-2 zones and are not required to use the ground floor of the structure for For lots zoned C-1 within the S-JW commercial or non-residential purposes. Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone boundaries as shown on Figure 9.3605, the maximum number of dwellings per lot is specified at EC 9.3625(8) and 9.3626(1). Section 3. The “Minimum Front Yard Setback” entry, “Maximum Front Yard Setback“ entry and “Minimum Interior Yard Setback” entry on Table 9.2170 of Section 9.2170 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.2170Commercial Zone Development Standards - General. Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.2171 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2170.) C-1C-2C-3C-4GO Minimum Front Yard Setback (4) [(16)]10 feet 0 feet 0 feet10 feet 10 feet (17) Maximum Front Yard Setback (5) [(16)]15 feet 15 feet 15 feet None 15 feet (17) Minimum Interior Yard Setback (4) (6) 0 feet to 0 feet to 0 feet 0 feet to 0 feet to (16) (7)10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet (6) (6) (6) (6) Section 4. Section 9.2171 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by renumbering subsection (16) to (17), and adding a new subsection (16) to provide: 9.2171Special Commercial Zone Development Standards for Table 9.2170. (16) For lots zoned C-1 within the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone boundaries as shown on Figure 9.3605, setbacks from all portions of interior lot lines (as that term is defined for purposes of the S-JW Special Area Zone) shall be at least 10 feet from the interior lot line. In Ordinance - Page 2 of 20 Ord.(v3) addition, at a point that is 20 feet above grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 50 degrees from vertical) away from that lot line. (16) Adjustments. 17 Except for the Downtown Plan Area as shown on Map 9.2161(6) Downtown Plan Map, adjustments to the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks in this section may be made, based on criteria at EC 9.8030(2) Setback Standards Adjustment. Within the Downtown Plan Area, adjustments to the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks in this section may be made, based on the criteria at EC 9.8030(16). Section 5. Sections 9.3600, 9.3605, 9.3615, 9.3625, 9.3626, 9.3630, 9.3631, and 9.3640 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are added to provide: S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone 9.3600Purpose of S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone. The overarching purpose of the S-JW zone is to prevent residential infill that would significantly diminish, and to encourage residential infill that would enhance the stability, quality, positive character, livability and natural resources of the encompassed residential areas. More specifically, the purposes of this zone include: (1) Contribute to maintaining and strengthening a high quality urban core environment with compatible commercial and residential development so that people of a variety of incomes and household compositions will desire to live close to the city center and will be able to afford to do so. (2) Protect and maintain these healthy, established, residential areas by ensuring compatible design for residential infill development in terms of lot patterns; uses; development intensity; building mass, scale, orientation and setbacks; open space; impacts of vehicle ownership and use; and other elements. (3) Reinforce and complement positive development patterns identified through a community process conducted by the City-chartered neighborhood association that encompasses the S-JW zone. (4) Accommodate future growth without eroding the areas’ residential character and livability. (5) Promote stability of the neighborhood community by maintaining a balanced mix of single-dwelling, duplex, and multi-dwelling residential development that contributes positively to the predominant residential patterns that arose as the neighborhood was built out. Prevent destabilization that would result from major residential redevelopment. (6) Limit the density and intensity of permitted development to a level of development that does not fundamentally replace the essential character of the encompassed area (i.e., by redevelopment). (7) Support the encompassed areas as transition areas between higher intensity residential and commercial land uses adjacent to the S-JW areas (e.g., along W. 13th Avenue and Willamette Streets to the north and east of the Jefferson neighborhood portion of the S-JW area) and lower intensity residential areas adjacent to S-JW areas (e.g., the R-1 Ordinance - Page 3 of 20 Ord.(v3) zoned areas to the east and south of the Jefferson portion of the S-JW area), in terms of density; building mass, scale, setbacks and facades; open space; and other elements. (8) Promote a safe, hospitable and attractive environment for pedestrians and bicyclists, including individuals of all ages and abilities, particularly by establishing development standards that do not allow automobile use to reach levels that create hazards or disincentives to pedestrian and bicycle use on local streets and alleys; (9) Promote public safety by fostering a strong visual and social connection among living areas of dwellings that are close to one another, and between the living areas of dwellings and the public realm; (10) Provide for a range of dwelling types, tenures, density, sizes and costs, including by encouraging the preservation of existing small lots and small, relatively lower-cost, single-dwelling, detached homes, as well as by encouraging new, smaller and relatively lower-cost, detached, single- dwellings and duplexes; (11) Implement clear and objective standards that support the above purposes, while allowing for alternative discretionary standards to provide additional flexibility for compatible residential development. 9.3605S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the approval criteria at EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, to receive the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone, the site must be included within the boundaries of the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone depicted on Figure 9.3605 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone boundaries. 9.3615S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements and Special Use Limitations. The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations applicable in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone shall be those set out at EC 9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone, except the following uses listed on Table EC 9.2740 are prohibited in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone: (1) Correctional Facilities. (2) C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone permitted uses, unless such a use is specifically listed in another row on Table 9.2740 as an allowable use under the “R-2” column. 9.3625S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards. (1) Application of Standards and Adjustment. (a)Application of Standards. In addition to the special use limitations in EC 9.3615 and the development standards in EC 9.3625 to 9.3640 and EC 9.5000 to 9.5850, the General Standards for All Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 apply within this zone. In the event of a conflict between those general development standards and the development standards in EC 9.3625 to 9.3640, the provisions of EC 9.3625 to 9.3640 shall control. (b)Adjustment. The development standards in subsections EC 9.3625(6) regarding driveway width and EC 9.3625(3)(a)2.b regarding primary vehicle access may be adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(26). For sites zoned S-JW Special Area Zone, these are the only standards that may be adjusted. Ordinance - Page 4 of 20 Ord.(v3) (2) Roof Form. (a) All roof surfaces on residential buildings, other than as provided for porches and dormers in subsections (b) and (c) below, shall have a minimum slope of 6 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally, except: 1. A lesser roof pitch is permitted so long as the pitch is no less than the median roof pitch of all residential buildings located on those S-JW lots located within 300 feet of the subject lot. For purposes of determining the median roof pitch, each residential building’s roof pitch shall be considered the roof pitch of the building’s largest contiguous roof area. 2. For a residential building that contains the only dwelling on a lot, a lesser roof pitch is permitted for up to 1,000 square feet of roof surface, so long as the area(s) of lesser pitch are no more than 15 feet above grade at any point. (b) Residential building porches are not required to have a sloped roof if the porch is: 1. Less than 100 square feet; or 2. Located on a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot and is on the rear (i.e., side opposite a street) of the residential building closest to the street. (c) Residential building dormers are not required to have a sloped roof if the dormer is: 1. Less than 10’ wide, as measured at sidewalls or maximum roof opening, whichever is greater; or 2. Located on a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot and is on the rear (i.e., side opposite a street) of the residential building closest to the street. (d) Roof surfaces on garages and other buildings that are not residential buildings in the following categories shall have a minimum slope of 6 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally: 1. Buildings with over 200 square feet of floor area; and 2. Buildings with over 100 square feet of floor area that have any part of the building over 12 feet high, as measured from grade. (3) Alley development standards. (a) Primary Vehicle Access. For the purposes of this section, “primary vehicle access” means the primary means by which inhabitants take vehicular access to a dwelling or on-site parking space(s) provided for a dwelling. Primary vehicle access is determined as follows: 1. On an alley access only lot, every dwelling’s primary vehicle access is the alley. 2. On a lot that is not an alley access only lot and that, consistent with access standards in the EC, could take vehicular access from an alley, a dwelling’s primary vehicle access is: a. The street, when there is only one dwelling on the lot. b. When there are multiple dwellings on the lot, for each on-site parking space that complies with the standards Ordinance - Page 5 of 20 Ord.(v3) applicable in the S-JW special area zone and that can only be accessed and exited via a street (i.e., cannot use the alley for entry or exit), one dwelling is considered to take primary vehicle access from the street. The remainder of the dwellings shall be considered to take primary vehicle access from the alley. If there are one or more dwellings with the alley as primary vehicle access, the dwelling(s) closest to the alley shall be considered to have primary access from the alley. In cases where multiple dwellings are equidistant from the alley and not all of them take primary access from the alley, the property owner may designate which dwellings take primary access from the alley. The provisions in this subsection (3)(a)2.b. may be adjusted based on the criteria of EC 9.8030(26)(2). 3. On all lots not addressed in 1. or 2., above, all dwellings’ primary vehicle access is the street. (b) No more than one dwelling on the same development site may take primary vehicle access from an alley unless the site also abuts a street that the alley intersects. (c) On any lot that contains one or more dwellings whose primary vehicle access is an alley, there must be at least an undivided 400 square-foot open space area (not including buildings, parking or driveways) abutting the alley. Except as provided in 4., below, the open space area: 1. shall abut the alley for at least 25% of the length of the lot line abutting the alley; 2. shall be a minimum of 10 feet in depth for the entire extent that the open space area abuts the alley; and 3. may include areas that are within setbacks. 4. The open space required in this subsection (c) may be placed behind parallel parking abutting the alley. (d) For a dwelling whose primary vehicle access is an alley: 1. The dwelling may not have more than three bedrooms. 2. If the dwelling is in the residential building closest to the alley, then the dwelling shall include a main entrance that is visible from the alley (see Figure 9.3625(3)(d)2.) and meets one of the following conditions: a. Faces the alley; b. Faces the side of the lot and opens onto a covered porch that has a minimum of 30 square feet between a wall facing the alley and the alley; or c. Faces the side of the lot and meets all the following conditions: (1) The entrance opening is no more than 8 feet from the building façade facing the alley and nearest the alley. (2) The entrance provides direct resident access to a head-in parking area on the same side of building. Ordinance - Page 6 of 20 Ord.(v3) (3) The entrance includes a covered porch of at least 20 square feet. (4) The façade facing the alley includes windows that total at least 8 feet wide when measured at 5’ above the floor of the first story and that have a minimum area of at least 20 square feet. 3. One on-site parking space, accessible from the alley, per dwelling is required. (4) Main Entrances. (a) Except as provided in (c), below, on a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot, the residential building closest to the street shall include a main entrance that meets one of the following conditions: 1. Faces the street; or 2. Faces the side of the lot and opens onto a covered porch that has a minimum of 30 square feet between a wall facing the street and the street. (b) Except as provided in (c), below, on corner lots with more than one residential building, all residential buildings shall include a main entrance that meets the requirements of subsection (a). (c) Notwithstanding (a) and (b), above, where three or more dwellings have ground-level entrances on two or more sides of a common courtyard that is open to a street for at least 20 feet, the dwellings’ main entrances may face the courtyard. (See Figure 9.3625(4)(c)) (5) Garage Door Standards. (a) Except for a garage accessed from an alley, only one garage door, with maximum width of 9 feet and maximum height of 8 feet, is allowed within 30 feet of any portion of a lot line that abuts a street. (b) For a garage accessed from an alley, one garage door 18 feet wide and 8 feet high or 2 garage doors 9 feet wide and 8 feet high, are permitted. (6) Driveway Standards. In lieu of any conflicting standards in EC 7.410 Driveways – Curb cut, the following standards shall apply: (a) Street Access Driveway Curb Cuts and Width. Driveways that are accessed from a street must meet all the following requirements: 1. Except as provided in (7), below, a lot shall have no more than one curb cut on each street that the lot abuts. 2. The maximum curb cut width is limited to 14 feet where the driveway abuts the street, and the driveway must taper to no more than 12 feet within 3 feet of the street curb or edge. 3. The maximum driveway width for a driveway that accesses a single-car garage is 12 feet. 4. No portion of a driveway or parking area shall be wider than 12 feet within 30 feet of any portion of a lot line that abuts a street. 5. For a driveway or parking area located within five feet of an existing driveway or parking area on an adjacent property under common ownership or within the same development site, the maximum total width of the two driveways and/or parking areas is 18 feet within 30 feet of any portion of a lot line that abuts a street. Ordinance - Page 7 of 20 Ord.(v3) 6. The full width of impermeable surfaces and surfaces with permeable paved surfaces (such as parking areas or walkways) that are within one foot of a driveway shall be included in calculating the driveway width except that one private walkway, no wider than 4 feet within 5 feet of the driveway, may terminate at the driveway. (See Figure 9.3625(6)(a)6.) 7. Exception. For a duplex where both main entrances face the same street and the lot is not on the corner of two streets or the corner of a street and an alley, two curb cuts and driveways are allowed as long as both curb cuts and driveways meet all of the following conditions: a. There must be at least 30 feet between the two curb cuts; b. Each curb cut must be at least 5 feet from any curb cut on an adjacent lot; c. The maximum curb cut width is limited to 11 feet where the driveway abuts the street, and the driveway must taper to no more than 9 feet within 3 feet of the street curb or edge; and d. No portion of a driveway or parking area shall be wider than 9 feet within 30 feet of any portion of a lot line that abuts a street. (See Figure 9.3625(6)(a)7.). (b) Alley-Access Driveway Width. The maximum driveway and/or parking area width is 18 feet within 30 feet of any portion of a lot line that abuts the alley. (c) Adjustment. The driveway width standards in this subsection (6) may be adjusted based on the criteria of EC 9.8030(26)(1). (7) Parking Standards. (a) Except as provided in (3)(d)3. above, each dwelling shall have one on-street or on-site vehicle parking space for every three bedrooms, rounded up to the next whole number (i.e. a four- bedroom dwelling must have at least two parking spaces). For purposes of this subsection, each uninterrupted twenty feet of lot line that abuts a street right-of-away where parking is legal within the entirety of that twenty feet shall count as one on-street parking space. The twenty feet may not include any portion of a curb cut. (b) No portion of a vehicle parking area may be located in the area defined by the Street Setback minimum standard (i.e., from which structures, other than permitted intrusions, are excluded) or between the street and the residential building façade that faces, and is closest to, the street. (See Figure 9.3625(7)(b)). (8) The following Table 9.3625 sets forth the S-JW Special Area Zone development standards, subject to the special development standards in EC 9.3626. Table 9.3625 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.3626 Special Development Standards for Table 9.3625.) Density(1) Minimum Dwellings Per Lot Ordinance - Page 8 of 20 Ord.(v3) Table 9.3625 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards (See EC 9.3626 Special Development Standards for Table 9.3625.) Lots less than 13,500 Square Feet -- Lots 13,500 square feet and larger 1 dwelling per lot for every 6,750 square feet (fractional values are rounded down to the nearest whole number) Maximum Dwellings Per Lot(1) Alley Access Only Lot 1 dwelling per lot Lots less than 2,250 square feet No additional dwellings after [date of adoption] Lots between 2,250 and 4,499 square feet 1 dwelling per lot Lots between 4,500 and 8,999 square feet 2 dwellings per lot Lots 9,000 square feet and larger 1 dwelling per lot for every 4,500 square feet (fractional values are rounded down to the nearest whole number) Maximum Building Height (2) (9) Minimum Building Setbacks (3) (4) (5) (9) Maximum Lot Coverage (6) (7) 50% Maximum Vehicle Use Area (6) 20% Common and Private Open Space (7) Fences (8) (Maximum Height Within Interior Yard Setbacks) 6 feet (Maximum Height within Front Yard Setbacks) 42 inches 9.3626Special Development Standards for Table 9.3625. (1) Density. For purposes of determining the maximum allowable dwellings on a lot: (a) A dwelling with five or fewer bedrooms that is the only dwelling on a street-abutting lot that is at least 4,500 square feet shall be counted as one dwelling. (b) Two dwellings that together have a total of six or fewer bedrooms, and that are the only dwellings located on a street-fronting lot that is at least 4,500 square feet, and where at least one residential building on the lot has a front facade that faces a street and is within the street maximum setback, shall be counted as two dwellings. (c) For cases not covered by sections (a) and (b), above, the dwelling count shall be the sum of the dwelling counts calculated under the following subsections: 1. The total dwelling count for all dwellings with three or fewer bedrooms shall be the number of dwellings, 2. The total dwelling count for all dwellings with four or more bedrooms shall be the total number of bedrooms in these dwellings divided by three. Fractional dwelling counts resulting from this calculation shall be rounded up to the next whole number, e.g. a total of seven bedrooms counts as three dwellings. (d) Dwelling counts shall be recalculated as part of the City’s consideration of any new development proposing to increase the Ordinance - Page 9 of 20 Ord.(v3) number of dwellings or bedrooms on a lot. The proposed change shall not be permitted unless the new dwelling count will comply with all applicable standards in this section. (e) In addition to the Maximum Dwellings Per Lot allowed by Table 9.3625, one additional dwelling may be established on a lot that is between 9,000 square feet and 12,499 square feet, and up to two additional dwellings may be established on a lot that is 13,500 square feet or larger, so long as: 1. No residential building on the lot has more than two dwellings; 2. No dwelling on the lot has more than three bedrooms; and 3. No dwelling added to the lot after [date of adoption] or that is on a lot that has more than the number of dwellings allowed on the lot by Table 9.3625 has more than 800 square feet of living area or any point (other than chimney) higher than 18 feet. (f) Multi-lot developments. A multi-lot development site is treated as one area for calculating allowable dwellings. (I.e., allowable dwellings are not the sum of individual lots’ allowable dwellings). A multi-lot development site cannot include an alley access only lot or a lot less than 4,500 square feet. (2) Building Height. (See Figure 9.3626(2)(3)(4)). (a) Residential buildings. 1. On a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot, the maximum height of any part of a residential building within 60 feet of the lot line abutting the street is: a. For any section of a roof that has at least a 6:12 pitch (i.e. a slope of 6 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally) for the entire roof section: 30 feet. b. Otherwise: 18 feet. c. For a lot that meets the definition of “Street-fronting lot” with respect to more than one street, the 60 foot distance shall be measured from the shortest lot line that meets the requirements under the definition of “Street-fronting lot.” 2. The maximum height of any part of a residential building not covered under subsection 1., above, is 18 feet. 3. Chimneys on residential buildings may exceed the maximum height limits by no more than 5 feet. (See Figure 9.3626(2)(a)). (b) The maximum height of any part of a garage or building that is not a-residential building is 15 feet. (c) The height of any part of a structure shall be measured as its vertical distance above grade. (3) Alley and Street Setbacks. (See Figure 9.3626(2)(3)(4)). (a) Alley minimum setback. Except as provided under subsection (a)1., below, all buildings shall be set back a minimum of the distance specified in subsections 1. and 2., below, from any portion of a lot line that abuts an alley and from any alley right-of- way easement, whichever would result in a greater setback distance. Ordinance - Page 10 of 20 Ord.(v3) 1. Residential buildings: 5 feet. All intrusions allowed by EC 9.6745 (“Setbacks-Intrusions Permitted”) and not explicitly prohibited by other provisions applicable in the S-JW Special Area Zone are allowed but no intrusion may penetrate more than two feet into the setback. 2. Other structures: 2 feet. No intrusions are allowed. (b) Street setback. 1. Residential buildings. a. Minimum setback shall be: (1) 15 feet from any portion of a lot line that abuts a street and from any street right-of-way easement, whichever would result in a greater setback distance; or (2) The average setback distance to the widest portion of the front facades of the two nearest residential buildings, one on each adjacent property on the side of the subject property, that face the same street, but not less than 10 feet; or (3) Where there are not two dwellings as described in (2), above, one half the sum of 15 feet plus the setback distance to the widest portion of the front facade of the nearest residential building on a different property that faces the same street, but not less than 10 feet (4) All intrusions allowed by EC 9.6745 (“Setbacks- Intrusions Permitted”) and not explicitly prohibited by other provisions applicable in the S-JW Special Area Zone are allowed. No intrusion may penetrate closer than 10 feet from any portion of a lot line that abuts a street and from any street right-of-way easement. b. Maximum setback on a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot: (1) At least one residential building on the lot must have at least 25 feet or 100 per cent, whichever is less, of its main facade width located within 30 feet of the portion(s) of a lot line that abuts the street or the easement that the main facade faces. (2) The maximum front yard setback can be increased to one of the following measurements, but to no more than 35 feet: (A) The average setback distance to the widest portion of the front facades of the two nearest residential buildings, one on each adjacent property on the side of the subject property, that face the same street; or (B) Where there are not two such dwellings as described in (A), one half the sum of 30 feet plus the setback distance to the widest portion of the front facade of the nearest Ordinance - Page 11 of 20 Ord.(v3) residential building on a different property that faces the same street. (3) On a corner lot (i.e., a lot that has abuts two intersecting streets), the street minimum setback requirement may be reduced to 10 feet for no more than a 30-foot extent of one residential building on one of the streets, when that residential building meets the following conditions: (A) The residential building has a main entrance that meets the requirements in EC 9.3625(4) with respect to a different street and complies with the 15 foot minimum street setback requirement with respect to that street; and (B) No dwelling in the residential building has a main entrance within the extent of the façade to which the 10 foot setback applies. 2. Garages and buildings that are not residential buildings shall meet the following minimum setback requirements: a. 21 feet from any portion of a lot line that abuts a street and from any street right-of-way; and b. On all lots except alley access only lots: 6 feet behind the street-facing façade, other than the façade of an attached garage, that is furthest from the street of the residential building closest to the street that the garage or non-residential building faces. (c) Special setback provisions may also apply, see EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. (4) Interior Yard Setbacks. (See Figure 9.3626(2)(3)(4)). For purposes of this subsection, “generally parallel” shall mean within 30 degrees of parallel, and the term “generally perpendicular” shall mean within 30 degrees of perpendicular. Except as provided in subsections (c) through (f) of this subsection: (a) For a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot, for any portion of an interior lot line that is located within 60 feet of a lot line abutting a street and generally perpendicular to the side of the lot along which the interior lot line lies: The setback shall be at least 5 feet from the interior lot line and a minimum of 10 feet from structures on other lots. In addition, at a point that is 12 feet above grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 50 degrees from vertical) away from the lot line. (b) Setbacks from all other portions of interior lot lines, not covered in subsection (a), shall be at least 5 feet from the interior lot line and a minimum of 10 feet from structures on other lots. In addition, at a point that is 8 feet above grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 50 degrees from vertical) away from the lot line. (c) All intrusions allowed by EC 9.6745 (“Setbacks-Intrusions Permitted”) and not explicitly prohibited by other provisions applicable in the S-JW Special Area Zone are allowed, except that: Ordinance - Page 12 of 20 Ord.(v3) 1. The maximum extent of allowable intrusions into the sloped portion of a setback shall be measured horizontally from the sloped plane of the setback. 2. No wall or surface of a building that is an intrusion allowed under EC 9.6745(2) and that is over 20 square feet shall be closer than 10 feet to any residential building’s wall or surface that is over 20 square feet on an adjacent property. (d) On a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot, a residential building with a main roof that is gabled or hipped and has a ridgeline generally parallel to a lot line abutting the street may have a single gable or hipped portion on each side of the building intrude into the sloped portion of the interior yard setback, as long as the entire intrusion is within 60 feet of the respective lot line abutting the street and the maximum width of the part of the building that penetrates the sloped setback is 35 feet. (e) A residential building may have a maximum of 4 dormers, with a maximum of 2 dormers per side of the roof, that intrude into the sloped portion of an interior yard setback, as long as each dormer that intrudes on the setback meets all the following requirements: 1. Has at least 4 square feet of window(s) in the end (face) wall. 2. Has a minimum setback of 7 feet from interior lot lines and is a minimum of 10 feet from structures on other lots. 3. Maximum width. a. There is no maximum width for a dormer that has an end (face) wall that does not face a street and is setback at least 30 feet from the nearest lot line segment the end wall faces. b. The maximum width for all other dormers that intrude into the setback is 10 feet measured between the sidewalls or maximum roof opening, whichever is greater. 4. The dormer’s sidewalls (if any) are setback a minimum of 2 feet from the nearest generally parallel outer wall of the building to which the dormer is attached. (f) Exceptions. 1. Structures may intrude into the sloped portion of any interior yard setback as long as the lot owner secures and records in the office of the Lane County Recorder a maintenance access easement adjacent to intrusive side of the structure. The easement shall provide a 5-foot wide access the entire length of the intrusion and 5 feet beyond both ends, and require a 10-foot separation between buildings on separate lots. The easement shall be on a form provided by the city, shall be approved by city staff, and be subject to review and payment of a fee set by the city manager. 2. Structures may intrude into an interior yard setback arising from a lot line between an alley access only lot and the lot between the alley access only lot and the street, as long as the property owner secures and records a maintenance access easement as described in 1, above. (g) Easements. Except where buildings abut or share a common wall, Ordinance - Page 13 of 20 Ord.(v3) the owner of a lot or parcel with an interior yard of less than 5 feet from the adjacent property line must secure and record in the office of the Lane County Recorder a maintenance access easement adjacent to that side of the building. The easement shall provide a 5-foot wide access the entire length of the building and 5 feet beyond both ends, and require a 10-foot separation between buildings on separate lots. The easement shall be on a form provided by the city, shall be approved by city staff, and be subject to a review and payment of a fee set by the city manager. There shall be no projection of building features into this easement. (5) Window Setback above First Floor. For purposes of this subsection, “generally parallel” shall mean within 30 degrees of parallel. (a) Except as provided in (b), windows above the first floor shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from interior lot lines. (b) Windows that are within 60 feet of a lot line abutting the street of a street-fronting lot that is not an alley access only lot, and that are in a gable or hipped end of a residential building with a main roof ridgeline generally parallel to the respective lot line abutting the street, are excluded from the setback requirement in (a), above. (6) The maximum area covered by paved and unpaved vehicle use areas including but not limited to driveways, on-site parking and turnarounds, is 20 percent of the total development site area. (7) Common and Private Open Space. (See Figure 9.3626(7)). (a) All developments of three or more dwellings (as calculated under EC 9.3626(1) shall include common or private open space, or a combination thereof, that equals or exceeds the greater of the following two areas: 1. 20% of the development site area. 2. 25% of total living area. (b) Any common open space intended to meet the requirements of this subsection (7) may include only those the areas listed under EC 9.5500(9)(a)(1) and (2). No indoor area may be counted as common open space. 1. The minimum area for any common open space shall be 250 square feet. 2. The boundaries of any area counted as common open space must be sufficient to encompass a square with 15 foot sides. (c) Any private open space intended to meet the requirements of this subsection (7) shall be consistent with EC 9.5500(9)(b). (d) An open space credit shall be allowed consistent with EC 9.5500(9)(c)2 for qualifying setback areas. The EC 9.5500(9)(c)1 credit for public parks is not allowed. (8) Fences. (a)Types. The type of fence (including walls or screens) used is subject to specific requirements stated in the landscape standards beginning at EC 9.6200 Purpose of Landscape Standards. The standards apply to walls, fences, and screens of all types including open, solid, wood, metal, wire, masonry or other material. Use of barbed wire and electric fencing is regulated in EC 6.010(d) Fences. (b)Location and Heights. 1. Fences up to 42 inches in height are permitted within the Ordinance - Page 14 of 20 Ord.(v3) required front yard setback. For corner lots or double frontage lots, a fence between 42 inches and 6 feet in height is permitted within one of the two front yard setbacks, so long as for corner lots, this fence cannot extend past a line created by an extension of the front wall of the dwelling. (See Figure 9.2751(13)(b)1.) 2. Fences up to 6 feet in height are permitted within the required interior yard setback. 3. The height of fences that are not located within the required setback areas is the same as the regular height limits of the zone. 4. Fences must meet the standards in EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. (9) Maximum building height and minimum building setbacks may be modified with an approved planned unit development permit. (For planned unit development procedures refer to EC 9.7300 General Overview of Type III Application Procedures and for approval criteria refer to EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria - General. 9.3630S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Lot Standards. The following Table 9.3630 sets forth S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone lot standards, subject to the special standards in EC 9.3631. Table 9.3630 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Lot Standards (See EC 9.3631 Special Standards for Table 9.3630.) Lot Area Minimum (1) Lots, exceptSmall Lots, Alley Access Only Lots 4,500 square feet Small Lots(2)2,250 square feet or per Cluster Subdivision or PUD Alley Access Only Lots (4) 2,250 square feet Frontage Minimum (1) Interior Lot 45 feet Corner Lot 45 feet Lot Area Maximum (3)13,500 square feet 9.3631Special Standards for Table 9.3630. (1) (a) Lot frontage requirements may be met by a lot that abuts a street or an alley continuously for the required length indicated in Table 9.3630. (b) A lot must be of sufficient size and/or have sufficient on-street parking to meet applicable vehicle parking requirements under EC 9.3625(3)(b)4 or EC 9.3625(7) for one dwelling, or all existing dwellings on the lot at the time the lot is created, whichever is greater. (c) Rectilinear shape. A lot line segment is a portion of the boundary line of a lot that is bounded on each end by an angle and that contains no angles within the line segment. (The point at which a straight line intersects a curved line is considered an angle.) 1. All lot line segments must be straight lines and intersect at right angles (90 degrees). Ordinance - Page 15 of 20 Ord.(v3) 2. Exceptions a. Lot line segments may intersect at an angle between 85 and 95 degrees to the extent that will produce a lot with at least four sides and a lot boundary with fewer angles than could be accomplished using only right angles. b. An angle between 45 and 135 degrees is allowed where a new lot line intersects a lot line segment that existed prior to [the date these standards were adopted] and the existing lot line segment did not intersect both its adjoining lot line segments at right angles. (d) A lot’s boundaries must be sufficient to fully encompass a rectangle of the following size: 1. Alley access only lots: 45’x35’ 2. Other lots: 45’x45’ (See Figure 9.3631(1)(d)(e)). (e) Minimum interior lot dimension. (See Figure 9.3631(1)(d)(e)). The minimum distance between any two non-intersecting lot line segments is 35 feet when measured by a straight line that does not begin or end at an intersection of any two lot line segments and that lies entirely within the lot's boundaries. (f) The Property Line Adjustment provisions at EC 9.8400 through 9.8420 are available within the S-JW zone only for adjustment of a portion of a lot line that existed in its current location as of [the date these standards are adopted]. Such lot lines may be adjusted by up to 5 feet, measured perpendicularly from the lot line’s current location, and consistent with all other applicable lot standards. A Property Line Adjustment allowed under this section may be up to 10 feet if the adjustment is necessary to accommodate an encroachment that existed as of [the date these standards are adopted]. (g) A lot must have the capacity for vehicular access from an alley or street consistent with access standards in the EC. (h) The creation of a new flag lot is prohibited in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone. (2)Other than an alley access only lot, a lot with an area of less than 4500 square feet: (a) May be created only if: 1. The original lot from which the small lot is created abutted a street for at least a continuous 45 feet and was at least 6,750 square feet prior to the creation of the small lot; and 2. Shall not have an existing dwelling that has more than three bedrooms. 3. Only one “small lot” may be created from any portion of a lot that exists as of [the date these standards are adopted]. (b) No new dwelling with more than three bedrooms is allowed on a small lot. (3) Exceptions to the maximum lot size shall be granted if any of the following is met: (a) Existing physical circumstances such as topographically constrained lands, conservation easements, existing buildings, or utility easements prevent the ability to further divide the lot. Ordinance - Page 16 of 20 Ord.(v3) (b) The lot exceeding the maximum lot size is intended to reserve a large lot for future land division with feasibility demonstrated by a conceptual buildout plan. (c) The subdivision achieves a minimum density of 9 units per net acre. (d) The exception will enable protection of natural resources. (4) An alley access only lot may be created only if: (a) The original lot from which the alley access only lot is created abuts a street for at least a continuous 45 feet and is at least 6,750 square feet prior to the creation of the alley access only lot; (b) Only one alley access only lot may be created from any portion of a lot that exists as of [the date these standards are adopted]; and (c) A new alley access only lot must include the entire portion of the original lot’s lot line that abuts the alley. 9.3640 Non-conforming development. (1) Existing development that does not meet the lot coverage or open space requirements at EC Table 9.3625, 9.3626(6) or (7) must be brought into conformance with the lot coverage and open space standards in those code sections only when any additional dwelling is created or the number of bedrooms in any dwelling is increased to four or more. However, no development may increase the extent of non-conformance. (2) Existing development that does not meet the driveway or parking requirements at EC 9.3625(3), (6) or (7) must be brought into conformance with those driveway and parking standards only when: (a) An additional dwelling is created on the lot; (b) The number of bedrooms in any dwelling on the lot is increased to four or more; or (c) The proposed development would otherwise result in an increase in the extent of the existing driveway’s or parking area’s non- conformance. (3) A non-conforming driveway or parking area may be paved or re-paved to the extent of the driveway or parking area that existed as of [the date these standards are adopted] without having to be brought into conformance. (4) Legally established buildings and uses conforming to the residential net density requirements in the R-2 zone on December 7, 1994 are exempt from EC 9.1210 to 9.1230 Legal Nonconforming Situations, pertaining to nonconforming uses. This exemption is limited to development sites in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone on which residential buildings and uses existed, or in which a development permit or land use application was pending, on December 7, 1994. If such a building which is nonconforming as to minimum density is destroyed by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, the development site may be redeveloped with the previous number of dwelling unit(s) if completely rebuilt within 5 years. If not completely rebuilt within 5 years, the development site is subject to the density standards for the S- JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone. Ordinance - Page 17 of 20 Ord.(v3) Section 6. Subsection (26) of Section 9.8030 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is added to provide: 9.8030Adjustment Review - Approval Criteria. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an adjustment review application. Approval or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following applicable criteria. ( 26) S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone. The following standards applicable within the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone may be adjusted upon a finding that the adjustment is consistent with the following criteria. (1) Driveway width. An additional two feet of width is allowed for any portion of a driveway that takes access from a street based on the following criteria: (a) The additional driveway width is necessary to avoid an unsafe condition, to comply with the requirements of EC 9.6420 (Parking Area Standards) or to provide reasonable maneuvering room around an obstacle that cannot be practicably relocated to a different location that would not create a driveway obstacle; and (b) The additional area allowed under this adjustment is the minimum necessary to accomplish the objective under (1)(a), above. (2) Means of primary vehicle access. A dwelling considered to have its primary vehicle access from the alley, according to EC 9.3625(3)(a)2.b., may be considered to have its primary vehicle access from the street if the applicant demonstrates that physical conditions or code standards preclude the establishment of vehicle parking on any part of the lot that could be accessed from the alley. Section 7. Subsection (4) of Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new subsection (k) and relettering the subsequent subsections to provide: 9.8865Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. (b) EC 9.2430 Industrial Zone Siting Requirements. (c) EC 9.2510 Natural Resource Zone Siting Requirements. (d) EC 9.2610 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Siting Requirements. (e) EC 9.2681 Public Land Zone Siting Requirements. (f) EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. (g) EC 9.3055 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (h) EC 9.3105 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (i) EC 9.3205 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. Ordinance - Page 18 of 20 Ord.(v3) (j) EC 9.3305 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (k) EC 9.3605 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. l (k) EC 9.3705 S-RP Riverfront Park Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. m (l) EC 9.3805 S-RN Royal Node Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. n (m) EC 9.3905 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. o (n) EC 9.4205 /EC East Campus Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. p (o) EC 9.4715 /WP Waterside Protection Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. q (p) EC 9.4776 /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone Siting Requirements (only for the purposes of adding the overlay zone. See EC 9.4786.). r (q) EC 9.4915 /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone Siting Requirements (only for the purposes of adding the overlay zone. See EC 9.4960.). s (r) EC 9.4815 /WB Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. t (s) An uncodified ordinance establishing a site specific S-H Historic Special Area Zone, a copy of which is maintained at the city’s planning and development department. Section 8. The Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan is amended by adding the following policy under Area 16. East Medium-Density Residential Area: Land Use Policies, Jefferson Area 16. East Medium Density Residential Area This area shall be recognized as appropriate for application of the Special Area Zone-Jefferson-Westside (S-JW) as defined through the City’s land use code. Within the S-JW boundaries set by the City Council, the S-JW zone shall be the only permissible zone. The S-JW zone is consistent with and implements the Medium Density Residential Metro & Refinement Plan designation within its boundaries. Section 9. The Westside Neighborhood Plan is amended by adding the following Policy 5 to the Central Residential Area section of the Plan’s Land Use Element: Policy 5. The portion of the Central Residential Area that is east of Polk Street shall be recognized as appropriate for application of the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone (S-JW) as defined through the City’s land use code. Within the S-JW boundaries set by the City Council, the S-JW zone shall be the only permissible zone. The S-JW zone is consistent with and Ordinance - Page 19 of 20 Ord.(v3) implements the Medium Density Residential Metro Plan and Refinement Plan designation. Section 10. Figures 9.3605, 9.3625(3)(d)2., 9.3625(4)(c), 9.3625(6)(a)6., 9.3625(6)(a)7., 9.3625(7)(b), 9.3626(2)(a), 9.3626(2)(3)(4), 9.3626(7), 9.3631(1)(d)(e) as referenced in this Ordinance, are attached hereto as Exhibit A and shall be numerically incorporated in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 11. The legislative findings attached as Exhibit B hereto are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 12. This Ordinance shall take effect pursuant to Section 32 of the Eugene Charter 2002, or on the date of its acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever is later. Section 13. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the consent of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein, or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ___ day of _______________, 2009 ____ day of ______________, 2009 ____________________________ _____________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - Page 20 of 20 Ord.(v3) Ú·¹«®» çòíêðë ÍóÖÉ Ö»ºº»®±² É»¬·¼» Í°»½·¿´ ß®»¿ Æ±²» Þ±«²¼¿®·» ÍóÖÉ ÍóÖÉ ¼³¬ Æ±²» Þ±«²¼¿®·» l Ý¿«¬·±²æ Ú¬ Ì¸· ³¿° · ¾¿»¼ ±² ·³°®»½·» Ì¿¨´±¬ ðîëðëððïððð±«®½» ¼¿¬¿ô «¾¶»½¬ ¬± ½¸¿²¹»ô ¿²¼ º±® ¹»²»®¿´ ®»º»®»²½» ±²´§ò É¿¬»® Þ±¼§ Alley Development Standards / Main Entrance Visibility 9.3625 (3)(d)2. PROPERTY LINE ALLEY ALLEY (a)(b) Entrance faces the side of the lot and covered porch with a opens onto a Entrance faces the alley. minimum of 30 square feet between a wall facing the alley and the alley. ALLEY (c) The facade facing the alley must include Dwelling entrance Entrance no more windows that total at least 8’ in width, measured than 8’ from facade provides direct facing alley access to parking a minimum area of at least 20 sq. ft. space ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW Main Entrances 9.3625 (4)(c) Where three or more dwellings have ground-level entrances on two or more that is open to a street for at least 20 feet sides of a common courtyard , the dwellings’ main entrances may face the courtyard. PROPERTY LINE S T R DWELLING E COMMON E COURTYARD T Driveway Standards 9.3625 (6)(a)6. PROPERTY LINE S T R DRIVEWAY E E T DWELLING Walkway width no wider than 4’ 30’ of within 5’ of driveway lot line Driveway Curb-Cut Exception 9.3625(6)(a)7. 30’ Driveway limited to 9’ within this area DWELLING Driveway may taper to no more than 9’ within 3’ of street 11’ DUPLEX 30’ min 5’ min S DWELLING T R E E T STREET Vehicular (No) Parking Areas 9.3625 (7)(b) Building Heights / Residential 9.3626 (2)(a) Setbacks & Building Heights 9.3626(2)(3)(4) Section / Elevation Diagram Perspective Diagram Common Open Space 9.3626 (7) 9.3631 (1)(d)(e) EXHIBIT B Ü®¿º¬Ú·²¼·²¹º±®ÝßðçðíôÎßðçðîôÆðçðì Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»¬Ö»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼» Û¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¬¸»Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²» çòíðîðÝ®·¬»®·¿º±®Û¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿²ÍÍ°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»òÞ»º±®»¿¼±°¬·²¹¿²±®¼·²¿²½»¿¼±°¬·²¹ ¿²ÍÍ°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»ô¬¸»½·¬§½±«²½·´¸¿´´º·²¼¬¸¿¬¬¸»°®±°±¿´··²½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹½®·¬»®·¿æ ï÷Ì¸»¿®»¿¬±©¸·½¸¬¸»ÍÍ°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»·¾»·²¹¿°°´·»¼³»»¬¿¬´»¿¬±²»±º¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹ ½®·¬»®·¿æ ¿ò··¼»²¬·º·»¼·²¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²±®·²¿®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º±®²±¼¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±®º±®¿°»½·¿´®¿²¹»±º«»±®¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¸¿¬½¿²¾»¬¾»¿½¸·»ª»¼ ©·¬¸¬¸»«»±º¿°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»ô±® ¾òÐ±»»¼·¬·²½¬·ª»¾«·´¼·²¹±®²¿¬«®¿´º»¿¬«®»¬¸¿¬®»¯«·®»°»½·¿´½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ¬±»²«®»¿°°®±°®·¿¬»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô°®»»®ª¿¬·±²ô±®®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±²ò×²±®¼»®¬±¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼¼·¬·²½¬·ª»ô·¬³«¬¾»¼»³±²¬®¿¬»¼¬¸¿¬æ ·òÌ¸»¿®»¿·½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¦»¼¾§¾«·´¼·²¹¬¸¿¬³»®·¬°®»»®ª¿¬·±²·²±®¼»®¬± °®±¬»½¬¬¸»·®°»½·¿´º»¿¬«®»å±® ··òÌ¸»¿®»¿½±²¬¿·²²¿¬«®¿´º»¿¬«®»¬¸¿¬¸¿ª»¾»»²·¼»²¬·º·»¼¾§¬¸»½·¬§¿ ©±®¬¸§±º°»½·¿´¬®»¿¬³»²¬±®°®»»®ª¿¬·±²ò Ì¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²·¼»²¬·º·»¾±¬¸¿®»¿°®±°±»¼º±®ÍÖÉ¦±²·²¹¿¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º±®³»¼·«³ ¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬òÌ¸»§¿®»´±½¿¬»¼¿¼¶¿½»²¬¬±ô¾«¬²±¬©·¬¸·²ô¿®»¿°´¿²²»¼ º±®²±¼¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬òÌ¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ôÉ»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼Ð´¿²¿²¼ Ö»ºº»®±²Ú¿®É»¬®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ô¼»·¹²¿¬»¬¸»»¿®»¿º±®³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´«»ô ¿©»´´ò Ì¸»¼·¬·²½¬·ª»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿·©»´´¼±½«³»²¬»¼·²¬¸»®»°±®¬ ÂÛÃÐÆ£?Æ££Æ???Á¿«¬¸±®»¼¾§Ö»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®ò×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô¬¸»¿®»¿ ¿®»°®±¨·³¿¬»¬±¿²¼ª»®§·³·´¿®·²½¸¿®¿½¬»®¬±¬¸»¿®»¿®»¦±²»¼ÍÝøÝ¸¿³¾»®Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿÷ ·²îððëô¾¿»¼±²¬¸»®»°±®¬ÂÆ«?Î»½±²·¼»®»¼æÐ®±³±¬·²¹Ý±³°¿¬·¾´»Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬·² ¿Ó¿¬«®»ÛÃÐÆ£?Æ££ÈÁ×²»»²½»ô¬¸»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿·¬¸¿¬±º¿°®»©¿®ô ¬®¿¼·¬·±²¿´¹®·¼¼»¼²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ô©·¬¸¼»¬¿½¸»¼·²¹´»º¿³·´§¸±«»¿²¼¼«°´»¨»òÓ¿²§±º ¬¸»¬®«½¬«®»¿®»³¿´´¾«²¹¿´±©¬§´»¸±«»ô·¬»¼±²²¿®®±©ô´±²¹´±¬©·¬¸®»¿®¿´´»§ º®±²¬¿¹»òÌ¸»¬®«½¬«®»¿²¼°¿¬¬»®²±º¬®«½¬«®»³»®·¬°®»»®ª¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬·²±¬°±·¾´»«·²¹ »¨·¬·²¹¦±²·²¹¬±±´ò ×²º±®³¿¬·±²·²¬¸»®»½±®¼¼±½«³»²¬¬¸»°«®°±»±º¬¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»òÌ¸®±«¹¸¼»¬¿·´»¼ ¹¿¬¸»®·²¹±º²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼±°·²·±²ô¬¸»Ö»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®°®±¼«½»¼¿´·¬±º °«®°±»¬¿¬»³»²¬¬¸¿¬»¨°´¿·²©¸¿¬¬¸»Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»··²¬»²¼»¼¬±¿½¸·»ª»òÌ¸±» ¬¿¬»³»²¬¿®»³¿¼»°¿®¬±º¬¸»®»½±®¼¿²¼¿®»·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼¸»®»·²¾§¬¸·®»º»®»²½»ò î÷ß²¿²¿´§·±º¬¸»¿®»¿¼»³±²¬®¿¬»¸±©¬¸»«»¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¿²¼¿®¼±º¬¸»Í Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»±®¼·²¿²½»©·´´º¿½·´·¬¿¬»·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²±º¬¸»°´¿²²»¼«»±º¬¸»°®±°»®¬§ ±®¬¸»°®»»®ª¿¬·±²±®®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±²±º¼·¬·²½¬·ª»¾«·´¼·²¹±®²¿¬«®¿´º»¿¬«®»±º¾»²»º·¬¬± ¬¸»½±³³«²·¬§ò Ì¸»®»°±®¬ÂÛÃÐÆ£?Æ££Æ???Á¾§Ö»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®¼±½«³»²¬¿²¼ ¿²¿´§¦»¬¸»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸»¾«·´¼·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°¿¬¬»®²·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿òÌ¸» ½«®®»²¬¦±²·²¹¬¸¿¬·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»·¹²¿¬·±²·ÎîôÓ»¼·«³ Ü»²·¬§Î»·¼»²¬·¿´òÌ¸»Îî¦±²»¼±»²±¬¼±¿¹±±¼¶±¾±ºº¿½·´·¬¿¬·²¹½±³°¿¬·¾´»·²º·´´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô·²¬¸»°¿®¬·½«´¿®¿®»¿¿ºº»½¬»¼¾§¬¸·°®±°±¿´©¸»®»¬¸»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼· ¿´®»¿¼§³±¬´§¾«·´¬±«¬·²¿´±©¬±³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§ô·²¹´»º¿³·´§¿²¼¼«°´»¨¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °¿¬¬»®²òÌ¸»Îî¦±²»©±®µ©»´´©¸»®»·¬·¿°°´·»¼¬±Ù®»»²º·»´¼·¬»«½¸¿¬¸±»±² Ù±±¼°¿¬«®»×´¿²¼Î±¿¼·²²±®¬¸Û«¹»²»òÌ¸»²»»¼º±®¬¸·Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿¦±²»·¬±¼»ª»´±°¿ ¦±²·²¹¬±±´¬¸¿¬®»½±¹²·¦»¬¸»½·®½«³¬¿²½»±º¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·²¹³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§·²º·´´·²¬¸· ¼·¬·²½¬·ª»¿®»¿·²¿©¿§¬¸¿¬°®»»®ª»¬¸»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ì¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»©·´´º¿½·´·¬¿¬»·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²±º³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿¬¬¸»´±©»²¼±º ¬¸»®¿²¹»°»½·º·»¼·²¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ô©¸·´»°®»»®ª·²¹¬¸»¼·¬·²½¬·ª»¾«·´¼·²¹¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°¿¬¬»®²±º¾»²»º·¬¬±¬¸»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¿²¼½·¬§¿¿©¸±´»ò í÷Û¨½»°¬º±®¿®»¿¦±²»ÍØØ·¬±®·½Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»ô¬¸»¿®»¿¬±¾»½´¿·º·»¼ÍÍ°»½·¿´ß®»¿ ·²½´«¼»¿¬´»¿¬c¿½®»·²¿®»¿ò Ì¸»¿®»¿°®±°±»¼º±®ÍÖÉ¦±²·²¹¬±¬¿´¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ëð¿½®»ô·²½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸· ½®·¬»®·±²ò ì÷Ì¸»¿°°´·½¿¬·±²±º¬¸»¦±²»¬±¬¸»°®±°»®¬·»°®±°±»¼º±®·²½´«·±²·²¬¸»ÍÍ°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²» ¿²¼¬¸»®»¯«·®»¼°®±ª··±²±º¿°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»±®¼·²¿²½»¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»½®·¬»®·¿ º±®¿°°®±ª¿´±º¿¦±²»½¸¿²¹»ô¿½½±®¼·²¹¬±ÛÝçòèèêëÆ±²»Ý¸¿²¹»ß°°®±ª¿´Ý®·¬»®·¿ò Ý±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸»¦±²»½¸¿²¹»½®·¬»®·¿·±«¬´·²»¼¾»´±©ò ÛÝçòèèêëÆ±²»Ý¸¿²¹»Ý®·¬»®·¿òß°°®±ª¿´±º¿¦±²»½¸¿²¹»¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ô·²½´«¼·²¹¬¸»¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ±º¿²±ª»®´¿§¦±²»ô¸¿´´²±¬¾»¿°°®±ª»¼«²´»·¬³»»¬¿´´±º¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹½®·¬»®·¿æ øï÷Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»½¸¿²¹»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿°°´·½¿¾´»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ò Ì¸»©®·¬¬»²¬»¨¬±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¸¿´´¬¿µ»°®»½»¼»²½»±ª»®¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿² ¼·¿¹®¿³©¸»®»¿°°¿®»²¬½±²º´·½¬±®·²½±²·¬»²½·»»¨·¬ò ß¼»³±²¬®¿¬»¼¾»´±©ô¬¸»°®±°±»¼½¸¿²¹»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ò ß°°´·½¿¾´»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²Ð±´·½·» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßçæ Û¬¿¾´·¸¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»·²´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸» ¾®±¿¼¼»²·¬§½¿¬»¹±®·»±º¬¸·°´¿²ò Findings 2 Ó»¼·«³¼»²·¬§òÑª»®ïð¬¸®±«¹¸îð¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°»®¹®±¿½®»ø½±«´¼¬®¿²´¿¬»¬±±ª»®ïìòîè «²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»¬¸®±«¹¸îèòëê«²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»¼»°»²¼·²¹±²»¿½¸¶«®·¼·½¬·±²·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ³»¿«®»¿²¼´¿²¼«»¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬½±¼»ò÷ Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»º±®Ó»¼·«³¼»²·¬§Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬òÌ¸»¦±²»©·´´°®±ª·¼»º±®¿³¿¨·³«³¼»²·¬§´»ª»´±º¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ïë«²·¬°»®²»¬ ¿½®»ø»»¼»¬¿·´»¼¼»²·¬§¿²¿´§·«²¼»®Ù±¿´ïðº·²¼·²¹ô¾»´±©ô¿²¼·²¬»¬·³±²§«¾³·¬¬»¼¾§Ð¿«´ ¬¸ Ý±²¬»ôÑ½¬±¾»®ïîôîððç÷òÌ¸·°±´·½§½¸±·½»¼»ª»´±°¿²»©¦±²»¬±·³°´»³»²¬¿°±®¬·±²±º¬¸» ³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿²¼Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼»·¹²¿¬·±²ô½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸±¬¸»®°±´·½§¼·®»½¬·±² »¬¿¾´·¸»¼º±®¬¸»¿®»¿·²»¿½¸®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ô¿²¼¬¸®±«¹¸¬¸»×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ °®±½»ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßïðæ Ð®±³±¬»¸·¹¸»®®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»²·¬§·²·¼»¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§¬¸¿¬«¬·´·¦»»¨·¬·²¹ ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®»ô·³°®±ª»¬¸»»ºº·½·»²½§±º°«¾´·½º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»ô¿²¼½±²»®ª»®«®¿´®»±«®½» ´¿²¼±«¬·¼»¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸·°±´·½§ò×²º·´´¿²¼®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°®±¶»½¬¿´´±©»¼ ©·¬¸·²¬¸·¦±²»©·´´«¬·´·¦»»¨·¬·²¹·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®»ô·³°®±ª»»ºº·½·»²½§±º°«¾´·½»®ª·½»¿²¼º¿½·´·¬·»ô ¿²¼½±²»®ª»®«®¿´®»±«®½»´¿²¼òÌ¸»²»©¦±²»°®±³±¬»¸·¹¸»®¼»²·¬§¾§¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·²¹ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ìðû³±®»«²·¬¬¸¿²½«®®»²¬´§»¨·¬ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßïíæ ×²½®»¿»±ª»®¿´´®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»²·¬§·²¬¸»³»¬®±°±´·¬¿²¿®»¿¾§½®»¿¬·²¹³±®»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±® »ºº»½¬·ª»´§¼»·¹²»¼·²º·´´ô®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼³·¨»¼«»©¸·´»½±²·¼»®·²¹·³°¿½¬±º·²½®»¿»¼ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»²·¬§±²¸·¬±®·½ô»¨·¬·²¹¿²¼º«¬«®»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ì¸»°®±°±¿´©·´´°®±ª·¼»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©¸·´»°®»»®ª·²¹¬¸»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º ¬¸»»¨·¬·²¹²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ô¼·®»½¬´§·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¬¸·°±´·½§òÌ¸»°®±°±»¼¬¿²¼¿®¼º¿½·´·¬¿¬» »ºº»½¬·ª»´§¼»·¹²»¼·²º·´´¿²¼®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¿½±³°¿¬·¾´»©¿§ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»²·¬§Ð±´·½§ßïëæ Ü»ª»´±°¿©·¼»®®¿²¹»±º¦±²·²¹±°¬·±²«½¸¿²»©¦±²·²¹¼·¬®·½¬ô¬±º«´´§«¬·´·¦»»¨·¬·²¹Ó»¬®± Ð´¿²¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼ÍÖÉ¦±²»©·´´°®±ª·¼»¿¦±²·²¹¬±±´°»½·º·½¿´´§¼»·¹²»¼¬±·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»³»¼·«³ ¼»²·¬§Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¼»·¹²¿¬·±²º±®¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿òÌ¸»Ã?YÅ®¿²¹»±º¦±²·²¹±°¬·±²©·´´¾» ¾®±¿¼»®«°±²·¬¿¼±°¬·±²ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ø±«·²¹Ì§°»¿²¼Ì»²«®»Ð±´·½§ßïéæ Ð®±ª·¼»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®¿º«´´®¿²¹»±º½¸±·½»·²¸±«·²¹¬§°»ô¼»²·¬§ô·¦»ô½±¬ô¿²¼´±½¿¬·±²ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»½¸¿²¹»©·´´»¨°¿²¼±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®¿®¿²¹»±º¸±«·²¹½¸±·½»¾§°®±ª·¼·²¹ Findings 3 ½»®¬¿·²¬§¿¾±«¬¸±©²»©¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©·´´¾»¼»·¹²»¼òÌ¸·½»®¬¿·²¬§·´·µ»´§¬±®»¼«½»±°°±·¬·±² ¬±²»©®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼·²°·®»º«®¬¸»®®»·²ª»¬³»²¬·²¬¸»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¾§±©²»®¿²¼ ®»·¼»²¬ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ø±«·²¹Ì§°»¿²¼Ì»²«®»Ð±´·½§ßîðæ Û²½±«®¿¹»¸±³»±©²»®¸·°±º¿´´¸±«·²¹¬§°»ô°¿®¬·½«´¿®´§º±®´±©·²½±³»¸±«»¸±´¼ò Ì¸·°®±°±»¼¦±²»º¿½·´·¬¿¬»´±©·²½±³»¸±³»±©²»®¸·°±°°±®¬«²·¬·»¾§¿´´±©·²¹¿´´»§¿½½»´±¬ ¿²¼±¬¸»®³¿´´´±¬¬±¾»½®»¿¬»¼¿²¼¾§°®±³±¬·²¹¬¸»½±²¬®«½¬·±²±º³¿´´¸±³»òÍ³¿´´»®¸±³» ¿®»¬§°·½¿´´§³±®»¿ºº±®¼¿¾´»¬¸¿²´¿®¹»®¸±³»ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»·¹²¿²¼Ó·¨»¼Ë»Ð±´·½§ßîíæ Î»¼«½»·³°¿½¬±º¸·¹¸»®¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¿²¼³·¨»¼«»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±²«®®±«²¼·²¹«»¾§ ½±²·¼»®·²¹·¬»ô´¿²¼½¿°»ô¿²¼¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼±®¹«·¼»´·²»·²´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²ò Ì¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§¾§»¬¿¾´·¸·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¿²¼¿®¼·²½´«¼·²¹´·³·¬±²¼»²·¬§ô ¾«·´¼·²¹¸»·¹¸¬ô»¬¾¿½µô©·²¼±©°´¿½»³»²¬ô°¿®µ·²¹ô¿²¼¿´´»§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬º±®¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½±²¬®«½¬·±²òÌ¸»»¬¿²¼¿®¼©·´´´»»²¬¸»·³°¿½¬±º·²º·´´±²«®®±«²¼·²¹«»ô¿½±³°¿®»¼¬± ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬½«®®»²¬´§¿´´±©»¼¾§¬¸»Îî¦±²»òÌ¸»²»©®»¹«´¿¬·±²½±²·¼»®·¬»ô´¿²¼½¿°»ô¿²¼ ¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´¼»·¹²»´»³»²¬¿°®±³±¬»¼¾§¬¸»¿¾±ª»°±´·½§ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ü»·¹²¿²¼Ó·¨»¼Ë»Ð±´·½§ßîìæ Ý±²·¼»®¿¼±°¬·²¹±®³±¼·º§·²¹´±½¿´¦±²·²¹¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬®»¹«´¿¬·±²¬±°®±ª·¼»¿ ¼·½®»¬·±²¿®§¼»·¹²®»ª·»©°®±½»±®½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª»¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼ô·²±®¼»®¬±¿¼¼®» ·«»±º½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§ô¿»¬¸»¬·½ô±°»²°¿½»ô¿²¼±¬¸»®½±³³«²·¬§½±²½»®²ò Ì¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»¬¿²¼¿®¼·³°´»³»²¬¬¸·°±´·½§¾§·²½´«¼·²¹½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª»¼»·¹²½®·¬»®·¿¬¸¿¬ ¿¼¼®»·«»±º½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§ô¿»¬¸»¬·½ô±°»²°¿½»ô¿²¼±¬¸»®½±³³«²·¬§½±²½»®²ô·²½´«¼·²¹ °»¼»¬®·¿²±®·»²¬¿¬·±²¿²¼²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼½¸¿®¿½¬»®ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð±´·½§Úòíæ Ð®±ª·¼»º±®¬®¿²·¬«°°±®¬·ª»´¿²¼«»°¿¬¬»®²¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô·²½´«¼·²¹¸·¹¸»®·²¬»²·¬§ô ¬®¿²·¬±®·»²¬»¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿´±²¹³¿¶±®¬®¿²·¬½±®®·¼±®¿²¼²»¿®¬®¿²·¬¬¿¬·±²ô³»¼·«³¿²¼ ¸·¹¸¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©·¬¸·²d³·´»±º¬®¿²·¬¬¿¬·±²ô³¿¶±®¬®¿²·¬½±®®·¼±®ô »³°´±§³»²¬½»²¬»®ô¿²¼¼±©²¬±©²¿®»¿å¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¼»·¹²¿¬»¼ ¿®»¿¬¸¿¬¿®»±®½±«´¼¾»©»´´»®ª»¼¾§»¨·¬·²¹±®°´¿²²»¼¬®¿²·¬ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬«°°±®¬¬¸·°±´·½§òÌ¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿¿®»°´¿²²»¼º±®³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§ ¬¸¬¸¬¸¬¸ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼¿®»»®ª»¼¾§¬®¿²·¬±²É»¬èôÉ»¬ïïôÉ»¬ïí¿²¼É»¬ïèßª»²«»ô É·´´¿³»¬¬»ôÑ´·ª»ôÖ»ºº»®±²ô¿²¼Ý¸¿³¾»®Í¬®»»¬òÌ¸»²»©¦±²»°®±ª·¼»¹®»¿¬»®½»®¬¿·²¬§¬¸¿¬ ²»©½±²¬®«½¬·±²©·´´¾´»²¼·²©·¬¸»¨·¬·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¬¸»®»¾§®»¼«½·²¹²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼±°°±·¬·±² ¬±·²º·´´¿²¼«°°±®¬·²¹®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º½»²¬®¿´´§´±½¿¬»¼ô¬®¿²·¬¿½½»·¾´»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò øî÷Ì¸»°®±°±»¼½¸¿²¹»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿°°´·½¿¾´»¿¼±°¬»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ò×²¬¸» Findings 4 »ª»²¬±º·²½±²·¬»²½·»¾»¬©»»²¬¸»»°´¿²¿²¼¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ô¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿² ½±²¬®±´ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼½¸¿²¹»¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ô¿ ¼·½«»¼¾»´±©ò É»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼Ð´¿²Ð±´·½·» Ý»²¬®¿´Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ß®»¿Ð±´·½§ïò Ì¸»Ý·¬§¸¿´´½±²¬·²«»¬±®»½±¹²·¦»¬¸·¿®»¿¿¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º±®³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼¸¿´´¼·½±«®¿¹»²±²®»·¼»²¬·¿´«»òÌ¸·°±´·½§¿°°´·»¬±¿´´°±®¬·±²±º¬¸» Ý»²¬®¿´Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ß®»¿ô»ª»²¬¸±»°®±°»®¬·»¿¾«¬¬·²¹³¿¶±®¿®¬»®·¿´«½¸¿Ý¸¿³¾»®Í¬®»»¬ ¬¸ ¿²¼É»¬ïïßª»²«»ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»®»°±²¼ô½±²º±®³¬±¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§°´¿²¼»·¹²¿¬·±²ò Ò»©®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼»¬¿¾´·¸º«®¬¸»®½»®¬¿·²¬§¿¾±«¬¬¸»º«¬«®»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸»¿®»¿ò Ý»²¬®¿´Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ß®»¿Ð±´·½§îò Ì¸»Ý·¬§¸¿´´»²½±«®¿¹»¿½¬·±²¬¸¿¬©·´´°®»»®ª»»¨·¬·²¹®»·¼»²¬·¿´¬®«½¬«®»ô·²½´«¼·²¹ ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±²ô¾´±½µ°´¿²²·²¹ô·²º·´´·²¹ô¿²¼¸¿®»¼¸±«·²¹ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»©·´´»²½±«®¿¹»°®»»®ª¿¬·±²±º»¨·¬·²¹®»·¼»²¬·¿´¬®«½¬«®»ô¿²¼¿¼¼·¬·±²±º ·³·´¿®½¿´»¬®«½¬«®»©·¬¸·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿ô®¿¬¸»®¬¸¿²´±¬½±²±´·¼¿¬·±²¿²¼©¸±´»¿´» ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò×²º·´´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¬¸·¿®»¿©·´´½±²º±®³¬±²»©½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª»¼»·¹² ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô·²½´«¼·²¹¬¿²¼¿®¼¿¼¼®»·²¹¼©»´´·²¹°»®´±¬ô®±±ºº±®³ô»¬¾¿½µô±°»²°¿½»ô¿²¼ °¿®µ·²¹ô°®±ª·¼·²¹¹®»¿¬»®½»®¬¿·²¬§º±®¾±¬¸¼»ª»´±°»®¿²¼²»·¹¸¾±®¿¾±«¬¬¸»º«¬«®»±º¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ö»ºº»®±²Ú¿®É»¬Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²Ð±´·½·» ß®»¿ïêòÛ¿¬Ó»¼·«³Ü»²·¬§ß®»¿Ð±´·½·» Ì¸·¿®»¿¸¿´´¾»®»½±¹²·¦»¼¿¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º±®³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»®»°±²¼ô½±²º±®³¬±¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§°´¿²¼»·¹²¿¬·±²ò Ò»©®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼»¬¿¾´·¸º«®¬¸»®½»®¬¿·²¬§¿¾±«¬¬¸»º«¬«®»½¸¿®¿½¬»®±º¬¸»¿®»¿ò ß®»¿ïêòÛ¿¬Ó»¼·«³Ü»²·¬§ß®»¿Ð±´·½·» Ûºº±®¬¸¿´´¾»³¿¼»¬±°®»»®ª»¬¸»»¨·¬·²¹®»·¼»²¬·¿´¬®«½¬«®»¾§»²½±«®¿¹·²¹®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±²ô ·²º·´´·²¹ô±®®»´±½¿¬·±²±º¬®«½¬«®»©·¬¸·²¬¸»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»©·´´»²½±«®¿¹»°®»»®ª¿¬·±²±º»¨·¬·²¹®»·¼»²¬·¿´¬®«½¬«®»ô¿²¼¿¼¼·¬·±²±º ·³·´¿®½¿´»¬®«½¬«®»©·¬¸·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿ô®¿¬¸»®¬¸¿²´±¬½±²±´·¼¿¬·±²¿²¼©¸±´»¿´» ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò×²º·´´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¬¸·¿®»¿©·´´½±²º±®³¬±²»©½´»¿®¿²¼±¾¶»½¬·ª»¼»·¹² ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô·²½´«¼·²¹¬¿²¼¿®¼¿¼¼®»·²¹¼©»´´·²¹°»®´±¬ô®±±ºº±®³ô»¬¾¿½µô±°»²°¿½»ô¿²¼ °¿®µ·²¹ô°®±ª·¼·²¹¹®»¿¬»®½»®¬¿·²¬§º±®¾±¬¸¼»ª»´±°»®¿²¼²»·¹¸¾±®¿¾±«¬¬¸»º«¬«®»±º¬¸» Findings 5 ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò øí÷Ì¸»«»¿²¼¼»²·¬§¬¸¿¬©·´´¾»¿´´±©»¼¾§¬¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²·²¹·²¬¸»´±½¿¬·±²±º ¬¸»°®±°±»¼½¸¿²¹»½¿²¾»»®ª»¼¬¸®±«¹¸¬¸»±®¼»®´§»¨¬»²·±²±ºµ»§«®¾¿² º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»ò Ì¸»«»¿²¼¼»²·¬§°®±°±»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»¿®»½«®®»²¬´§¿´´±©»¼ô¿²¼©·´´½±²¬·²«»¬±¾» »®ª»¼¾§¿´´µ»§«®¾¿²º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»ò øì÷Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»½¸¿²¹»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»·¬·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬»¬ ±«¬º±®¬¸»°»½·º·½¦±²»·²æ øý÷ÛÝçòíêïëÍÖÉÖ»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼»Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»Í·¬·²¹Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ ø°®±°±»¼÷ò ÛÝçòèèêëøì÷¼±»²±¬½«®®»²¬´§·²½´«¼»®»º»®»²½»¬±·¬·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®¬¸»ÍÖÉÍ°»½·¿´ß®»¿ Æ±²»ô¾»½¿«»¬¸¿¬¦±²»·¾»·²¹½®»¿¬»¼¿°¿®¬±º¬¸·¿½¬·±²òÍ»»¾»´±©º±®¼·½«·±²±º½±¼» ¿³»²¼³»²¬½®·¬»®·¿¬±¿¼¼®»º»®»²½»¬±¬¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»¬±¬¸»½±¼»òÌ¸»¿°°´·½¿¬·±²±º¬¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²» ¬±¬¸»°®±°±»¼°®±°»®¬·»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»·¬·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬°®±°±»¼¬±¾»¿¼±°¬»¼º±®¬¸» °»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»ò Ý±¼»ß³»²¼³»²¬ Û«¹»²»Ý±¼»Í»½¬·±²çòèðêë®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹¿°°®±ª¿´½®·¬»®·¿ø·²¾±´¼¿²¼·¬¿´·½÷¾» ¿°°´·»¼¬±¿½±¼»¿³»²¼³»²¬æ øï÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿°°´·½¿¾´»¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´¿¼±°¬»¼¾§¬¸»Ô¿²¼ Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²¿²¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬Ý±³³··±²ò Ù±¿´ïÝ·¬·¦»²×²ª±´ª»³»²¬ò Ì±¼»ª»´±°¿½·¬·¦»²·²ª±´ª»³»²¬°®±¹®¿³¬¸¿¬·²«®»¬¸»±°°±®¬«²·¬§ º±®½·¬·¦»²¬±¾»·²ª±´ª»¼·²¿´´°¸¿»±º¬¸»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»ò Ì¸»Ý·¬§¸¿¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼°®±ª··±²º±®½·¬·¦»²·²ª±´ª»³»²¬©¸·½¸»²«®»¬¸»±°°±®¬«²·¬§º±® ½·¬·¦»²¬±¾»·²ª±´ª»¼·²¿´´°¸¿»±º¬¸»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»¿²¼»¬±«¬®»¯«·®»³»²¬º±®«½¸ ·²ª±´ª»³»²¬òÌ¸»°®±½»º±®¿¼±°¬·²¹¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬©¿½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»Ã?YÅ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬¿²¼°®±ª·¼»¼²«³»®±«¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®·²¬»®»¬»¼°¿®¬·»¬±°¿®¬·½·°¿¬»·² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬òØ·¹¸´·¹¸¬¿®»´·¬»¼¾»´±©ò ×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼Ð®±¶»½¬ò Ð®±¶»½¬©»¾·¬»ø©©©ò»«¹»²»±®ñ·²º·´´÷ô°®±¶»½¬µ·½µ±ºº ³»»¬·²¹ô»³¿·´²»©´»¬¬»®«°¼¿¬»¬±·²¬»®»¬»¼°¿®¬§´·¬±º²»¿®´§ìðð°»±°´»ô¬¸®»»°«¾´·½ ©±®µ¸±°ôº±½«¹®±«°³»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ý¸¿³¾»®±ºÝ±³³»®½»ôØ±³»¾«·´¼»®ß±½·¿¬·±²ô Ø·¬±®·½Î»ª·»©Þ±¿®¼ôØ±«·²¹Ð±´·½§Þ±¿®¼ôÍ«¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§Ý±³³··±²Ô¿²¼Ë»¿²¼ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»»ô¿²¼´±©·²½±³»®»·¼»²¬ô·²º·´´¬±«®©·¬¸Ñ°°±®¬«²·¬§Í·¬·²¹ ¿²¼×ÝÍÌ¿µÌ»¿³ô®¿¼·±°®±¹®¿³¼·½«·±²øÕÔÝÝÍ«²¼¿§¿¬Ò±±²÷ôÝ·¬§Ý´«¾°®»»²¬¿¬·±²ò Ó«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹×²º·´´Ý±³³·¬¬»»±º¬¸»×ÝÍÌ¿µÌ»¿³ò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´©±®µ©·¬¸Ö»ºº»®±² Findings 6 É»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®¼»ª»´±°·²¹½±²½»°¬º±®¬¸»°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»¿²¼®»½±³³»²¼·²¹¿¼®¿º¬ ½±¼»°®±°±¿´¬±¬¸»Ì¿µÌ»¿³·²»¿®´§Ó¿®½¸îððçò ×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼Ì¿µÌ»¿³ò Ó±²¬¸´§³»»¬·²¹º®±³Ò±ª»³¾»®îððéÍ»°¬»³¾»® îððçòß½¬·±²¬¿µ»²¬±«°°±®¬¬¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»¿¬¬¸»Ó¿®½¸îððç³»»¬·²¹ò Ø»®·¬¿¹»ß®»¿É±®µ·²¹Ù®±«°ò×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²¹®±«°½±²·¬·²¹±º¿Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²»®ô Ó«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹Ý±³³·¬¬»»³»³¾»®ôÌ¿µÌ»¿³³»³¾»®¿²¼¬¿ºº³»³¾»®¬±®»º·²»¬¸» °®±°±¿´¿²¼¼»ª»´±°¼®¿º¬½±¼»´¿²¹«¿¹»ò Ö»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®ò Ì©±ÂÉ±ªæ«Á©±®µ¸±°°»½·º·½¿´´§±²¬¸»°»½·¿´¿®»¿ ¦±²»ô¬©±»¨¬»²·ª»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼²»©´»¬¬»®»²¬¬±»ª»®§¿¼¼®»·²¬¸»ÖÉÒô±²´·²» «®ª»§ô¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼½¸¿®¿½¬»®¿²¼·²º·´´·³°¿½¬¼±½«³»²¬ô¹»²»®¿´ ³»³¾»®¸·°³»»¬·²¹ô»¨»½«¬·ª»¾±¿®¼³»»¬·²¹¼·½«·±²¿²¼¼»´·¾»®¿¬·±²ô»³¿·´ ²»©´»¬¬»®«°¼¿¬»¬±²»¿®´§íðð¿¼¼®»»ô»¨¬»²·ª»©»¾·¬»«°¼¿¬»¿¬ ©©©ò¶©²»«¹»²»ò±®¹ñ·²º·´´¬¼ô³¿°ô°¸±¬±»¨¿³°´»±º·²º·´´ô°¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±²·²Ñ°°±®¬«²·¬§ Í·¬·²¹©±®µ¸±°¬±º·²¼¹±±¼·¬»º±®¸·¹¸»®¼»²·¬§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô©±®µ»·±²©·¬¸×ÝÍ Ì¿µÌ»¿³ôÓ«´¬·Ü©»´´·²¹Ý±³³·¬¬»»ô¿²¼Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²ò Ì¸»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²¸»´¼¿©±®µ»·±²±²¬¸»×ÝÍ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²°»®¬¿·²·²¹¬±¬¸»Í°»½·¿´ ¬¸ ôîððçòÌ¸»°«¾´·½¸»¿®·²¹½¸»¼«´»¼º±®¬¸»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ý±³³··±²¿²¼ ß®»¿Æ±²»±²Í»°¬»³¾»®ïì ¬¸¬¸ Ý·¬§Ý±«²½·´¿®»Ñ½¬±¾»®îð¿²¼Ò±ª»³¾»®ïêô®»°»½¬·ª»´§ò Þ¿»¼±²¬¸··²º±®³¿¬·±²ô¬¸»°®±½»º±´´±©»¼·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïò Ù±¿´îÔ¿²¼Ë»Ð´¿²²·²¹ò Ì±»¬¿¾´·¸¿´¿²¼«»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»¿²¼°±´·½§º®¿³»©±®µ¿¿¾¿· º±®¿´´¼»½··±²¿²¼¿½¬·±²®»´¿¬»¼¬±«»±º´¿²¼¿²¼¬±¿«®»¿²¿¼»¯«¿¬»º¿½¬«¿´¾¿·º±®«½¸ ¼»½··±²¿²¼¿½¬·±²ò Ì¸»Û«¹»²»Ô¿²¼Ë»Ý±¼»°»½·º·»¬¸»°®±½»¼«®»¿²¼½®·¬»®·¿¬¸¿¬¿®»¬±¾»«»¼·²½±²·¼»®·²¹ ¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±¬¸»½±¼»òÌ¸»®»½±®¼º±®¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬·²½´«¼»«¾¬¿²¬·¿´º¿½¬«¿´ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²¿¾±«¬¬¸»²¿¬«®»±º»¨·¬·²¹¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼¿®»¿òÌ¸»Ù±¿´î½±±®¼·²¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®»³»²¬·³»¬©¸»²¬¸»Ý·¬§»²¹¿¹»·²¿²»¨½¸¿²¹»ô±®·²ª·¬»«½¸¿²»¨½¸¿²¹»ô¾»¬©»»²¬¸» Ý·¬§¿²¼¿²§¿ºº»½¬»¼¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´«²·¬òÌ±½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸»Ù±¿´î½±±®¼·²¿¬·±²®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô¬¸» Ý·¬§»²¹¿¹»¼·²¿²»¨½¸¿²¹»¿¾±«¬¬¸»«¾¶»½¬±º¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬©·¬¸¿´´±º¬¸»¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´«²·¬òÍ°»½·º·½¿´´§ô¬¸»Ý·¬§°®±ª·¼»¼²±¬·½»±º¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿½¬·±²¿²¼±°°±®¬«²·¬§¬± ½±³³»²¬¬±Ô¿²»Ý±«²¬§ôÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼¿²¼¬¸»Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬±ºÔ¿²¼Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²¿²¼Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì¸»®»¿®»²±Ù±¿´îÛ¨½»°¬·±²®»¯«·®»¼º±®¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®» ½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´îò ò Ì±°®»»®ª»¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´´¿²¼ò Ù±¿´íß¹®·½«´¬«®¿´Ô¿²¼ Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»º±®°®±°»®¬§´±½¿¬»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§¿²¼¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ´¿²¼¼»·¹²¿¬»¼º±®¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´í¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ìÚ±®»¬Ô¿²¼ò Ì±½±²»®ª»º±®»¬´¿²¼ò Findings 7 Ì¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»º±®°®±°»®¬§´±½¿¬»¼©·¬¸·²¬¸»«®¾¿²¹®±©¬¸¾±«²¼¿®§¿²¼¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ´¿²¼¼»·¹²¿¬»¼º±®º±®»¬«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ì¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ëÑ°»²Í°¿½»ôÍ½»²·½¿²¼Ø·¬±®·½ß®»¿ô¿²¼Ò¿¬«®¿´Î»±«®½»òÌ±½±²»®ª»±°»²°¿½»¿²¼ °®±¬»½¬²¿¬«®¿´¿²¼½»²·½®»±«®½»ò ÑßÎêêððîíðîëðøí÷°®±ª·¼»æÔ±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿®»²±¬®»¯«·®»¼¬±¿°°´§Ù±¿´ë·² ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²±º¿ÐßÐß«²´»¬¸»ÐßÐß¿ºº»½¬¿Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»òÚ±®°«®°±»±º¬¸·»½¬·±²ô ¿ÐßÐß©±«´¼¿ºº»½¬¿Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±²´§·ºæ ø¿÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß½®»¿¬»±®¿³»²¼¿®»±«®½»´·¬±®¿°±®¬·±²±º¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼°´¿²±®´¿²¼ «»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿¼±°¬»¼·²±®¼»®¬±°®±¬»½¬¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±®¬±¿¼¼®» °»½·º·½®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ëå ø¾÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß¿´´±©²»©«»¬¸¿¬½±«´¼¾»½±²º´·½¬·²¹«»©·¬¸¿°¿®¬·½«´¿®·¹²·º·½¿²¬ Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»·¬»±²¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼®»±«®½»´·¬å±® ø½÷Ì¸»ÐßÐß¿³»²¼¿²¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ËÙÞ¿²¼º¿½¬«¿´·²º±®³¿¬·±²·«¾³·¬¬»¼ ¼»³±²¬®¿¬·²¹¬¸¿¬¿®»±«®½»·¬»ô±®¬¸»·³°¿½¬¿®»¿±º«½¸¿·¬»ô··²½´«¼»¼·²¬¸» ¿³»²¼»¼ËÙÞ¿®»¿ò Ì¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬½®»¿¬»±®¿³»²¼¬¸»Ã?YÅ´·¬±ºÙ±¿´ë®»±«®½»ô¼±²±¬¿³»²¼¿ ½±¼»°®±ª··±²¿¼±°¬»¼·²±®¼»®¬±°®±¬»½¬¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»±®¬±¿¼¼®»°»½·º·½ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ëô¼±²±¬¿´´±©²»©«»¬¸¿¬½±«´¼¾»½±²º´·½¬·²¹«»©·¬¸¿·¹²·º·½¿²¬ Ù±¿´ë®»±«®½»·¬»¿²¼¼±²±¬¿³»²¼¬¸»¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ËÙÞòÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ù±¿´ë¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´êß·®ôÉ¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼Î»±«®½»Ï«¿´·¬§ò Ì±³¿·²¬¿·²¿²¼·³°®±ª»¬¸»¯«¿´·¬§±º¬¸»¿·®ô ©¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼®»±«®½»±º¬¸»¬¿¬»ò Ù±¿´ê¿¼¼®»»©¿¬»¿²¼°®±½»¼·½¸¿®¹»º®±³¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô¿²¼·¿·³»¼¿¬°®±¬»½¬·²¹ ¿·®ô©¿¬»®¿²¼´¿²¼º®±³·³°¿½¬º®±³¬¸±»¼·½¸¿®¹»òÌ¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸» Ã?YÅ¿¾·´·¬§¬±°®±ª·¼»º±®½´»¿²¿·®ô©¿¬»®±®´¿²¼®»±«®½»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ù±¿´ê¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´éß®»¿Í«¾¶»½¬¬±Ò¿¬«®¿´Ü·¿¬»®¿²¼Ø¿¦¿®¼ò Ì±°®±¬»½¬´·º»¿²¼°®±°»®¬§º®±³ ²¿¬«®¿´¼·¿¬»®¿²¼¸¿¦¿®¼ò Ù±¿´é®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬´±½¿´¹±ª»®²³»²¬°´¿²²·²¹°®±¹®¿³·²½´«¼»°®±ª··±²¬±°®±¬»½¬°»±°´» ¿²¼°®±°»®¬§º®±³²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼«½¸¿º´±±¼ô´¿²¼´·¼»ô»¿®¬¸¯«¿µ»¿²¼®»´¿¬»¼¸¿¦¿®¼ô ¬«²¿³·¿²¼©·´¼º·®»òÌ¸»Ù±¿´°®±¸·¾·¬¿¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼¿®»¿©·¬¸±«¬ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»¿º»¹«¿®¼òÌ¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ®»¬®·½¬·±²±² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬·²¿®»¿«¾¶»½¬¬±²¿¬«®¿´¼·¿¬»®¿²¼¸¿¦¿®¼òÚ«®¬¸»®ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼± ²±¬¿´´±©º±®²»©¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¸¿¬½±«´¼®»«´¬·²¿²¿¬«®¿´¸¿¦¿®¼òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼» Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´é¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´èÎ»½®»¿¬·±²¿´Ò»»¼ò Ì±¿¬·º§¬¸»®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´²»»¼±º¬¸»½·¬·¦»²±º¬¸»¬¿¬»¿²¼ ª··¬±®ô¿²¼©¸»®»¿°°®±°®·¿¬»ô¬±°®±ª·¼»º±®¬¸»·¬·²¹±º²»½»¿®§®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´º¿½·´·¬·» Findings 8 ·²½´«¼·²¹¼»¬·²¿¬·±²®»±®¬ò Ù±¿´è»²«®»¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´º¿½·´·¬·»¬±Ñ®»¹±²½·¬·¦»²¿²¼·°®·³¿®·´§ ½±²½»®²»¼©·¬¸¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸±»º¿½·´·¬·»·²²±²«®¾¿²¿®»¿±º¬¸»¬¿¬»òÌ¸»½±¼» ¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²º±®®»½®»¿¬·±²¿®»¿ôº¿½·´·¬·»±®®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´è¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´çÛ½±²±³·½Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»¿¼»¯«¿¬»±°°±®¬«²·¬·»¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬¬¸»¬¿¬»º±®¿ ª¿®·»¬§±º»½±²±³·½¿½¬·ª·¬·»ª·¬¿´¬±¬¸»¸»¿´¬¸ô©»´º¿®»ô¿²¼°®±°»®·¬§±ºÑ®»¹±²½·¬·¦»²ò Ì¸»ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»Î«´»º±®Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´çøÑßÎêêðôÜ·ª··±²ç÷®»¯«·®»½·¬·»¬± »ª¿´«¿¬»¬¸»«°°´§¿²¼¼»³¿²¼±º½±³³»®½·¿´´¿²¼®»´¿¬·ª»¬±½±³³«²·¬§»½±²±³·½ ±¾¶»½¬·ª»òÌ¸»Û«¹»²»Ý±³³»®½·¿´Ô¿²¼Í¬«¼§øÑ½¬±¾»®ïççî÷©¿¿¼±°¬»¼¾§¬¸»Ý·¬§±º Û«¹»²»¿¿®»º·²»³»²¬±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ô¿²¼½±³°´·»©·¬¸¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ç¿²¼ ·¬ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»Î«´»òÌ¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬·³°¿½¬¬¸»«°°´§±º·²¼«¬®·¿´±®½±³³»®½·¿´ ´¿²¼òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´çò Ù±¿´ïðØ±«·²¹ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»º±®¬¸»¸±«·²¹²»»¼±º½·¬·¦»²±º¬¸»¬¿¬»ò Ù±¿´ïð®»¯«·®»¬¸¿¬½±³³«²·¬·»°´¿²º±®¿²¼³¿·²¬¿·²¿²·²ª»²¬±®§±º¾«·´¼¿¾´»®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²¼º±®²»»¼»¼¸±«·²¹«²·¬òÌ¸»®»¯«»¬¬±®»¦±²»¬¸»«¾¶»½¬¿®»¿º®±³Îî¬±ÍÖÉ¼±» ²±¬·³°¿½¬¬¸»«°°´§±®¿ª¿·´¿¾·´·¬§±º®»·¼»²¬·¿´´¿²¼òß¿²·²·¬·¿´³¿¬¬»®ô¬¸»«»¿´´±©»¼ ·²¬¸»Îî¦±²»¿®»¬¸»¿³»¿¬¸»«»¿´´±©»¼·²¬¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»òÚ«®¬¸»®ô¬¸»«¾¶»½¬ °®±°»®¬§·²±¬·²½´«¼»¼·²¬¸»¼±½«³»²¬»¼«°°´§±ºÂkÃ±±±ªÁ¬¸¿¬·¿ª¿·´¿¾´»º±® ®»·¼»²¬·¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿·²ª»²¬±®·»¼·²¬¸»¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ïçççÎ»·¼»²¬·¿´Ô¿²¼Í¬«¼§ò Ì±¬¸»»¨¬»²¬¬¸¿¬¬¸»ïçççÎ»·¼»²¬·¿´Ô¿²¼Í¬«¼§®»´·»¼±²·²º·´´¿²¼®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô «¾¬¿²¬·¿´»ª·¼»²½»·²¬¸»®»½±®¼¼»³±²¬®¿¬»¬¸¿¬¬¸»°®±°±¿´©±«´¼²±¬¾»·²½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸¬¸¿¬Â?kYÅ»¨°»½¬¿¬·±²ò×²¿¼¼·¬·±²ô·¬·®»¿±²¿¾´»¬±¿«³»¬¸¿¬¼»ª»´±°³»²¬©·´´ ±½½«®©·¬¸·²¬¸»°´¿²²»¼³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»º±´´±©·²¹¿¼±°¬·±²±º¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬ô¾¿»¼ ±²¬¸»·²º±®³¿¬·±²±«¬´·²»¼¾»´±©ò Þ¿·½´¿²¼«»¼¿¬¿ Ì¸»®»¿®»¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§èð¿½®»±º®»·¼»²¬·¿´´¿²¼·²¬¸»¿®»¿»²½±³°¿»¼¾§¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ÍÖÉ¦±²»òß´´´±¬¿®»¼»·¹²¿¬»¼Ó»¼·«³Ü»²·¬§Î»·¼»²¬·¿´±²¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¿²¼ ¿°°´·½¿¾´»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¼·¿¹®¿³òÌ©±±º¬¸»´±¬¿®»¦±²»¼ÝïøÒ»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ý±³³»®½·¿´÷¿²¼¬¸»·®¦±²·²¹©·´´²±¬½¸¿²¹»òÌ¸»±¬¸»®´±¬¿®»¦±²»¼Îî¿²¼¿®»°®±°±»¼ ¬±¾»®»¦±²»¼¬±ÍÖÉò ×²º±®³¿¬·±²·²¬¸»®»½±®¼¸±©¬¸»®»·½«®®»²¬´§¿²±ª»®¿´´¼»²·¬§±º¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ïð ¬¸ ¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»·²¬¸»ÍÖÉ¿®»¿øÐ¿«´Ý±²¬»ôÑ½¬±¾»®ïîôîððç÷òÓ±¬±º¬¸» ¿ºº»½¬»¼´±¬½±²¬¿·²¿·²¹´»¼©»´´·²¹å±³»½±²¬¿·²¼«°´»¨»¿²¼¿³¿´´°»®½»²¬¿¹»½±²¬¿·² ³«´¬·º¿³·´§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬òÌ¸»°®±°±»¼ÍÖÉ¬¿²¼¿®¼°®±ª·¼»º±®¿²±ª»®¿´´°±¬»²¬·¿´ ¼»²·¬§±º¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ïë¼©»´´·²¹«²·¬°»®²»¬¿½®»ô¿½½±®¼·²¹¬±¿²¿´§·«¾³·¬¬»¼·²¬± ¬¸ ¬¸»®»½±®¼¾§Ð¿«´Ý±²¬»¿²¼ª»®·º·»¼¾§½·¬§¬¿ººøÑ½¬±¾»®ïîôîððç÷òÌ¸·º·¹«®»·³°´»³»²¬ Findings 9 ¬¸»³»¼·«³¼»²·¬§®»·¼»²¬·¿´°´¿²¼»·¹²¿¬·±²¿¼»½®·¾»¼·²Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²Ð±´·½§ßçø»» º·²¼·²¹¿¾±ª»÷ò Í¬¿ºº°®»°¿®»¼¿¼»²·¬§½±³°¿®·±²³¿°¬±¹®¿°¸·½¿´´§¸±©¬¸»·²½®»¿»·²¼©»´´·²¹¿´´±©»¼ ±²»¿½¸´±¬«²¼»®¬¸»°®±°±»¼¬¿²¼¿®¼òÌ¸·³¿°·´´«¬®¿¬»©¸»®»¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©±«´¼¾»¿´´±©»¼ô¾¿»¼±²´±¬·¦»å¬¸»¬±¬¿´¿´´±©¿¾´»·²½®»¿»·²«²·¬·¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ìðû ±ª»®©¸¿¬»¨·¬¬±¼¿§ò Þ¿»¼±²¬¸»º·²¼·²¹¿¾±ª»ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïðò Ù±¿´ïïÐ«¾´·½Ú¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼Í»®ª·½»ò Ì±°´¿²¿²¼¼»ª»´±°¿¬·³»´§ô±®¼»®´§¿²¼»ºº·½·»²¬ ¿®®¿²¹»³»²¬±º°«¾´·½º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»¬±»®ª»¿¿º®¿³»©±®µº±®«®¾¿²¿²¼®«®¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²±º°«¾´·½º¿½·´·¬·»¿²¼»®ª·½»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïï¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïîÌ®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»¿²¼»²½±«®¿¹»¿¿º»ô½±²ª»²·»²¬¿²¼»½±²±³·½ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²§¬»³ò Ì¸»Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²Ð´¿²²·²¹Î«´»øÑßÎêêððïîððêð÷½±²¬¿·²¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹®»¯«·®»³»²¬æ øï÷ß³»²¼³»²¬¬±º«²½¬·±²¿´°´¿²ô¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼½±³°®»¸»²·ª»°´¿²ô¿²¼´¿²¼«» ®»¹«´¿¬·±²©¸·½¸·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§¸¿´´¿«®»¬¸¿¬¿´´±©»¼ ´¿²¼«»¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»·¼»²¬·º·»¼º«²½¬·±²ô½¿°¿½·¬§ô¿²¼°»®º±®³¿²½»¬¿²¼¿®¼ ø»ò¹ò´»ª»´±º»®ª·½»ôª±´«³»¬±½¿°¿½·¬§®¿¬·±ô»¬½ò÷±º¬¸»º¿½·´·¬§òòòò øî÷ß°´¿²±®´¿²¼«»®»¹«´¿¬·±²¿³»²¼³»²¬·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§·º·¬æ ø¿÷Ý¸¿²¹»¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿²»¨·¬·²¹±®°´¿²²»¼¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§å ø¾÷Ý¸¿²¹»¬¿²¼¿®¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹¿º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²§¬»³å ø½÷ß´´±©¬§°»±®´»ª»´±º´¿²¼«»©¸·½¸©±«´¼®»«´¬·²´»ª»´±º¬®¿ª»´±®¿½½» ©¸·½¸¿®»·²½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»º«²½¬·±²¿´½´¿·º·½¿¬·±²±º¿¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬§å ±® ø¼÷É±«´¼®»¼«½»¬¸»°»®º±®³¿²½»¬¿²¼¿®¼±º¬¸»º¿½·´·¬§¾»´±©¬¸»³·²·³«³ ¿½½»°¬¿¾´»´»ª»´·¼»²¬·º·»¼·²¬¸»ÌÍÐ Ì¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïîòÌ¸»§¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»°®±ª··±²±º ¿º»ô½±²ª»²·»²¬¿²¼»½±²±³·½¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²§¬»³¿²¼¼±²±¬·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§¿ºº»½¬¿²§ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²º¿½·´·¬·»òÌ¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»©·´´¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´·²º·´´·²¿²¿®»¿©»´´ »®ª»¼¾§¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®»ôº¿½·´·¬¿¬·²¹¬¸»Ã?YÅ¹®±©¬¸³¿²¿¹»³»²¬¬®¿¬»¹·» ¬¸¿¬»²½±«®¿¹»©¿´µ¿¾´»ô½±³°¿½¬²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ù±¿´ïíÛ²»®¹§Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²ò Ì±½±²»®ª»»²»®¹§ò Findings 10 Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïí½¿´´º±®´¿²¼«»¬±¾»³¿²¿¹»¼¿²¼½±²¬®±´´»¼Â£¿¬±³¿¨·³·¦» ¬¸»½±²»®ª¿¬·±²±º¿´´º±®³±º»²»®¹§ô¾¿»¼«°±²±«²¼»½±²±³·½??ÃªÃ?±ÈÁÙ±¿´ïí· ¼·®»½¬»¼¿¬¬¸»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º´±½¿´»²»®¹§°±´·½·»¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬·²¹°®±ª··±²¿²¼¼±»²±¬ ¬¿¬»®»¯«·®»³»²¬©·¬¸®»°»½¬¬±±¬¸»®¬§°»±º´¿²¼«»¼»½··±²ò×¬·²±¬½´»¿®¬¸¿¬¬¸» ¹±¿´¸¿¿²§¾»¿®·²¹±²¬¸»°®±°±»¼±®¼·²¿²½»òÌ¸»®»·²±·³°´»³»²¬·²¹®«´»¬¸¿¬½´¿®·º·» ¬¸»®»¯«·®»³»²¬±ºÙ±¿´ïíòÌ±¬¸»»¨¬»²¬¬¸¿¬Ù±¿´ïí½±«´¼¾»¿°°´·»¼¬±¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ½¸¿²¹»ô¬¸»§¿®»½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸Ù±¿´ïí¾»½¿«»·¬·®»¿±²¿¾´»¬±»¨°»½¬¬¸¿¬º«¬«®» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬«²¼»®¬¸»±®¼·²¿²½»©·´´³¿µ»»ºº·½·»²¬«»±º»²»®¹§ò Ù±¿´ïìË®¾¿²·¦¿¬·±²ò Ì±°®±ª·¼»º±®¿²±®¼»®´§¿²¼»ºº·½·»²¬¬®¿²·¬·±²º®±³®«®¿´¬±«®¾¿² ´¿²¼«»ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¼±²±¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»Ã?YÅ°®±ª··±²®»¹¿®¼·²¹¬¸»¬®¿²·¬·±²±º´¿²¼º®±³®«®¿´ ¬±«®¾¿²«»òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïì¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïëÉ·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§òÌ±°®±¬»½¬ô½±²»®ª»ô»²¸¿²½»¿²¼³¿·²¬¿·²¬¸»²¿¬«®¿´ô ½»²·½ô¸·¬±®·½¿´ô¿¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ô»½±²±³·½¿²¼®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´¯«¿´·¬·»±º´¿²¼¿´±²¹¬¸»É·´´¿³»¬¬» Î·ª»®¿¬¸»É·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§ò Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬¬±²±¬½±²¬¿·²¿²§½¸¿²¹»¬¸¿¬¿ºº»½¬¬¸»®»¹«´¿¬·±²±º¿®»¿©·¬¸·²¬¸» É·´´¿³»¬¬»Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§òÌ¸»®»º±®»ôÍ¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïë¼±»²±¬¿°°´§ò Ù±¿´ïê¬¸®±«¹¸ïçÛ¬«¿®·²»Î»±«®½»ôÝ±¿¬¿´Í¸±®»´¿²¼ôÞ»¿½¸»¿²¼Ü«²»ô¿²¼Ñ½»¿² Î»±«®½»ò Ì¸»®»¿®»²±½±¿¬¿´ô±½»¿²ô»¬«¿®·²»ô±®¾»¿½¸¿²¼¼«²»®»±«®½»®»´¿¬»¼¬±¬¸»°®±°»®¬·» ¿ºº»½¬»¼¾§¬¸»»¿³»²¼³»²¬òÌ¸»®»º±®»ô¬¸»»¹±¿´¿®»²±¬®»´»ª¿²¬¿²¼¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·´´²±¬¿ºº»½¬½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸Í¬¿¬»©·¼»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ù±¿´ïê¬¸®±«¹¸ïçò øî÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿°°´·½¿¾´»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¿²¼ ¿°°´·½¿¾´»¿¼±°¬»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ò Í»»¼·½«·±²±ºÓ»¬®±Ð´¿²¿²¼¿°°´·½¿¾´»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ô¿¾±ª»òÍ»»¿´±¼·½«·±²±º °®±°±»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬ô¾»´±©ò øí÷Ì¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸ÛÝçòíðîðÝ®·¬»®·¿º±®Û¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿²ÍÍ°»½·¿´ ß®»¿Æ±²»ô·²¬¸»½¿»±º»¬¿¾´·¸³»²¬±º¿°»½·¿´¿®»¿¦±²»ò Í»»¿¾±ª»º±®¼·½«·±²±º½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸ÛÝçòíðîðò ÛÝçòèìîìÎ»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²ß³»²¼³»²¬ß°°®±ª¿´Ý®·¬»®·¿òÌ¸»°´¿²²·²¹½±³³··±²¸¿´´ »ª¿´«¿¬»°®±°±»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬¾¿»¼±²¬¸»½®·¬»®·¿»¬º±®¬¸¾»´±©ô ¿²¼º±®©¿®¼¿®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²¬±¬¸»½·¬§½±«²½·´òÌ¸»½·¬§½±«²½·´¸¿´´¼»½·¼» ©¸»¬¸»®¬±¿½¬±²¬¸»¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ò×º¬¸»½·¬§½±«²½·´¼»½·¼»¬±¿½¬ô·¬¸¿´´¿°°®±ª»ô ¿°°®±ª»©·¬¸³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²±®¼»²§¿°®±°±»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬ò Findings 11 ß°°®±ª¿´ô±®¿°°®±ª¿´©·¬¸³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²¸¿´´¾»¾¿»¼±²½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹½®·¬»®·¿æ øï÷Ì¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿´´±º¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹æ ø¿÷Í¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ò ø¾÷ß°°´·½¿¾´»°®±ª··±²±º¬¸»Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²ò ø½÷Î»³¿·²·²¹°±®¬·±²±º¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ò Ì¸»¿°°´·½¿¾´»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿®»°®±°±»¼¬±¾»¿³»²¼»¼¬±·²½´«¼»²»©°±´·½·» ®»º»®»²½·²¹¬¸»°®±°±»¼¦±²»¿²¼·¬¿°°´·½¿¬·±²òÌ¸»°®±°±»¼°±´·½§´¿²¹«¿¹»·æ Ö»ºº»®±²Ú¿®É»¬Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²æÔ¿²¼Ë»Ð±´·½·»ôÖ»ºº»®±²ß®»¿ïêòÛ¿¬ Ó»¼·«³Ü»²·¬§Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ß®»¿ Ì¸·¿®»¿¸¿´´¾»®»½±¹²·¦»¼¿¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º±®¿°°´·½¿¬·±²±º¬¸»Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿ Æ±²»Ö»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼»øÍÖÉ÷¿¼»º·²»¼¬¸®±«¹¸¬¸»Ã?YÅ´¿²¼«»½±¼»òÉ·¬¸·² ¬¸»ÍÖÉ¾±«²¼¿®·»»¬¾§¬¸»Ý·¬§Ý±«²½·´ô¬¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»¸¿´´¾»¬¸»±²´§ °»®³··¾´»¦±²»òÌ¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»Ó»¼·«³ Ü»²·¬§Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ó»¬®±úÎ»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²¼»·¹²¿¬·±²©·¬¸·²·¬¾±«²¼¿®·»ò É»¬·¼»Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼Ð´¿²æÔ¿²¼Ë»Û´»³»²¬ôÝ»²¬®¿´Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ß®»¿ Ð±´·½§ëòÌ¸»°±®¬·±²±º¬¸»Ý»²¬®¿´Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ß®»¿¬¸¿¬·»¿¬±ºÐ±´µÍ¬®»»¬ ¸¿´´¾»®»½±¹²·¦»¼¿¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º±®¿°°´·½¿¬·±²±º¬¸»Ö»ºº»®±²É»¬·¼» Í°»½·¿´ß®»¿Æ±²»øÍÖÉ÷¿¼»º·²»¼¬¸®±«¹¸¬¸»Ã?YÅ´¿²¼«»½±¼»òÉ·¬¸·²¬¸»Í ÖÉ¾±«²¼¿®·»»¬¾§¬¸»Ý·¬§Ý±«²½·´ô¬¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»¸¿´´¾»¬¸»±²´§°»®³··¾´» ¦±²»òÌ¸»ÍÖÉ¦±²»·½±²·¬»²¬©·¬¸¿²¼·³°´»³»²¬¬¸»Ó»¼·«³Ü»²·¬§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¿²¼Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²¼»·¹²¿¬·±²ò Í»»¿¾±ª»º±®¼·½«·±²±º¬¸»«ª«ª?Å½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ôÓ»¬®± Ð´¿²°±´·½·»ô¿²¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²°±´·½·»òÓ±¬²±¬¿¾´§ô¬¸»¿³»²¼³»²¬½±³°´§©·¬¸¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´»Ó»¬®±¿²¼Î»º·²»³»²¬Ð´¿²¼»²·¬§®¿²¹»ô·²½±³°´·¿²½»©·¬¸Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²Ð±´·½§ßçò øî÷Ì¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬¿¼¼®»»±²»±®³±®»±º¬¸»º±´´±©·²¹æ ø¿÷ß²»®®±®·²¬¸»°«¾´·½¿¬·±²±º¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²ò ø¾÷Ò»©·²ª»²¬±®§³¿¬»®·¿´©¸·½¸®»´¿¬»¬±¿¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ò ø½÷Ò»©±®¿³»²¼»¼½±³³«²·¬§°±´·½·»ò ø¼÷Ò»©±®¿³»²¼»¼°®±ª··±²·²¿º»¼»®¿´´¿©±®®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô¬¿¬»¬¿¬«¬»ô ¬¿¬»®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô¬¿¬»©·¼»°´¿²²·²¹¹±¿´ô±®¬¿¬»¿¹»²½§´¿²¼«»°´¿²ò ø»÷ß½¸¿²¹»±º½·®½«³¬¿²½»·²¿«¾¬¿²¬·¿´³¿²²»®¬¸¿¬©¿²±¬¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¿¬¬¸»¬·³»¬¸»®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²©¿¿¼±°¬»¼ò Ì¸»°®±°±»¼®»º·²»³»²¬°´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬¿¼¼®»ø»÷¿¾±ª»òÌ¸»½¸¿²¹»·²½·®½«³¬¿²½» ±½½«®®»¼¿¬¸»Ã?YÅ²»©Îî¦±²»ø¿¼±°¬»¼·²îððï÷¾»¹¿²¬±®»«´¬·²·²º·´´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¬¸¿¬ Findings 12 ½¿«»¼·³°¿½¬±²¬¸»»²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼¬¸¿¬©»®»«²¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼¿²¼«²¿½½»°¬¿¾´»¬±³¿²§ ®»·¼»²¬òÌ¸®±«¹¸¬¸»×²º·´´Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§Í¬¿²¼¿®¼°®±½»ô¬¸»»¿®»¿©»®»¼»¬»®³·²»¼¬± ¾»°®·±®·¬·»º±®¼»ª»´±°·²¹¬¿²¼¿®¼¬±¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»°´¿²²»¼¼»²·¬·»·²©¿§¬¸¿¬¿®» ½±³°¿¬·¾´»©·¬¸»¨·¬·²¹²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼½¸¿®¿½¬»®ò Findings 13 Attachment E Car Sharing Code Language Option 9.6410(3)Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. (e)For Multiple-Family Developments in the R-3 and R-4 zones within the boundaries of the City recognized West University Neighbors and South University Neighborhood Association, a parking space reduction is allowed when a car-sharing program is provided, as follows: 1. For developments required to provide a minimum of 15 parking spaces, the minimum number of parking spaces may be reduced by three parking spaces for one on-site space dedicated to a shared car, or for a space dedicated to a shared car within 1/4 mile or 1320 feet of the development site that is bound to the subject site by a car sharing agreement as specified in (2) below. For each additional 15 parking spaces required to be provided, an additional reduction of three parking spaces is allowed for each shared car, not to exceed a total reduction of 9 spaces. 2. The developer must provide to the city an agreement specifying the terms of the car share program. At a minimum, the agreement must establish the location of spaces reserved for parking the shared cars, and include terms that make car-sharing a reasonably affordable and accessible transportation option for residents of the development. The shared cars must be made available to residents of the development, and may be made available to residents outside the development. The program must be run by a professional car sharing organization approved by the city. The agreement must be recorded against the property with the Lane County Recorder’s Office. 3. Spaces reserved for shared car parking must be marked as such with a sign having a minimum area of 1 square foot. 4. If a car-sharing agreement approved under this section ceases to function, as determined by the Planning Director, the development must conform to the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces as per Table 9.6410. This could be accomplished by providing additional on-site parking, by providing evidence of a city approved off-site parking lease agreement per EC 9.6410(1) or by altering the development, such as by reducing bedrooms, in such a way to meet the applicable parking requirements. DRAFT M I N U T E S Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 20, 2009 6 p.m. PRESENT: Phillip Carroll, Chair; Richard Duncan, Randy Hledik, Heidi Bierle, Jeff Mills, members; Planning Division Director Lisa Gardner, Patricia Thomas, Terri Harding, Carolyn Weiss, Eugene Planning Division. ABSENT: John Lawless, commissioner. Mr. Carroll called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order and outlined the order of the agenda and the steps in the public hearing. Commissioners introduced themselves. I. INFILL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS 1. Special Area Zone—Jefferson-Westside (CA 09-03, RA 09-02, Z 09-04) Mr. Carroll called the public hearing to order. He announced the purpose of the hearing, which was to take testimony on code amendments implementing the first phase of the Infill Compatibility Standards Project. Commission deliberations were scheduled for October 26, and the commission’s recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council, which would hold additional hearings. Ms. Harding provided an overview of the proposed special area zone proposal, saying the purpose of the zone was to provide for more compatible infill development by limiting the number of dwellings per lot, lowering allowable building heights, and establishing other requirements while still achieving housing densities within the medium-density range. The commission was also considering amendments to the applicable neighborhood refinement plans to incorporate references to the new zone. The meeting packet included the relevant criteria and testimony received to date. Ms. Harding indicated that 15 additional e- mails in support of the proposal had been received since the packet was printed and would be incorporated into the record. Mr. Carroll indicated he resided in the area of concern and would not participate in discussion or deliberations, although he would continue to chair and might have procedural questions. Sue Prichard , 2671 Emerald Street, co-chair of the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team, thanked the commission for its support and work on task team issues. She hoped the work done to this point set the stage for future phases to go more quickly. She indicated her remarks were applicable to all three hearings. She said the three hearing topics were ripe to move forward given the work spent on them. Considerable factual data was gathered and many opinions solicited. Major compromises had been made to get all sides to this point. Ms. Prichard asked the commission to consider the facts of the proposals, and to put emotion aside to the degree possible to ensure the best decision. She anticipated the result would be a more durable one. th Della Perry Avenue, said she lived in her neighborhood because of its strong sense of , 1150 West 11 community, and characterized her neighborhood as one of Eugene’s many “we care” neighborhoods. She DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 1 suggested that “we care” neighborhoods needed long-range vision and it was important to maintain their character. She said the proposed zone was the thoughtful product of many months of work that would foster the “we care” attitude necessary to maintaining the health and vitality of the urban core. She asked the commission to recommend adoption of the proposed zone to the council. Matt Purvis , 1391 West Broadway, said livability and sustainable cities were built on great neighbor- hoods merged with thriving commercial areas. He said new housing and residents could contribute to the increased vitality of the area, but new housing must be properly sited, well-designed, and available to a broad range of incomes. Mr. Purvis believed that most of the infill done in the last decade was detrimental in that it was poorly designed and poorly sited, with significant negative impacts on nearby residents. It had not produced a large number of additional dwellings or variety. For that reason, the neighborhood supported opportunity siting. Mr. Purvis said that opportunity siting could increase the number of choices for new housing in the neighborhood while ensuring well-planned design and location that enhanced, rather than degraded, the neighborhood. Most of the opportunities were on vacant or under-utilized R-4 and R-3 land not addressed by the new zone. Residents had identified a number of sites where such development could be encouraged. Speaking to the question of whether the new standards would adversely impact the projected capacity for new dwellings with the urban growth boundary, Mr. Purvis referred the commission to a tax lot analysis included in the meeting packet that demonstrated no impact on the current land supply as adopted in 1999 or the inventory in process. That was due to the fact the area was nearly built out and the rate of redevelopment had been historically low. However, the standards still provided for a density increase of at least 40 percent. Phillip Farrington , 1160 Monroe Street, spoke of the elements that contributed to a great neighborhood, including walkable leafy tree-lined streets, a compatible mix of uses, great heritage, and beautiful housing stock. He believed the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood epitomized a great neighborhood. He believed that the neighborhood was at a “tipping point” due to the potential of inappropriate development that could harm the character of the neighborhood. He recommended the commission forward the proposal before it to the City Council. It would not stop development; however, it would ensure that development occurred in a much more thoughtful, appropriate, context-sensitive, manner. James Givens , 1059 Adams Street, noted the work he had done to improve his house and garden. He had raised his son in his house, and it had been a center for his son’s friends due to its proximity to many fine local business establishments, parks, and the fairgrounds. He said the neighborhood worked because of the fine-grained integration of its housing stock, tree canopy, and owner-occupied houses. He knew all his neighbors. When those elements coalesced, neighbors became more committed to their neighborhood and each other. Mr. Givens spoke of recent incompatible development projects and offered an example of a th Avenue that was out-of-scale, had no garden spaces or outdoor rooms, and would project on West 11 inevitably attract only short-term renters with no incentive to invest in the neighborhood. Mr. Givens noted that he currently had neighbors who were renters who had lived in the neighborhood longer than he had because of the quality of housing and low cost. He believed the guidelines in the zone were flexible, sensitive, and conscientious and would inspire and ensure better designed, more compatible infill development. Jan Wulling , 1389 Washington Street, asked the commission to recommend approval of the proposed zone to the council. She had recently bought a house in the neighborhood because of the values mentioned by previous speakers. Ms. Wulling endorsed development with a sense of proportion constructed at densities that resonated with her need for beauty and grace. She felt saddened for the neighbors who, because of undesirable infill, had lost their sunlight or gained undesirable views. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 2 Gretchen Miller , 1036 Adams Street, agreed with the remarks of Mr. Givens. She had witnessed the neighborhood’s ups and downs and had hung in when many others sold out. She thought the neighbor- hood was special and had raised her children there. She said that her children’s friends had been drawn to her house for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Givens. She thought it worth preserving the neighborhood for its character. She did not want a low-density neighborhood; she wanted an active and vibrant neighbor- hood and development that enhanced it. She agreed with others who criticized the infill development that had occurred in the neighborhood, saying some of it was insensitive and built with no awareness of its surroundings. Ms. Miller did not think those developments could be pleasant places to live. She also felt sorry for those who lost their sunshine and views and those things that made the neighborhood a special place to be. She encouraged the commission’s support for the proposed zone. th Garrick Mishaga Avenue, spoke of his own experience living and working in the , 254 West 14 neighborhood and his appreciation of the neighborhood. He liked being able to walk to nearby local businesses and neighborhood amenities and in his walks saw some of the most diverse housing in the community existing side-by-side. He knew most of his neighbors and thought the mix added to his experience in the neighborhood. Mr. Mishaga noted that he had been a member of the ICS Task Team and Multi-Dwelling Committee as a neighborhood representative. He was also a landscape architect and in that role was aware of the importance of maintaining quality neighborhood form and character. Mr. Mishaga described a recent infill development that had displaced an older single-family structure and the fact that the setbacks required by the City created unusable spaces and what space that remained had been paved over. th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, noted the technical work that supported the recommendations before the commission. He believed that the City of Eugene had failed to play by its own rules and created a situation of overarching unfairness to the neighborhood. After decades of stability, the R-2 zone density and building standards were radically changed by the City Council without any meaningful engagement with the affected community. The changes allowed density to exceed the density called for in the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan designation, conflicted with the intent of refinement plans, violated Growth Management Study policies to maintain neighborhood character and livability, and ignored the need for standards to provide predictability. As a result, a neighbor could find themselves in the position of living next to a four-plex rising 30 feet high five feet from their backyard. Mr. Conte said that, unlike the City, the neighbors played by the rules and, after recognizing what the City had done, spent months documenting the neighborhood character and crafting a proposal that allowed a 40 percent increase in density while preventing further neighborhood degradation. He noted the review process the proposal had gone through. There being no more requests to speak, Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing. He called for questions from the commission. Mr. Hledik referred to a letter dated October 12, 2009, from Mr. Conte, which included figures related to current densities and additional dwellings and which mentioned a figure of 14.6 dwellings units per net acre or greater. He asked staff to validate those figures. Ms. Harding indicated that staff concurred with Mr. Conte’s results and indicated they would be included in the draft findings provided to the commission for its deliberations. 2. Building Height (CA 09-06) Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing. Ms. Harding provided background information on the public involvement process that led to the proposal before the commission. The purpose of the proposal was to provide greater infill compatibility in DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 3 neighborhoods west and south of the University of Oregon by lowering building height limits and providing a gradual transition in building height between single family areas and high density zones. She indicated that the commission had three options to consider in regard to the building height proposal, and reviewed the three options. Mark Gillem , 1799 Fairmount Boulevard, endorsed the idea of more careful regulation of building form. The idea of tapering height away from the UO was valid and made sense. He advocated for streets to be mid-block connectors rather than dividers and the mid-block to be used to taper heights down. That would th avoid the problem that existed at 19 Avenue where four- and five-story buildings existed across from one- and two-story buildings. He believed the regulation was too coarse as it applied to the area south of th campus. He believed the proposed mid-block drop to 50 feet north of 19 Avenue and 35 feet south of th 19 Avenue presented a problem. It would still mean that taller buildings could exist across from much shorter buildings. Mr. Gillem said that west of campus the problem was similar in areas such as between Kincaid and Alder streets. He thought the sharp contrast that would be created needed to be avoided. He suggested that the commission reconsider the maximum height and allow even higher buildings imme- diately adjacent to campus between Kincaid and mid-way to Alder. He thought such height would be appropriate in that area, with heights to be 65 to 70 feet on both sides of Alder, and mid-way between Alder and Hilyard the height could be dropped to 35 feet to avoid a severe transition. He thought Option B came closest to the intent of his remarks, but did not quite match. Laura Potter , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, noted her association’s involvement in the proposal development process. She acknowledged that the issue was a hard one for all involved, including the neighbors and development community. She urged the commission to recommend Option B to the council. She said that the option allowed for greater density and more appropriate building sizes. She did not think the City would see 90-foot buildings in many places due to the expense involved, but the association felt the allowance should be in place for higher buildings on campus, which would continue to grow and was surrounded by neighborhoods that would support high densities. She pointed out that the City would need more housing for more students. She believed the option provided protection for both the south and west university neighborhoods by limiting height a great deal. Richard Shugar , 3110 Beech Street, supported Option B, which addressed the concerns residents of R-1 zones had about height while striking a balance between neighborhood compatibility and development potential. He spoke to the credit provided for a sloped roof, and said it would only benefit buildings of 28 feet wide or less. Many multi-family buildings were wider than that, and the incentive for a sloped roof would be lost. He recommended an additional ten feet be allowed to achieve the desired result. Rick McAlexander , 1100 Jacobs Drive, spoke to the topic of building height measurement, saying that he and Mr. Shugar strongly felt measuring the building height to the ridge and allowing a credit for a steeper roof was the least attractive option for measuring building height, and recommended that instead the building be measured to the cornice. He suggested that perhaps the overall height could be reduced to accommodate the roof form as well as residents’ desire to reduce overall building heights. He agreed with Mr. Sugar about Option B. He said that the Building Height Task Team did not have the opportunity to discuss Option C in much detail, and he did not think it should be considered for that reason. Gordon Anslow , 4493 Paddock Drive, recommended that the City use an approach to incentivize sloped roofs of more than 6/12. He was most supportive of Option B because it did not seek to further regulate th Avenue close to downtown. He believed that downtown would be heights in the area north of East 13 most assisted by an increase in the general density of the neighborhoods around it. He endorsed the recommendation for greater heights for larger parcels. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 4 th Lauren Hulse , 1256 East 20 Avenue, provided the commission with a packet outlining her suggestion to achieve greater density in three- and four-story buildings. She advocated for adoption of Option A. She noted her opposition to the greater height allowance for buildings on larger sites. She said it was important to residents to retain the original lot sizes for the character they gave the neighborhood and to prevent developers from assembling enough land to build to 75 feet. That height did not belong in a neighborhood that was predominantly R-1 and was at odds with the ICS Goals Statement, which spoke to neighborhood character and livability. It was not necessary to build to that height to reach the community’s density goals. Al Couper , 2258 Harris Street, emphasized the ICS Task Team’s commitment to make no recommenda- tions not based on facts. For sustainability reasons, the task team also committed to making no recom- mendation that prevented the City from reaching its density targets. He noted the current City planning model, and said the relevant setting for current policies was the 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study. It suggested that if new high-density development built out at 35 dwelling units per net acre, there would be enough high-density land. He referred the commission to a bar chart of density comparisons to illustrate his remarks. The zoning code had two density ranges, one for R-4 of 20 to 112 dwelling units per net acre, and one for R-3 of 20 to 56 dwelling units per acre. He said the R-4 zone in the South University Neighborhood (SUN) was developed at over 50 dwelling units per net acre; that included all single-family units as well. Mr. Couper said that density was being achieved with buildings of no more than four stories; 85 percent were two and three story buildings. Mr. Couper concluded that the City did not needed extremely tall buildings to reach maximum densities. Mr. Couper indicated his support for options A and C but had reservations about the 75 height limit for large lot development in the absence of design standards. Tim Shinabarger , 2338 Agate Street, spoke in support of Option A. He said the ICS Task Team recommendation would not prevent population growth in the high-density areas under discussion. He called the commission’s attention to a document on page 157 of the meeting packet entitled Population Implications for Reduced Building Height in High-Density Residential Zones in support of his remarks. He referred the commission to the chart on page 11 of the meeting packet entitled High Density Residential Development in South Eugene—Population Comparison to illustrate the potential for growth. He suggested that increased density could happen over time and be driven by market forces. th Steve Baker Avenue, supported Option C because it reduced the maximum allowable , 316 East 16 building heights in both the West University and South University neighborhoods. He believed it would th reduce incompatible infill, which he felt was necessary, particularly along the East 12 Avenue corridor. He said the proposed code changes associated with Option C were based on the detailed information collected as part of the ICS process. Mr. Baker indicated he had updated information to provide to Ms. Harding comparing the height of existing buildings and their heights to demonstrate all buildings now in the West University Neighborhood (WUN) comply with the height proposal. He said that buildings of three and four stories were being built at approximately 110 units per acre in three or four stories, and were meeting the maximum density allowed. Examples of which he was aware had open space and more than the required amount of parking. He suggested that the issue was a design issue to some degree. Mr. Baker said that he wanted Option C to be considered because of the historically significant structures along East th 12 Avenue and the Millrace, and he wanted them to be protected from encroaching tall buildings. Bill Aspegren, 1939 Alder Street, compared Eugene’s height standards to those of other Oregon cities. He suggested Eugene was out of sync with other cities in allowing significantly taller buildings than those cities allowed. Taking Eugene and Portland out of the equation, Mr. Aspegren said average maximum building height was less than 50 feet. He said that Eugene was the only city without some form of transition between single-family residential buildings and taller multi-family buildings. Those cities were DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 5 meeting their density goals with buildings half the height being built in Eugene. For that reason, Mr. Aspegren endorsed the remarks of Mr. Couper and Mr. Shinabarger in regard to the City’s ability to realize its density targets with shorter buildings. He endorsed options A and C with the exception of the large lot development exemption. He did not think taller buildings were compatible with single-family residential neighborhoods. He asked the commission to consider how other Oregon cities were meeting density goals with lower building heights. Mike Russo , 1975 Potter Street, favored Option A although he thought Option C would also protect his neighborhood, although he had concerns about allowing buildings taller than that allowed in Option A. Mr. Russo asserted that “developers, architects, and construction job seekers” had stated the minor code amendments provisions had “retarded development and the jobs they would create.” Mr. Russo suggested that was an emotional argument at odds with the facts and shared a chart showing developments for which permit applications were made within a 326 day period to demonstrate that it was more likely that the additional costs created by the amendments in regard to such things as parking caused some marginal projects not to be built. He felt the more likely culprit was the general economic climate. He noted a recent article in The Register-Guard in which developers attributed the development slow-down the credit crunch and a declining demand for housing. Carolyn Jacobs , 2040 Agate Street, supported Option A and Option C in that encompassed Option A. She believed that the reduced height allowance reduced the potential of excess capacity in the neighbor- hood. She said the height of 65 feet was selected because it was above any minimum that would be required to simply meet maximum density; it recognized the need for flexibility expressed by developers. She said the ICS Task Team employed the same approach to its analysis as that used by the Land Use Board of Appeals, which asked if there were buildings meeting maximum density. LUBA had concluded that “The reduced maximum building heights in the R-4 need not preclude achievement of maximum residential development densities in the two university neighborhoods.” The task team asked the same question that LUBA had and produced the same results: the proposal would not preclude the realization of maximum residential development in the neighborhood. The City would not have a conflict with Goal 10 requirements. In addition, the proposed height standards were consistent with the density ranges in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan. Ms. Jacobs did not support the 75 foot limit for parcels larger than 10,000 because she did not think it was the residents’ best interest to incentivize lot assembly to facilitate the construction of taller buildings. She believed that maintaining lot configuration and eliminating massive buildings was at the core of infill compatibility issues in the neighborhood. She said that exceptions to the height standards should not be allowed until the City had design review standards in place. Ms. Jacobs entered the MiCAP LUBA decision into the record. th Deborah Healy Avenue, expressed support for Option C in terms of geography and Option , 360 East 15 A in terms of height. She believed that historic neighborhoods should also be protected. She suggested th that limiting the restrictions to the areas south of 13 Avenue eliminated an area containing some of the most historic homes in Eugene, including some on National Register, from protection. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Potter, Ms. Healy said Ms. Potter referred to building height on the University campus and maintained that the discussion was not about building height on campus. She also did not think the University was contemplating any more tall buildings on campus. Ms. Healy agreed with Mr. Russo about the reason for building slow-downs. She said that the task team’s suggestions met sustainability goals by providing a maximum density. Ms. Healy said that the data demonstrated that maximum density could be achieved with four-story buildings. She suggested the commission consider the issue of sustainability in terms of affordability. She said that new apartments had high price tags; an apartment could cost $48,000 per unit per year and typical students could not afford that price tag. The DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 6 change from single-family houses to high-rise apartments also disadvantaged low-income families. Rents were higher, and the quality of life lower. She urged the commission to move the community away from a monoculture of high rises in livable neighborhoods. Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing and determined commissioners had no questions at this time. 3. Parking Strategies (CA 09-07, RA 09-03) Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing. Ms. Harding provided the staff report. She said the proposal before the commission was a package of strategies recommended by the Parking Strategies Implementation Team and the purpose of the package was to improve the compatibility of new multi-family development by tying parking requirements to the unique needs of certain types of development. She described the impacts of the amendments, saying that they would require more off-street parking for apartments with three or more bedrooms near the University of Oregon; require less parking on a citywide basis for low-income, senior, and disabled housing; would recognize tandem parking as a viable parking form and allow tandem parking to count toward parking minimums in certain areas of the west and south university R-3 and R-4 zones; would clarify the City’s requirements for off-site parking spaces and improve enforcement mechanisms; and would adjust dimensional standards for parking space and revise the WUN refinement plan policy, which currently included a statement about reducing parking on a per unit basis. Ms. Harding identified a discrepancy on page 35 of the packet, saying the table should be corrected to indicate that tandem spaces would not be allowed for studio, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom dwellings. Laura Potter , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, expressed support for the recommended parking requirements as a fair compromise. She strongly supported the allowance of tandem parking and advocated for the inclusion of a car-share program. She believed such a program provided an incentive for long-term solutions to reducing cars on campus. She said that while the association liked the parking requirements, it did not like the provision of bedroom that accompanied it. The association found it restrictive, and asked that the commission move the package forward without provision C related to bedrooms. Mark Gillem , 1799 Fairmount Boulevard, observed that he had no problem recently finding parking in the WUN. He advocated for empirical evidence to identify where a parking problem existed. He maintained that as more buildings were constructed near campus, driving decreased. Less driving meant a decreased need for cars and less demand for parking. Mr. Gillem believed that inappropriate student housing was damaging the South University Neighborhood and to some degree the WUN. He suggested the City was attacking the right problem with the wrong solution. Mr. Gillem recommended a parking requirement be implemented in the WUN that precluded students living in student-oriented housing from having cars. He maintained that the University of California-Berkeley had such a program and residents who applied for parking were denied it because of their residence in a no-parking building. Mr. Gillem further maintained that the Berkeley campus was surrounded by a wide no parking zone that had facilitated the construction of housing next to campus to reduce parking and automobile demand. He advocated for an appropriate balance between parking, buildings, and open space. Rick McAlexander , 1110 Jacobs Drive, generally supported the parking requirements as being carefully crafted and well-thought out. However, he was concerned about the definition of a bedroom (definition part c) as he believed it was far too broad. Any room of 70 square feet with a large window could be defined as a bedroom. He also objected to exempting the potential of tandems for certain one-, and two- bedroom units; if tandem parking was to be counted and it was a viable parking solution, he questioned DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 7 why it should be limited to three-bedroom units. He reminded the commission that the proposal was part of a larger package. Mr. McAlexander anticipated the commission would discuss landscaping and open space requirements and more, and requirements in those areas could combine to reduce overall density. He asked the commission to keep in mind the fact that each time the City increased a requirement, something somewhere else was affected. Al Couper , submitted letters from two UO students stating that their decision to bring a car to campus was not contingent on whether they had a parking space. Sam Debow , 2242 Harris Street, supported the efforts of the South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) to lower maximum building heights and increase parking requirements. Ms. DeBow spoke to the concept that adding more parking spaces in the SUN would cause more students to bring cars. She said that she had a car because she needed one. Ms. DeBow pointed out that students must go to the grocery store for food and because her parents owned the property she lived in, she and her roommate were expected to keep it in good condition, which sometimes required a visit to a distant store. Ms. DeBow also noted that she and her roommates were members of the women’s lacrosse team and must travel to team practice at Papé Field. Since practice sometimes occurred in the rain and after dark, riding her bicycle would be impractical and transit was too infrequent to rely on. She did not use her car to get to school. Ms. DeBow said that she had friends in similar situations; they used their cars to get to work, to shop, and to visit friends and relatives. Ms. DeBow said she had witnessed the problems created by inadequate parking, which included frequent circling of the block for a parking space. Her decision to bring her car to Eugene had nothing to do with the availability of a parking spot. Her car was a necessity, not a luxury. Kaityln Pasko , 2242 Harris Street, said she used her car frequently for normal living. Her friends used their cars for grocery shopping, trips to and from the airport, to reach practice, to reach part-time jobs, and for other errands. She said her friends were in the same position. They were often on a schedule that was not supported by a bicycle or transit and needed a car for convenience and safety. She would not feel safe riding her bicycle to reach practice and the bus took too long and cut into study and class time. She did use her bicycle to get to class. She had familiarity with a situation where parking was inadequate, and one had to waste time looking for parking or park a long way from home. Ms. Pasko said that one car per unit was not sufficient. She suggested that if there were more cars, it was because there were more students. Richard Shugar , 3110 Beech Street, said the ICS Parking Strategies Team tried to work toward consensus about parking requirements because parking was such an issue in these neighborhoods. He did not think that providing a simple increase in parking stalls was the answer. He thought the language in the current proposal was limiting and it would make accommodating extra stalls more challenging and infeasible for some projects. He called for more flexibility to allow designers to accommodate more parking in small infill lots. Mr. Shugar suggested that this was an opportunity for the community to reduce its car dependence and suggested “if you build it, they will come.” Providing increased parking enabled a car- dependent lifestyle. He recommended the commission consider other options, such as a car-share program, to reduce the number of cars and the required parking. He said that while additional parking stalls may improve parking conditions, he found the quantity extreme and thought a more incremental approach was more appropriate. Mr. Shugar recommended a change to the proposed method of determin- ing the number of parking stalls, which was to modify the parking spaces for additional bedrooms beyond bedroom dwellings from .5 to .25. He reviewed a spreadsheet comparing two projects under the ICS proposal and his alternative. th Steven Baker Avenue, supported the recommendations before the commission. He referred , 360 East 15 DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 8 to a chart with information on the increase in bedrooms per unit in the WUN while parking requirements had not changed. He pointed out there were 850 residents in WUN who depend on on-street parking permits, and that parking was the only parking those residents had. Mr. Baker said the data suggested that 82 percent of new multi-family projects would meet the code language recommended, and the projects that complied had a significantly higher density than the projects that did not comply. The projects meeting the parking requirement was even higher in the SUN. th Deborah Healy , 360 East 15 Avenue, shared a chart that showed an increase in bedrooms per parking space in SUN between 1995 and 2009 from 1.5 bedrooms per parking space to 3.5 bedrooms per parking space. The ICS proposal brought that number to about 1.8 bedrooms per parking space. Ms. Healy supported the ICS proposal because it avoided the potential excesses indicated by the chart. It provided ample provision for flexibility for developers as long as they were realistic and reasonable. She said that students did not drive to campus when they lived close by. Students used their cars to drive to work and could not run errands to west Eugene between classes using the bus. Ms. Healy argued for a reasonable approach. She suggested that if the City allowed tandem parking for one-bedroom apartments, it meant that two people who did not live together had to negotiate the movement of their cars. She argued for allowing tandem parking in situations where one was required to have more than one parking space, and that was for three- to four-bedroom units. She thought the same was also applicable to the WUN. Gordon Anslow , 4493 Paddock Drive, noted his own work as a developer on two- and three-bedroom multi-family developments. He said that the market place was responding to some of what was occurring, and the message was that such developments could not get built without parking. He spoke to the subject of tandem spaces, which he had been developing for some time, saying they worked well for students who did not need to use their cars every day. His tandem spaces were for individual units, although he thought they should be allowed anywhere. Mr. Anslow pointed out that generally, more parking on a site resulted in less housing on the site. He asked the commission to consider his submitted suggestions as they related to parking design. He was generally supportive of the ICS Task Team but suggested that a requirement tied to square footage, in the same way as was done in other parts of Eugene, would eliminate controversy related to the use of bedrooms. If the commission choose to retain the definition of bedroom in provision c, he believed that dining rooms and kitchens could be construed as bedrooms, and suggested it be modified to read that bedrooms were rooms defined by walls with interior doors leading into them and do not lead into other rooms other than bathrooms and closets. Bill Aspegren , 1939 Alder Street, submitted into the record an e-mail from Gordon Anslow with data collected and presented to the Parking Implementation Team and a Harris poll regarding how many cars students use. He expressed support for a car-share program but he did not support a reduction in parking requirements if one was in place. Reducing the amount of on-site parking spaces made cruising and illegal parking worse. He said that his research indicated that a large development was needed to support one shared car. Mr. Aspegren said the theory was that the availability of a shared car would incent students to leave their cars at home, but he thought it was almost impossible to measure that and the reduction would be insignificant. He pointed out that reducing parking spaces were forever. He asked how spaces would be added if a shared car contract was terminated. He also pointed out that the City was not equipped to enforce the provision. Mr. Aspegren said that City staff concluded the proposal for a shared car was premature and planned to monitor some existing car share programs near the UO to see if there was a correlation between the number of student-owned cars and share car program. Steve Gab , 1818 Villard Street, perceived two common threads in the testimony provided the commission. One thread was that somebody goofed. As goofs, Mr. Gab cited the “stealth” zoning of the Jefferson- Westside Neighborhood that changed the nature of the R-2 zoning, the imposition of a building height in the SUN that was way out of proportion when compared to any other Oregon community, and parking restrictions that could be manipulated by creative developers. The second common thread was that DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 9 citizens had gotten together to develop solutions for those errors. He thought that the recommendations before the commission fixed the mistakes that had been made. The recommendations represented thousands of hours of work by citizen volunteers, and he suggested the commission would be respecting that work by moving the recommendations on to the City Council. Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing. Mr. Duncan asked staff to create a matrix of building height to allow the commission to better compare the alternatives. He also requested the minutes or notes where the subject of tandem parking was discussed. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding clarified that tandem parking would be an option in the WUN and SUN, either on alleys or in an underground parking garage. Surface tandem parking would not be allowed on a parcel that had only street access. She indicated that the written testimony the commission received addressed an existing tandem parking situation. Mr. Hledik wanted to discuss other possibilities for the use of tandem parking. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Ms. Bierle, moved to close the record for all three hearings. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Carroll adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 10 DRAFT S U M M A R Y M I N U T E S Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue October 26, 2009 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Phillip Carroll, Chair; Heidi Beierle, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, Jeffery Mills, members; Lisa Gardner, Carolyn Weiss, Terri Harding, Alissa Hansen, Rebekah Dolerman, Amanda Nobel, Denny Braud, Kayre Axe, Gabriel Flock, Rene Kane, Planning and Development Department; David Roth, Rob Inerfeld, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney Office; City Councilor George Brown; Paul Conte, Laura Potter, visitors. ABSENT: None. I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 28, 2009 Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the minutes of the September 28, 2009 meeting be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Laura Hammond Ms. Beierle, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the Downtown Revitalization Public Involvement plan as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. IV. INFILL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Terri Harding 682-5635 Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Beierle, moved to recommend forwarding the proposed Special Area Standards for Jefferson Westside to the City Council as presented. The motion passed 5:0:1, with Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik, Lawless and Mills, voting in favor and Commissioner Carroll abstaining. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend adoption of parking ordinance with revised definition of "bedroom" that included privacy and access components instead of the specialty code and floor area provisions and provide Council with: DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 1 1. Additional information regarding offsets between reduction in parking requirements for some types of developments city wide and increase in parking requirements for other types of development in the University area. 2. A response to testimony regarding tandem parking, specifically the 30-foot setback, broadening applicability of tandem parking and figures to clarify tandem parking. 3. Options for reducing parking requirements for the use of shared cars for the University area developments subject to this ordinance's increases . The motion passed 5:1, with Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik, Lawless and Mills, voting in favor and Commissioner Carroll voting in opposition to the motion. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Beierle, moved to recommend to the City Council support for approval of Alternate B for building height limitations in the university area. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 2 M I N U T E S DRAFT Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue October 26, 2009 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Phillip Carroll, Chair; Heidi Beierle, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, Jeffery Mills, members; Lisa Gardner, Carolyn Weiss, Terri Harding, Alissa Hansen, Rebekah Dolerman, Amanda Nobel, Denny Braud, Kayre Axe, Gabriel Flock, Rene Kane, Laura Hammond, Planning and Development Department; David Roth, Rob Inerfeld, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney Office; City Councilor George Brown; Paul Conte, Laura Potter, visitors. ABSENT: None. I. PUBLIC COMMENT Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, thanked Mr. Lawless for his successful efforts on behalf of the Chambers Special Area Zone and his willingness to pioneer a different and effective way for the Planning Commission to engage with stakeholders. The work led to standards for other neighborhoods throughout the City. He thanked Mr. Lawless for his service on the Planning Commission and his work in fighting sprawl and protecting neighborhoods as parts of the same battle and not opposing forces. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 28, 2009 Mr. Lawless offered the following correction: Page 4, paragraph 4, should read: Mr. Lawless asked that the diagram not visually imply there foot was an expanse of 24.8 right-of-way increase along Franklin that was all pedestrian-oriented building frontage development beyond that section. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the minutes of the September 28, 2009 meeting be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Ms. Hammond provided the staff report. She offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled Downtown Public Involvement Plan and distributed a handout containing the PowerPoint slides. She directed commissioners to project’s website, www.vibranteugene.org. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Hammond stated the City Council reviewed the downtown strategies on October 21, 2009 and directed staff to move forward with the project. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 3 Mr. Lawless commented that on broad city issues, he was unsure whether neighborhood associations represented the broad base of the citizens in the neighborhoods, and encouraged other public involvement opportunities be provided. He noted that events often brought out citizens already engaged in community activities while not necessarily the broader community. While he applauded all of the technological wizardry available, he cautioned there were many citizens who did not respond to e-mail surveys. He stated economic vitality and validity was missing in the Downtown Plan policy statement. Mr. Sullivan noted staff was engaging specifically with the Downtown Neighborhood Association out their intense interest in the topic and because they were an obvious stakeholder. He said while many of the strategies captured a segment of the community, a random scientific survey was undertaken to capture a wider spectrum of input. Mr. Duncan asserted the document read much like other programs and plans adopted over the last decade, and asked what was different about this plan. He asked how implementation would occur, noting in the past the work never actually got done. He wanted the plan to identify how it would work this time. He wanted to find out why other plans were not successful and to learn from them. It was important to identify what could be done to help existing downtown businesses to get through the current economic hard times, perhaps in the form of a stimulus package. He hoped as projects moved forward a cost benefit analysis would be done to show what downtown would gain from the projects. Ms. Hammond said the City Council wanted to look at the details of specific projects Mr. Mills asked how the survey results would be used. He expressed concern about where the projects would come from. Ms. Hammond stated the survey helped inform which strategies should be used to achieve desired outcomes. Mr. Sullivan added some project ideas had been vetted through the survey. Ms. Beierle was interested in where public opinion changed when the term “subsidy” was used in the survey, which provided an opportunity to do some education and solicit feedback. She hoped the public involvement plan would include more dialogue rather than collection of information. She asked if there was room for someone in the key audience groups related to transportation. IV. INFILL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Ms. Harding provided the staff report. She said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2009 on the first round of Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS). She distributed the following documents as a follow-up to the public hearing: Memorandum dated October 13, 2009 to Lisa Gardner from Rob Inerfeld, subject—Infill Compatibility Standards Team Parking Strategies. Memorandum—Addendum to Agenda Item Summary, dated October 26, 2009, to the Planning Commission from Terri Harding, subject—Round One Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments. Special Area Zone—Jefferson Westside DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Harding directed commissioners’ attention to several maps posted in the room: West University Neighborhood. South University Neighborhood. S-JW Number of Dwelling Units. Ms. Harding said the testimony received at the public hearing regarding the Special Area Zone for Jefferson Westside had been favorable. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the Special Area Zone for Jefferson Westside to the City Council. Mr. Carroll stated because he was a property owner in the affected area, he would continue to chair the meeting but would refrain from participating in the discussion and voting on the issue. Mr. Lawless thanked everyone for their efforts on this project. He noted the bar had been set high for the outcome and that outcome had been achieved. He was ready to support the proposal as submitted. Mr. Hledik cited the project as an example of neighborhood empowerment and expressed appreciation for the work done by the community. He noted testimony by a local architect asserting he would not be able to build a house he designed that received the Peoples’ Choice award under current code provisions. He asked if the code had been tested for this type of issue. Ms. Harding said some simulations of construction that would be allowed for R-2 zone under the current code had been completed. She noted the code encouraged roof forms consistent with other buildings in the area, and Mr. Bailey’s house would not comply with that requirement. Mr. Hledik said he was in favor of forwarding the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone code language to the City Council. He added that the efforts demonstrated how Growth Management Policy 6 could be implemented to increase density while preserving the character of the neighborhoods. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Beierle, moved to recommend forwarding the proposed Special Area Zone Standards for Jefferson Westside to the City Council as presented. Mr. Duncan stated he supported the motion, noting it had been well vetted by the neighborhood and the City Attorney’s office. The motion passed 5:0:1, with Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik, Lawless and Mills, voting in favor and Commissioner Carroll abstaining. Parking Strategies Ms. Harding offered corrections to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) as originally distributed. She cited changes on pages 63, 58, and 59. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Harding explained the term dwelling unit referred to household unit, and was not restricted to single family, as defined in the code. Ms. Harding stated the public testimony generally supported the proposed language developed by the implementation team. Issues warranting discussion included: Parking increase and associated policy implications. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 5 Tandem parking limitations. Bedroom definition. Car sharing credit. Parking increase and associated policy implications Ms. Harding directed commissioners to the October 13, 2009 letter from Rob Inerfeld. She added staff did not expect an appeal of the solution, noting the Home Builders Association and several members of the development community supported the increase in parking as currently written for the limited geographic area. Mr. Hledik was not ready to buy into the premise that if you “don’t build it they won’t come” based on testimony of university neighbors. There was national evidence presented by the university neighbors and students who testified at the public hearing that the City would be achieving its purpose by increasing density next to the university. The students were walking and biking to and from the University of Oregon (UO). This however, did not negate the issue that they brought cars to their off campus residences. The number of cars was increasing as density increased, and while students were not bringing cars to campus, they were being used for going to work, shopping and other purposes. The cars would come regardless of whether accommodations were provided for them. Testimony indicated that while the UO was exceeding code requirements on the number of spaces it provided there was still an overflow of cars. As suggested by Mark Gillem, this was not a design solution but rather a policy issue. Although Mr. Hledik agreed with Mr. Gillem, Mr. Hledik thought the policy issue was a UO rather than a City policy issue. While the UO had the prerogative to issue an edict limiting the number of cars on campus, the City would be hard pressed to take similar action. Mr. Hledik was also concerned by the state Department of Land Conservation and Development’s (DLCD) reaction to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). He noted the City was reducing the requirements for senior and disabled housing. There had to be recognition that as density increased there would be an increase in automobile use and parking requirements. There was testimony that the number of bedrooms per unit had increased, which was the genesis of the automobile requirement. Mr. Lawless stated the proposal represented a good representation of the balancing that takes place between the needs of the individual citizens and the greater public good. Mr. Duncan had not noted an analysis that senior and disabled housing had excess parking, and through the balancing efforts parking was removed from this segment and dedicated to university area housing. Ms. Harding responded that information had been gathered by committee members and staff through a survey of existing affordable housing developments and their parking demand. Additionally, staff had coordinated directly with affordable housing developers to verify that such a reduction made sense. She noted the decrease was proposed city-wide while the increase was proposed for a limited geographic area. Mr. Duncan was concerned that the commission was being asked to support a finding without sufficient information. He had observed that several local retirement homes had full parking lots. Ms. Harding suggested additional analysis could be conducted. Tandem parking limitations. Mr. Carroll opined while there was testimony in support of the proposal there were still unanswered questions about the tandem policy and related items. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 6 Mr. Lawless generally supported the proposal, but had concerns about cars backing up onto alleys. He offered several suggestions for improving the proposed language. He was concerned that a loophole would be built into the code that would cause the code language to be dysfunctional. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding said several people had raised questions regarding setbacks and screening. She understood Carol Shirmer was trying to raise considerations for multi-family dwellings on small lots. She added the committee developed language restricting tandem parking within 30 feet of a public street because the committee wanted eyes on the street and an area for a building between the public street and the 30 foot setback. Ms. Jerome explained a more specific response to the testimony could be prepared for the City Council presentation. Ms. Harding noted several people testified that tandem parking was a good thing, but there were reservations about the number of limitations attached to those provisions. Information could be developed to more fully explain the proposals to the City Council. Mr. Carroll asked if another mechanism such as building setbacks or parking in relation to public right-of- way lines could be considered to avoid the problem of creating a limited building envelope. Ms. Beierle stated the idea of more flexibility appealed to her, particularly in light of the desire to change the West University Refinement Plan to allow more flexibility around parking. Some of the proposals took flexibility in one place and imposed restriction in other places, which seemed counterproductive. The market and behavior would drive parking. Mr. Carroll noted unity on the proposal as discussed to this point, to move the proposal forward to the City Council with suggestions from the commission regarding tandem parking related issues. Bedroom definition Ms. Harding directed commissioners to page 57 in the AIS and reviewed the proposed code language. She noted that the Enforcement implementation committee recently started its work on violation of occupancy rules, and the mechanisms for enforcement. Mr. Duncan observed the proposal was complicated and referred to the language proposed by Gordon Anslow in his testimony regarding privacy and interior doors. Following discussion by the commission, Mr. Carroll noted consensus to include a privacy component to forward to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Hledik suggested eliminating Eugene Code (EC) 9.0500 (C) and bolstering EC 9.0500 (A) to incorporate privacy issues. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome stated UO dormitory rooms were not regulated as multi-family housing. There was consensus to support Ms. Gardner’s suggestion to strike EC 9.0500 (C) and to expand EC 9.0500 (A) to incorporate privacy issues. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 7 Car sharing Ms. Harding stated car sharing had been discussed extensively by the committee, noting car sharing companies were just getting started in Eugene. The committee thought it was a good idea to support the concept but there were questions about whether it should be addressed in the code at this time. It did not support incorporating language into the code at this time. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding said currently each off-site lease for parking spaces was evaluated individually based on current parking standards and enforcement was complaint based. Mr. Hledik suggested the issue be addressed in an adjustment process as long as there was adequate language in the code to address the issue if car sharing proved to be unprofitable and disappeared. Mr. Lawless concurred there needed to be strong language to address decommissioning parking units if the car sharing was not successful and went away. Ms. Beierle asserted the bedroom count was a disincentive for honesty. The commission should create an alternative solution as an incentive to deal with the bedrooms. Creative ways to address parking should be considered, by providing more options rather than limiting those options. Responding to Mr. Carroll, Ms. Harding said the only community that had been identified as having a code reduction for car sharing was in Vancouver, British Columbia. The program did not have Oregon land use laws, and could grant a lot of latitude in the program enforcement. Mr. Duncan agreed the City should start moving towards the idea as long as there was a mechanism address parking spaces if the program was not successful. Mr. Carroll did not think the Planning Commission had sufficient information to make a recommendation to the City Council at this time. Mr. Hledik was reluctant to push for an adjustment review since there were city wide implications on any proposal the City may adopt. He suggested it should be part of a broader work plan rather than part of the ICS parking proposals. Mr. Duncan thought the financial mechanics were in place around the UO due to the high number of residential units in the area. Mr. Carroll was concerned it had been a vague idea all along and there did not appear to be much impetus to make it more than that. If an environment was not created to test the project, there would be no opportunity to look at the financial mechanisms. He asked that staff make a presentation to the City Council, if it provided only a baby step to study the potential. Mr. Lawless said adjustment review provided a mechanism to address the issue, but it was also an expensive method to do so. He asked why the commission was not willing to take the leap and offer something that provided a reasonable holding place in this evolution of the code to address changing use patterns, parking demand and alternative modes. Mr. Hledik said in order for him to support Mr. Lawless’ suggestion, a proposal would need to be as locked in as the current leasing program that encumbered development. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 8 Mr. Carroll noted consensus agreement for the Planning Commission to provide direction to staff to incorporate information for City Council on how this program might work. ParkingPackage Mr. Hledik stated the parking proposal had support from neighbors and the development community, with consideration of items already addressed by the commission. He was ready to move forward with a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik and was ready to move forward. Mr. Lawless concurred with Mr. Hledik and was ready to move forward. Mr. Mills concurred with Mr. Hledik. He said concerns raised by Mr. Inerfeld, that the goals and policies of the City were not being changed, were valid. This addressed a specially impacted area where policies have had negative impacts which the commission needed to address. Ms. Beierle appreciated the work done but was concerned about flexibility and the general difficulty with raising parking minimums opposed to lowering them. She reluctantly supported the proposal. Mr. Carroll supported some of the strategies presented including car share and tandem parking. He still opposed minimum parking requirements based on the findings. He opined driving was a privilege and there were no standards on whether individuals deserved a parking space. He reviewed concerns related to specific proposed language included in the AIS. He asserted he could not support the minimum parking requirements and would vote against the recommendation. Ms. Jerome suggested language for a commission motion which Mr. Lawless put forth. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend adoption of parking ordinance with revised definition of "bedroom" that included privacy and access components instead of the specialty code and floor area provisions and provide Council with: 1. Additional information regarding offsets between reduction in parking requirements for some types of developments city wide and increase in parking requirements for other types of development in the University area. 2. A response to testimony regarding tandem parking, specifically the 30-foot setback, broadening applicability of tandem parking and figures to clarify tandem parking. 3. Options for reducing parking requirements for the use of shared cars for the University area developments subject to this ordinance's increases . Mr. Duncan had concerns about approving a motion that the commission had not thoroughly read but he trusted that staff accurately reflected the commission’s intent in the proposed language. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 9 Mr. Mills would support the motion. It represented a myriad of compromises and lots of hard work by many people. Ms. Beierle would reluctantly support the motion. The motion passed 5:1, with Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik, Lawless and Mills, voting in favor and Commissioner Carroll voting in opposition to the motion. The commission took a brief break at 1:52 p.m. Building Height Ms. Harding reviewed the proposed language presented in Alternates A and B on pages 51 and 53 of the AIS. She noted staff was most comfortable with Alternate B because it retained the most flexibility while accomplishing a more gradual transition. Staff did not feel there was enough information in the record to support Alternate C partly because the area north of Thirteenth Avenue had a transit oriented development (TOD) overlay. th Ms. Jerome expressed concern that she had not provided input on findings for limiting height north of 13 Avenue. The original proposals in MiCAP did not go into TOD areas. Ms. Harding noted the committee had offered a variety of opinions through testimony, but it did agree that the City should be reducing heights at least in the areas identified in A and B. After that, there was disagreement on the part of committee members on what the values should be. Alternate B was presented as a minority report that staff as well as the development and design representatives on the committee supported. She added that most SUNA representatives preferred not allowing up to 75 feet on a development site of 10,000 square feet or more. Smaller scale development was preferred in SUNA while there was more support for lot consolidation and larger development projects in WUN. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding said a three to five story step up from south to north was preferred by many SUNA neighbors, from Nineteenth north to Eighteenth Avenue. Mr. Lawless was not thrilled with Alternate C, noting the proposal went too far in capturing the northern zone of space and including additional height limitations. He could not support the proposal. Ms. Harding said the committee looked at the WUN because Steve Baker, a WUN resident sat on the committee. He asserted there were historic houses and resources in the area that needed compatible structure height adjacent to them. The issues around the Mill Race were primarily related to site development, open space and the ability to have larger sites. At Mr. Duncan’s request, Ms. Harding directed commissioners to map A or B in the AIS which illustrated where taller buildings could be located. Mr. Carroll agreed Alternate C was problematic, and suggested the focus should be on Alternate A or B. Mr. Lawless stated the commission should be blazing a trail, noting that the pressure of the WUN would not go away and the UO would go no way but up in its demand for housing facilities with an increased student population. He was concerned if a market for higher buildings was not allowed, the City would DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 10 have Russian housing blocks when the area became saturated. He favored allowing some higher buildings to provide variety. He would support Alternate B. Ms. Beierle agreed with Mr. Lawless on the benefits of taller buildings and would like to keep the options open for them. She was concerned that if building heights were limited, pressures would be placed on other neighborhoods thus creating unforeseen transportation issues. Mr. Duncan generally agreed with Mr. Lawless, recognizing that changes in urban form would occur over a very long, extended time, and supported Alternate B. Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Beierle, moved to recommend to the City Council support for approval of Alternative B for building height limitations in the university area. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Mr. Carroll noted the commission had not taken the requested action on this agenda item. Ms. Beierle, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to approve the Downtown Revitalization Public Involvement plan as presented by staff with the addition of suggestions made by the commission. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Gardner said the City Council would take action tonight on Planning Commission appointments as well as other board and commissions. Staff would be in contact with commissioners regarding an upcoming goodbye party for outgoing commissioners. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Hledik offered his thanks to outgoing commissioners Lawless and Carroll. Mr. Lawless said it had been an extreme pleasure to be a member of the Planning Commission. He asserted the people serving as volunteer members of the commission served with open minds and looked at things for the good the City and its citizens, and were deserving of the public’s applause. He was proud to have been a member of the commission. He thanked staff for their professional support of the commission. Mr. Carroll concurred with Mr. Lawless, noting it had been a formative and educational experience for him. It appreciated the opportunity to participate in the process and work with all of the people involved. Mr. Carroll adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 11 November 6, 2009 Mayor Piercy and City Councilors: I have been a member of the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Single-Dwelling, Multi- Dwelling and Parking Implementation teams. In addition I am a resident of South University and have been working with the South University Neighborhood Planning Group (SUNPG) on building height and parking recommendations. Please take my comments into consideration when reviewing the ICS proposals. Building Height Of all the proposals presented the Planning Commission recommended option B, which would th allow 90-foot buildings along the north half block of East 18 Avenue in South University. From a neighborhood perspective this is the absolute worst alternative. The Planning Commission apparently ignored the facts and testimony that made it clear that buildings of 65 feet or less could easily meet density goals and provide developers with significant flexibility. th ICS originally recommended buildings should be no higher than 50 feet in the block between 18 thth and 19. A compromise was reached designating 65 feet for the half block south of 18. The ICS team never recommended 90 feet. The Planning Commission also recommended an exception for lots of 10,000 square feet or more. This was never in the ICS proposal. An exception such as this needs to be accompanied by specific design standards affecting things like lot coverage. These types of design standards do not exist in Eugene code. I ask that the City Council return to the facts and evidence and honor the effort put in by ICS team members and pass code changes that allow a maximum of 65 foot buildings in South and West University. There should be no exceptions for large lots. Parking I fully support the ICS parking proposal presented to the City Council and recommend they pass it without changes. However, do not include the option for shared cars proposed by staff and the Planning Commission. The shared car concept is new and has not been shown to reduce student car ownership. Although car sharing is a worthy idea, it would be premature to reduce parking standards for multi-family dwellings at this time. More study and experience is needed before any car sharing code is adopted. Reducing the number of on-site parking spaces is forever. If a shared car contract lapses, renting additional spaces or reducing the number of bedrooms rented may not be possible or viable. City building code should not be changed for unproven concepts. The city has no way to proactively verify and enforce contractual agreements such as the shared car. Since the city has no way to adequately check and enforce this type of situation, code requiring it will be meaningless. In addition the proposed language is ambiguous and would be unenforceable. The ICS parking proposal already recommends a bare minimum acceptable number of parking spaces needed for a multi-family building. It was not written to accommodate all the tenant’s cars on the development site. On street parking, tenants without cars, and car sharing have already been factored into the proposed numbers. Shared cars are geared to hourly rentals, which works well for running errands such as grocery shopping. Students need cars for many reasons not compatible with a shared car. For example athletic practice, jobs, trips home and weekend events. They may also need it for security when it is not safe to walk or ride a bike at night and public transportation is not available. In my research I found an article discussing the University of South Florida’s car share program. This article can be found at the following website. http://news.collegemedianetwork.com/news/wecar-program-reduces-prices-hopes- for-more-members (I have also attached a copy to this letter) The problems that South Florida are having are similar to what other schools are experiencing. Facts in this article indicate only a very large development could support a single shared car. I don’t believe any of the developments in South University can single-handedly support a shared car. In addition I could find no information to indicate if the availability of a shared car did or did not motivate students to leave their car home. The original ICS proposal did not include reductions for shared cars. The parking implementation team discussed shared cars and recommended nothing be put into the code. Instead staff was asked to monitor the various programs and make recommendations sometime in the future. At this time there are too many unanswered questions about the shared car concept. I ask that the City Council wait until staff can justify this suggestion with hard facts as to the potential benefits and present a realistic method for enforcement before approving any type of shared car code. Sincerely, Bill Aspegren 1939 Alder Street Eugene, Oregon 97405 (541) 242-3828 aspegren@comcast.net This article is from the University of South Florida’s The Oracle and can be found at the http://news.collegemedianetwork.com/news/wecar-program- following website: reduces-prices-hopes-for-more-members WeCar program reduces prices, hopes for more members By Ian Lanphier, CORRESPONDENT Published: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 Updated: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 University officials hope a price reduction will attract more students to the on-campus car-sharing program. Since the launch of the WeCar program in late July, 30 students have registered to use the cars, said Phil Winters, director of the Transportation Management Demand Program at the USF Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR). While that number may seem low to some, Winters said he expected it would take time for the new program to gain attention. The WeCar program, provided by the Enterprise Rent-A-Car company, has four cars available for students to rent — three Toyota Priuses and one Ford Escape. The cars are available anytime to registered members of the WeCar program, Winters said. Members can reserve a rental car by logging onto the program’s Web site and selecting a time slot, he said. Information about how to register is available on the WeCar Web site, carsharing.usf.edu. On Oct. 1, the rate for the Prius models was lowered from $10 per hour to $7.50 per hour, while the Escape rate dropped from $12 per hour to $9 per hour, a savings of 25 percent in both instances, according to the WeCar Web site. The $20 application fee was also waived, which means students are only required to pay the $50 membership fee along with the hourly rental fees to begin using WeCar. The new WeCar prices are cheaper than the Zipcar car-sharing programs at the University of Florida and the University of Miami, Winters said. The rental fees for those programs range from $8 to $9 per hour, depending on the type of car being used. CUTR’s goal is to increase rental usage to cover the program’s expenses of roughly $6,000 per month, Winters said. “We’d ultimately like to get to a ratio of about 40 members per vehicle,” he said. It would be ideal for the program to recover $1,500 per car each month from rental fees to reach the $6,000 mark, which would offset the costs of gas and liability insurance, Winters said. But that hasn’t happened so far, he said, and the difference is being covered by money from $533,000 in research grants that CUTR received from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Florida Department of Transportation. The grants are also used within the WeCar program to fund research on students’ driving habits for a project that is expected to last two years, Winters said. “From our research project point of view, our motivation is that (WeCar) will foster more people using public transportation,” he said. Next semester, WeCar may implement a variable pricing program for a randomly selected portion of its members in which rental rates go up or down based on frequency of usage. Winters said this would be another way to promote the program. The program is also looking into the possibility of replacing one of the Prius models in the spring semester with a “sportier” car to boost student interest and usage, Winters said. “We recognized when we started that we would be making some changes,” he said. So far, Winters said WeCar has been more of a “niche program” for students who either live on or near campus. Commuting students who have cars aren’t as likely to use it, he said. Camille Bailey, a senior majoring in anthropology who lives on campus, said she uses a WeCar rental at least once a week for short trips to get groceries or to go out to eat. Initially, Bailey said she was worried that students who used a rental ahead of her would go over their allotted time, but she said that hasn’t happened. “People turn (cars) in when it’s supposed to be turned in and (the cars) are always there,” she said. “I’ve never had a major problem with it at all.” William Carpenter, a senior majoring in Africana studies who lives in an apartment off campus, said he enjoys the convenience of WeCar. “Everything is covered by the hourly rate, so you don’t have to worry about gas or insurance or anything like that,” he said. Carpenter said he uses a WeCar rental twice or thrice a month, and he plans to use it even if he is able to get his own car because it is an inexpensive way to travel. City Council, Mayor Piercy, My name is Lauren Hulse. I volunteered on the Single Dwelling Committee, a sub-committee of the ICS Task Team and am currently on the Enforcement Implementation Team. I’d like to speak to the ICS Height Proposal for the South and West University neighborhoods. By now, each of you has received a packet of materials containing the data we have collected that presents our case for lowering building heights while 3 and 4-stories. still meeting the city’s density goals. This can be done in buildings of Anything over not 4-stories is “excess” and only serves developers and neighborhoods. I could tell you all the fact-finding we did in support of lower building heights but you’ll see it in your packets. What I would like to do is to remind you of the ICS Goal Statement adopted by the ICS Task Team in February 2008. It states that the primary purpose of the ICS Task Team is to (a) "prevent residential infill that would significantly threaten or diminish the stability, quality, positive character, and livability of a residential neighborhood" and (b) "encourage residential infill that will enhance the stability, quality, positive character, and livability of a residential neighborhood" and (c) "so long as the goal stated in (a) is met, allow for increased density." We, as a neighborhood, overwhelmingly support 35 feet south of 19th Street and 50 feet for the first half thth block north of 19 and then 65 feet for the half block south of 18. Increasing building height beyond 4 and 5-stories would result in irreparable harm to our neighborhood and is NOT necessary to achieve the city's density goals. It’s also important to us to keep our original lot sizes both for the character they add to our neighborhood and also to prevent developers from buying several lots to have enough area to build up to 75 feet or higher. not That height does belong in any neighborhood that is predominately R1 such as South University. That height does not meet the ICS Goal statement that says to “Encourage residential infill that will enhance the stability, quality, positive character, and livability of a residential neighborhood” and most importantly, it is NOT necessary to build at that height to reach the city’s density goals. It will have the opposite effect of threatening or diminishing what we love about our neighborhood. The ICS Task Team recommended to the Planning Commission a similar transitioning of heights but th . In a compromise with the development community, allowed for only 50 feet along the south edge of 18 we have advocated for 65 feet. It is also time for the city to develop good design standards to go hand-in- hand with allowing greater building heights. Of the three alternatives presented to the Planning least favored by the neighborhoods Commission, they recommended the alternative and most favored by developers. I am also strongly against allowing a reduction of 3 parking spaces for use of a ‘shared car’ for buildings required to have a minimum of 15 parking spaces. Neighborhoods would once again have to ensure that a shared car is available and in good working order year-to-year. The city simply does not have the resources for enforcing its many agreements made with property management and developers. It is still too new of a “concept” for developers to get a reduction in parking spaces. Let’s see how it works after 3 years and then come back to the idea of reducing parking requirements. Thank you. From:Paul Bodin To:HARDING Terri L; In Support of Proposed Infill Standards, S-JW Zone Subject: Monday, November 02, 2009 4:34:13 PM Date: To: Mayor Kitty Piercy and Members of the City Council I urge you to approve the proposed S-JW special area zone. Our family lives in the Jefferson Westside area, across the street from Monroe Park at the corner of Adams and Broadway. We have raised our family at this location since 1990 and have seen the area go through dramatic changes over time. Several years ago, a property across the street from us was sold to a new owner, who built a fourplex of apartments that have access through the rear alley to Adams Street. This building is grossly out of character in both size and architectural design to the homes surrounding it in our neighborhood. Within one year, a young family chose to move out of their home along Adams Street because the views from the upstairs windows in this new fourplex had direct lines of sight into their yard and interior rooms. In addition, the rear garage for this building extends almost directly to the alley border. Our family moved downtown in 1990 to support the idea of urban living, including a choice to bicycle and walk whenever possible to markets and public services. We also support the city's commitment to reasonable urban density to counter sprawl and unnecessary boundary growth. However we also believe that neighborhoods in the downtown core need to have standards that support a sense of shared aesthetics, that encourage pride by renters and owners in maintaining their property, and respect the need for privacy and access. Please approve the proposed S-JW zone to protect our area from the kind of infill described above, and that threaten the health and durability of our neighborhood. We need a positive direction set by the council in the form of responsible infill standards that encourage density and developmen, and that also maintain the longevity of thriving neighborhoods like ours. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely yours, Paul Bodin 911 W. Broadway Eugene, OR 97402 From:Kris Ward To:HARDING Terri L; Please approve proposed S-JW zone Subject: Friday, November 06, 2009 5:29:55 AM Date: Ü»¿® Ó¿§±® ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´±®ô Ð´»¿» ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ÍóÖÉ °»½·¿´ ¿®»¿ ¦±²»ò Ì¸»» ½¸¿²¹» ½±«´¼ ·³°®±ª» ¬¸» ½±«®» ±º ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» º«¬«®» º±® ±«® ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò É» ¿®» ·² ±«® ³·¼óëð ¿°°®±¿½¸·²¹ ®»¬·®»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ ´·µ» ¬± ¬¿§ ·² ±«® ¸±«» º±® ¬¸» ´±²¹ ¬»®³ò Î»½»²¬ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¾»¸·²¼ ±«® ¸±«» ¸¿ ·³°¿½¬»¼ ¬¸» ¯«¿´·¬§ ±º ±«® ´·ª» ¸»®» ¿²¼ ©» ¸±°» ·³·´¿® ·²óº·´´·²¹ ·² ¬¸» º«¬«®» ©·´´ ²±¬ ¼± ¬¸¿¬ ¬± ±¬¸»®ò Ì¸» ²»© ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ©¿ °´¿½»¼ ¶«¬ ë º»»¬ º®±³ ±«® °®±°»®¬§ ´·²» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ´±±³ ±ª»® ±«® ¾¿½µ§¿®¼ô ®»¼«½·²¹ ±«® °®·ª¿½§ò É¸»² ¬¸» ²»© ¸±«» ©»²¬ ·² ¾»¸·²¼ «ô ©» »®·±«´§ ½±²·¼»®»¼ »´´·²¹ ±«® ¸±«» ¿²¼ ³±ª·²¹ ±³»©¸»®» »´»ò É» ´·µ» ¬¸» °®±¨·³·¬§ ¬± ¼±©²¬±©² ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ú¿·®¹®±«²¼ô ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¬¸» ¾«²¹¿´±© ¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®» ± °®»ª¿´»²¬ ·² ¬¸· °¿®¬ ±º Û«¹»²»ò É» ¾»´·»ª» ¬¸»» °®±°±»¼ ½¸¿²¹» ¬± ¬¸» Ý±¼» ©·´´ »²¸¿²½» ¬¸» ½¸¿®¿½¬»® ±º ¬¸· ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ©¸·´» ¿¬ ¬¸» ¿³» ¬·³» ®»³¿·² ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¼»·®»¼ ·²½®»¿»¼ ¼»²·¬§ ±º ¸±«·²¹ò Ì¸» Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ß±½·¿¬·±² ¸¿ ©±®µ»¼ ¸¿®¼ ¬± ®»º·²» ¬¸»» °®±°±¿´ ¿²¼ ¿ §±« µ²±©ô ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ·¬ «²¿²·³±«´§ ®»½»²¬´§ò É» ½±³³»²¼ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í¬¿ºº º±® ¬¸»·® ¼·´·¹»²¬ ©±®µ ·² ¬¸· °®±°±¿´ò É» ®»¯«»¬ ¬¸¿¬ §±« ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸»» ½¸¿²¹» º±® ±«® ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Í·²½»®»´§ô Õ®· ¿²¼ Ö±¸² É¿®¼ ïïíì Ó±²®±» Í¬®»»¬ From:Kirsten To:HARDING Terri L; Please approve proposed S-JW zone Subject: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:30:33 PM Date: ïïóðîóîððç Ü»¿® Ó¿§±® ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´±®ô Ð´»¿» ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ÍóÖÉ °»½·¿´ ¿®»¿ ¦±²»ò × ³±ª»¼ ¬± Û«¹»²» ©·¬¸ ³§ °¿®¬²»® ·² ´¿¬» îððêò É» ®»²¬»¼ º±® ¿ º»© ³±²¬¸ô ©¸·´» ¼»½·¼·²¹ ·² ©¸·½¸ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¬± °«®½¸¿» ¿ ¸±³»ò ×¬ ¼·¼ ²±¬ ¬¿µ» ´±²¹ ¬± ´»¿®² ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» ©¿ ²± ¯«»¬·±² ó ©» ¾±¬¸ ©¿²¬»¼ ¬± ´·ª» ·² Ö»ºº»®±² É»¬·¼»ò É» ¸¿ª» ²±© »²¶±§»¼ ´·ª·²¹ ·² ¬¸· ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ º±® î ïñî §»¿® ¿²¼ ¸¿ª» ²±¬ ±²½» ®»¹®»¬¬»¼ ¬¸» ¼»½··±²ò É» ¸¿ª» ½¸±»² ¬¸· ¿®»¿ ¾»½¿«» ±º ¬¸» ¬§´» ±º ¸±³»ô ¬¸» ¬®»»ó´·²»¼ ¬®»»¬ô ¬¸» °®±¨·³·¬§ ¬± ¿³»²·¬·» «½¸ ¿ ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬´§ ±©²»¼ ¹®±½»®·»ô °¿®µ ¿²¼ ®»¬¿«®¿²¬ò É» ¿®» ©·¬¸·² ©¿´µ·²¹ ¼·¬¿²½» ±º ¼±©²¬±©² ± ©» ½¿² »¿·´§ »²¶±§ ¬¸» ´·¾®¿®§ô ¿®¬ ¹¿´´»®·»ô ¾¿²µ ú ½®»¼·¬ «²·±²ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¾« ¬¿¬·±²ò × ½¿² »¿·´§ ²¿ª·¹¿¬» ¿²§ ®±«¬» ±² ³§ ¾·½§½´»ò É» ½¿² ·¬ ±² ±«® º®±²¬ °±®½¸ ¿²¼ ¬¿´µ ¬± ±«® ²»·¹¸¾±® ¿ ¬¸»§ ©¿´µ ¬¸»·® ¼±¹ ±® ©¸·´» ¬¸»§ ¿®» ¹¿®¼»²·²¹ ±® ´·¬»² ¬± ¬¸»³ ³¿µ» ³«·½ò É» ½¿² ¿´± º·²¼ ·¬ »¿·´§ ¬± ¬¸» ¬®¿·² ¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ë²·ª»®·¬§ ±º Ñ®»¹±²ò É» ½±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» ³±®» ¹®¿¬»º«´ ¬± ¸¿ª» º±«²¼ ¿ °´¿½» ©¸»®» ±«® ²»·¹¸¾±® ©¿¬½¸ ±«¬ º±® »¿½¸ ±¬¸»® ¿²¼ ¿®» ¿©¿®» ±º ©¸¿¬ ¹±» ±² ¿®±«²¼ ¬¸»³ò É» ¸¿ª» ¸¿®»¼ ¹¿®¼»² °®±¼«½»ô º´±©»® º®±³ ¬¸» §¿®¼ô °·½µ»¼ «° »¿½¸ ±¬¸»®ù ²»©°¿°»® ú ³¿·´ ©¸»² ±«¬ ±º ¬±©²ô ®¿µ»¼ »¿½¸ ±¬¸»®ù ¿«¬«³² ´»¿ª»ô ¸¿®»¼ ¬±±´ô ¸±±»¼ ¿©¿§ ª¿²¼¿´ ¬¿¹¹·²¹ ±«® °®±°»®¬§ô ¬¿§»¼ ¿®±«²¼ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ©·¬²» ¬»¬·³±²§ º±® ¿«¬± ¿½½·¼»²¬ô ¿²¼ ³±®»ò Ó§ ¾·¹¹»¬ ¸±°» · ¬¸¿¬ ±«® ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ®»³¿·² ©¸¿¬ ·¬ · ¬±¼¿§ò É» ¿°°®»½·¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ ±«® ¾¿½µ º»²½» · ¸¿®»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿² ¿°¿®¬³»²¬ ½±³°´»¨ ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ±«® ¬¸» ¿´´»§ ±² ¬¸» ·¼» ±º ±«® ¸±³» · «»¼ ¾§ º±´µ ©¸±» º®±²¬ ¼±±® · ±² ¬¸» ¿´´»§ò É» ¸±°»ô ¸±©»ª»®ô ¬¸¿¬ ·º ¿°¿®¬³»²¬ ¿®» ¾«·´¬ô ¬¸»§ ½±²¬·²«» ¬± ¸¿ª» °´»²¬§ ±º ¿½½» ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» ¿¼¶±·²·²¹ °®±°»®¬·» ¿²¼ ¸¿ª» ¬®»»¬ ¿½½»ò É» ¸±°» ¬¸¿¬ ©¸»² ±´¼»® ¸±³» ¿®» °«®½¸¿»¼ ¬¸»§ ¿®» »·¬¸»® ®»²±ª¿¬»¼ ±® ®»ó¾«·´¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿³» ¯«¿´·¬§ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¿ ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ò É» ¸±°» ¬¸¿¬ ¿´´ ®»·¼»²¬ ¿®» ¿¾´» ¬± »²¶±§ ¿ §¿®¼ ±® ¹¿®¼»²ô ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ©» ¼±²ù¬ ¸¿ª» ¬± º·¹¸¬ º±® °¿®µ·²¹ °¿½»ò É» ¸±°» ¬¸¿¬ ¬®»» ¿®» ²±¬ ¿½®·º·½»¼ º±® ½±²½®»¬» ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿®» ²±¬ ¾«·´¬ ± ¬¿´´ ¬¸¿¬ ©» ´±» ·¹¸¬ ±º ¬¸» «² ¿²¼ µ§ò É» ¸±°» ¬¸¿¬ º±´µ ½±²¬·²«» ¬± ©¿²¬ ¬± ³±ª» ¬± ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ó ¿²¼ ¾«·²»» ½±²¬·²«» ¬± »³»®¹» ú ¹®±© ó º±® ¬¸» ¿³» ®»¿±² ©» ¼·¼ô ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ²±²» ±º ±«® ²»·¹¸¾±® ©¿²¬ ¬± ´»¿ª» ¾»½¿«» ¬¸» ²¿¬«®» ±º ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ½±²¬·²«» ¬± ½¸¿²¹»ò Ð´»¿» ¸»´° « °®±¬»½¬ ±«® ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¿²¼ »¬ ½±³°¿¬·¾´» ·²º·´´ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ò Ì¸¿²µ §±« º±® ¿´´ §±«® ¸¿®¼ ©±®µ ¿²¼ ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸· ³¿¬¬»®ò Í·²½»®»´§ô Õ·®¬»² Ùò Õ»´± ïïíè Ö»ºº»®±² Í¬ò November 6, 2009 Mayor Piercy and City Councilors Re: Building Height Public Hearing (November 9. 2009) As Mayor and City Councilors you have before you the first land use code standards resulting from two years of study and deliberation by the ICS project. The intention of this enormous amount of work was to meet the goal of: “preventing residential infill that would significantly threaten or diminish the stability, quality, positive character, livability or natural resources of residential neighborhoods...” To this end the Multi Dwelling committee developed building height standards for the R3 andR4 areas in the South University and West University neighborhoods. Given that this very small, limited section of Eugene is a very desirable and appropriate place for students to live the standards produced by ICS were carefully designed to permit properties in these areas to be built to maximum density allowed by zone criteria, and yet, be as minimal as necessary to meet the permitted densities so as to limit the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The standards which were determined to successfully balance these two conflicting goals are as follows: th 35' height limit for buildings in the R3 and R4 areas south of 19 Ave th 50' height limit for buildings in the R4 zone for ½ block on the north side of 19 Ave th 65' height limit for buildings in the R4 zone ½ block south of 18 Ave and to the west of the University Extensive data is available to you (please see packets provided to you by ICS members and neighborhood residents) which clearly proves that these height standards are not only adequate but more than enough to offer flexibility to any developer looking to build to maximum density. The argument in support of these standards is strengthened all the more by the fact that the data leads to the same conclusion noted by LUBA (see MiCAP appeal). That is, limiting building height in the manner listed above does not in any way preclude achieving maximum density. On the other hand, it should be noted that there is not data whatsoever to support the necessity of heights greater than 65'. Until such time as design standards are mandated by City Council and incorporated into the code there should be no exceptions made for any buildings taller than 65'. One last thought... As we all consider the details of the ICS proposals, it is worrisome to note that no bold one has raised the bigger question. What if the ICS standards aren't enough? What if maximum density is too much? What if the South University neighborhood can't survive the impact of maximum density? What if this vibrant close in neighborhood which has for so long been able to offer residents one of the best options in the City for a “sustainable” lifestyle is swept away in the absence of real planning and a commitment to a livable city? Carolyn Jacobs ICS and Multi Dwelling Committee member Height Implementation Team member Vice Chairperson SUNA From:Steven Baker To:HARDING Terri L; Deborah Healey; cc: Subject:Parking Testimony submitted by Steven Baker Date:Friday, November 06, 2009 4:58:05 PM Bedrooms in WUN by unit type-v3.jpg Attachments: ICS WUN Multifamily Parking-2009-07-12.doc ICS SUNA Multifamily Parking-2009-07-25.doc Bedrooms in West University by Unit Type-grey.doc Multi-Dwelling_Parking_Proposals-2009-04-06.doc ICS_Parking_Testimony-2009-11-06.doc Terri, I am attaching Parking attachments and testimony submitted for the City Council packet for the hearing on November 16. The illegal parking examples are in a separate mailing. Thanks, -Steve December 6, 2009 Eugene City Councilors and Mayor City of Eugene RE: ICS Parking Recommendations Dear City Councilors: I am testifying in support of adopting the ICS Parking in the University Area proposed code changes. I am strongly in favor of the proposed code changes since they help to protect areas in WUN and SUNA from incompatible infill. The proposed changes allow for modest increases in off-street parking for apartments with larger number of bedrooms. But they also provide other efficient methods, such as tandem parking, for multifamily developments to provide off-street parking. These proposed changes are based on facts, not on fiction or hearsay. First, I would encourage you to consider the proposed land use code amendments on building heights and building height transitions in the context of the citizen-driven process that developed these specific changes. The Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team process included input from dozens of neighborhood residents, builders, architects, and other citizens over an 18- month period. The proposed code amendments on building heights received broad public support during the entire ICS process. This support included a unanimous recommendation by the ICS Task Team to adopt these amendments. These proposed code changes were based on detailed information collected as part of the ICS process. This includes information on of-street parking, number of bedrooms, density, and other characteristics of recent multifamily developments in West University Neighborhood (WUN) and South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA). The most noticeable change is that the number of bedrooms per apartment in recent multifamily development has changed dramatically starting in 2004. Previously, most apartments were constructed with 1, or 2 bedrooms, with occasional 3 or 4 bedroom apartments. Now the norm has become 3-5 bedrooms per apartment. I am attaching tables of multifamily developments in WUN and SUNA compared with the changes proposed parking changes. It should be noted that over 80% of the recent multifamily units constructed in WUN would comply with the proposed code amendments. The density of the multifamily projects that complied with the parking proposals was also significantly higher (55 units/acre) than those projects that didn't comply (46 units/acre). Similarly, 91% of the multifamily units constructed in SUNA would also comply with the proposed code amendments. The difference in density in SUNA between the projects that comply (72 units/acre) and the project that would not currently qualify (48 units/acre) is even more dramatic. Furthermore, this data shows examples of multifamily projects in the R-3 and R-4 zones in WUN and SUNA that meet the maximum allowed density of 56 and 112 units/net acre with projects while providing parking in excess of the proposed code changes. These changes are designed to reduce negative impacts of infill on our neighborhoods. In particular, two issues stand out: 1.Residents with purchased RPP permits and visitors wasting fuel driving around hunting for parking spaces. Written testimony by Steven Baker on proposed ICS Parking amendments (November 6, 2009) Page 1 2.Rampant illegal parking obstructing alleys, in front yards, and even between the sidewalk and the street on the planting strip. Many parts of WUN and SUNA fall under the Residential Parking Program (RPP). There are currently about 840 RPP permits purchased annually by WUN and SUNA residents in the A, B, and C zones near the University for on-street parking. These residents depend on these on-street parking spaces since many older buildings were divided and added to as multifamily developments in the past without providing parking. In addition, up to 55 commuter permits are sold each month to employees of businesses that allow parking in Zone C. Many residents in these RPP zones generally walk, bicycle, and take the bus to the university, work, and shopping. But a large number of residents also have a car for other travel trips where public transit is not available and walking or riding a bike is impractical. For example, there is still no bus service to the airport. Attached please find the tables of data collected as part of this process. 1.Bedrooms in West University Neighborhood (WUN) Multifamily Projects by Unit Type (for printing on color printers) 2.Bedrooms in West University Neighborhood (WUN) Multifamily Projects by Unit Type (gray for printing on black an white printers) 3.West University Neighborhood (WUN) Multifamily Projects compared with ICS Multifamily Parking Proposal (July 12, 2009) 4.South University Neighborhood (SUNA) Multifamily Projects compared with ICS Multifamily Parking Proposal (July 24, 2009) 5.Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations approved by the ICS Task Team 6.Five examples of common illegal parking in WUN Respectfully submitted, Steven Baker West University Neighbors Board Member 360 East 15th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 msbaker@cs.uoregon.edu Written testimony by Steven Baker on proposed ICS Parking amendments (November 6, 2009) Page 2 Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations To the ICS Task Team April 6, 2009 Summary This is a report of the work of the Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee (“Multi-D” Committee) of the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team on parking issues and a proposed set of recommendations for changes. Recommendations for proposed code changes that impact multi-dwelling infill. Off-street Parking Requirements in R-3 and R-4 Zones The requirements for off-street parking for multiple family developments in the R-3 and R-4 zones in the WUN and SUNA should be increased for units with 3 or more bedrooms. Off-street Parking Criteria in R-3 and R-4 Zones The requirements for leased parking should specify that current parking requirements must be met by both parties. Leased parking spaces should have permanent signs to allow for enforcement . Tandem parking (counted as two spaces) directly off an alley or underground in WUN and SUNA should be allowed to meet the minimum off-street parking requirements for each dwelling unit with 3 or more bedrooms. The minimum depth of a tandem parking space at 90 degrees off an alley should be 33 feet. The minimum depth of a single parking space at 90 degrees off on an alley should be 18 feet. The minimum depth for diagonal parking and diagonal tandem parking should be also specified. Tandem parking can be used directly off an alley or as underground parking. When used directly off an alley, tandem parking must be located a minimum of 30 feet from the right- of-way of a public street. Note that these two proposed code changes are interrelated. The Off-street Parking Requirements recommendations are focused on resolving negative impacts of multifamily projects in WUN and SUNA with inadequate off-street parking for the number of bedrooms (student renters). The Off- street Parking Criteria recommendations are focused on providing tools to multifamily developers for providing more off-street parking. Leased off-street parking is affected by both sets of recommendations. Recommendations on Proposed Code Changes The following section provides specific recommendations to the ICS Task Team for proposed code changes to consider for forwarding to the Planning Commission. These proposed code changes have been approved by the Multi-D committee and await action by the ICS Task Team #1: Off-street Parking Requirements in R-3 and R-4 Zones Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 1 Description of the Problem The Multi-D committee recognized that the lack of sufficient on-site parking for new multifamily development is a serious negative impact of infill. The high demand for parking in the areas surrounding the University of Oregon (R-3 and R-4 multifamily zones) is making it more difficult for residents living in these areas to find parking. To address a similar problem in the 1980s, the City of Eugene established a parking program that designates special zones and permits for residential and commuter parking. Residents living in these areas are eligible to purchase a Residential Parking Program (RPP) permit for on-street parking. Some new multifamily housing developments in zones near the University of Oregon are being built with three to six bedrooms per dwelling unit to minimize the off-street parking requirements, among other reasons. These developments are significantly worsening conditions that the RPP zones and permit programs were designed to mitigate. This is resulting in residents being forced to drive around wasting fuel to look for a parking space even when they have a legal RPP zone permit. In addition, there is an increase in illegal parking on alleys, in the planting strip (right-of-way) between the street and the sidewalk, and in the front setback between the street and the building. Illegal parking on alleys creates a serious safety hazard. In the event of a fire or other problem, these illegally parked cars block access by fire and emergency vehicles. Background Information and Current Code Requirements on Off-Street Parking The Residential Parking Program (RPP) was established in the 1980s to deal with a shortage of on-street parking in areas adjacent to the University of Oregon. Many of these areas were previously occupied by single-family housing. Over time, large houses were divided into multiple apartments, additional apartments were added to existing buildings, and new apartments replaced some older housing. The amount of off-street parking in these areas provided by remodels, additions, and new developments tended to be inadequate for the number of residents with cars and trucks. As a result, many residents of the area depended on on-street parking. Before RPP in the 1980s, it was common for residents of these areas, particularly west of campus in the West University neighborhood, to spend 15-20 minutes driving around searching (hunting) for on-street parking. The situation was extremely detrimental for a number of reasons. These areas are heavily used by bicyclists and pedestrians heading to and from the University and Sacred Heart Medical Center - University District. Streets clogged with cars and drivers hunting for spaces and the resulting congestion created many unsafe and dangerous conditions for the bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vehicles. Several major designated bike routes pass through the WUN that are heavily used. These practices were also very energy wasteful, since gasoline was being consumed and wasted searching to find an on-street parking space. Residents responded to the parking shortage by parking illegally on alleys, in other people's driveways, and in front yards. The Residential Parking Program and RPP zones were created as a way for the City of Eugene to manage the parking issue in these areas and reduce congestion, improve safety, and reduce energy waste. Several RPP zones were established by the City of Eugene Parking Program. On- street parking in RPP zones was limited to 2-hour parking for non-residents. Qualified residents Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 2 could purchase an annual RPP parking permit for their RPP zone that allowed them to park on- street beyond the posted time limits. To qualify for a permit, a resident has to bring a current driver's license, car registration, and proof of residency in the RPP zone to purchase the annual permit. The initial RPP zones were designated in areas adjacent to the University. Over the years, new RPP zones have been added in other areas of Eugene. There are currently about 840 RPP permits issued annually to residents in the A, B, and C zones near the University for on-street parking. In addition, up to 55 commuter permits are sold each month to employees of businesses that allow parking in Zone C. Many residents in these RPP zones generally walk, bicycle, and take the bus to the university, work, and shopping. But a large number of residents also have a car for other travel trips where public transit is not available and walking or riding a bike is impractical. For example, there is still no bus service to the airport. The current requirements for off-street parking in Table 9.6410 for multiple family (3 or more dwellings per lot) require a minimum of 1 parking space per dwelling unit. In addition, section 9.6410 (3) specifies that a parking reduction of up to 25 percent is allowed as a right of development in all residential zones. The same situation that existed in the 1980s before the RPP was instituted is fast approaching. The high demand for parking in the areas surrounding the University of Oregon (R-3 and R-4 multifamily zones) is making it more difficult for residents living in these areas to find parking. Some new multifamily housing developments and infill projects near the University of Oregon are being built with three to six bedrooms per dwelling unit to minimize the off-street parking requirements specified in Table 9.6410. These developments are significantly worsening conditions that the RPP zones and permit programs were designed to mitigate. A recent Harris poll found that 72% of college students nationally have cars that they use while at school (). This has been our http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=801 observation in RPP Zones near the University of Oregon. In the 1980s, many students and residents had pickup trucks. Nowadays, many students and residents have SUVs. At times, residents are forced to drive around wasting fuel to look for a parking space even when they have a legal RPP zone permit. Note that a resident driving around 15 minutes hunting for a parking space is the energy equivalent of moving a chunk of the WUN population out to the edge of the city. Creating a built environment that requires hunting for parking spaces is completely unsustainable. A few inconsiderate developments with inadequate on-site parking can create a serious negative impact on all neighborhood residents. This is a situation where one bad apple can ruin the entire barrel. Expected Outcomes of Changes to Off-Street Parking Requirements The goal of the changes is to prevent new multiple family developments with inadequate off- street parking in RPP zones from eliminating the intent and benefits of the RPP zones. This will also help to reduce safety issues on designated bike paths on streets passing through these areas caused by traffic and congestion. A primary impact would be to reduce the wasteful energy use Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 3 caused by residents searching for parking. A change is only proposed for developments in R-3 and R-4 zones in WUN and SUNA when large numbers of bedrooms are provided per unit. The proposed change applies to and targets a very small land area in the city of Eugene that is experiencing these real problems. The changes proposed do not affect the densities that can be achieved. Attached is a table (Attachment #1) that includes most of the recent multifamily infill projects proposed or completed in the West University neighborhood. Note that 82% of recent multifamily projects in WUN would comply with the proposed code changes to provide adequate off-street parking. Also note that the average density of the projects that provide adequate off-street parking was significantly greater (55 units/per acre) than the average density of projects that provided inadequate off-street parking (38 units/acre). Please note that providing adequate off-street parking in WUN does not impact the housing densities that are possible. The two WUN multifamily projects with the highest density of over 110 units/acre in an R-4 zone provide off- street parking in excess of (18 to 43% over) what the proposed code changes would require. The proposed code change levels the playing field so all developers in R-3 and R-4 zones in WUN and SUNA play by the same rules. The developers that provide adequate off-street parking are not disadvantaged economically as they are now. Buildings have a long life. The negative impacts created by problem developments now will persist for many years and inflict a toll on WUN and SUNA for years to come. An unfortunate side effect of this problem is that residents and visitors in RPP zones now often spend considerable time hunting for parking space. This is a huge waste of energy resources and counteracts any savings that result from residents walking or biking to the UO and work. Proposed Code Changes for Off-Street Parking Requirements The Multi-D Committee recommends the following code changes for off-street parking requirements for multiple family developments shown below in italics. The specific code changes are shown below in italics. Add the following definitions to EC Section 9.0500 Definitions as follows: Dwelling Unit. A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation. Sleeping Room. Any room designed, built, or intended to be used as a bedroom as well as any other room used for sleeping purposes. Every room used for sleeping purposes shall be a: (a) habitable room as defined by the current Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) or Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC); (b) shall not be a kitchen; (c) shall have natural light, ventilation, and windows or other means for escape purposes as required by OSSC or OSRC; and Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 4 (d) Shall comply with the following minimum requirements for floor area: (1) Shall have a minimum area of at least 70 square feet of floor area. No portion of a room measuring less than 5 feet from the finished floor to the finished ceiling shall be included in any computation of the room’s minimum area. At least 50% of the room's minimum area must measure 7 feet from the finished floor to finished ceiling. Add a new section called Calculations (modeled after City of Portland code) Section 9.0600 Calculations Bedroom Count. Method for calculating the bedroom count in a dwelling unit The bedroom count is the greater of the following two numbers: A. The total number of sleeping rooms that meet either of the following conditions: 1. Identified as a bedroom on any plan submitted to the City 2. Containing one or more beds, including furniture designed to be converted to a bed, including sofa beds, murphy beds, and trundle beds. B. The number of bedrooms stated in any building plan, advertisement, rental or sales contract, marketing material, loan application, or any other written document in which the owner, or an authorized agent of the owner, makes a representation regarding the number of bedrooms available in the dwelling unit. The requirements for the location of off-street parking shall be changed as follows: 9.6410Motor Vehicle Parking Standards. (1) Location of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. Required off-street parking shall be on the development site or within 1/4 mile or 1320 feet of the development site that the parking is required to serve. (a)All required parking shall be under the same ownership as the development site served, except through a city approved agreement that binds the parking area to the development site. (b) A city approved agreement for parking when a multifamily development provides parking to another multifamily development shall require that both developments meet the current minimum requirements for off-street parking. Each parking space provided through a city approved agreement shall have a permanent sign that indicates the name or address of the multifamily development for which the parking is provided. The minimum sign surface area for each sign shall be 1 square feet. (c) Parking areas may be located in required setbacks only as permitted in EC 9.6745Setbacks - Intrusions Permitted. The requirements for off-street parking in Table 9.6410 for multiple family (3 or more dwellings per lot) in the R-3 and R-4 zones in the West University Neighborhood and South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) be changed as follows: Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 5 UsesMinimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Residential Dwelling Multiple family developments in the R-3 and 1 space for a studio or a unit with a bedroom R-4 zones within the boundaries of the City count of 1 recognized West University Neighbors and 1 space for a unit with a bedroom count of 2 South University Neighborhood Associations 1.5 spaces for a unit with a bedroom count of 3** 2 spaces for a unit with a bedrooom count of 4* * .5 spaces required for each additional bedroom count beyond a bedroom count of 4 ** Fractions of .50 or more for the total minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for a multiple family development are rounded up to the next whole number Multiple family - all other areas 1 per dwelling Note that this proposed code change is similar to, but less stringent than the MiCAP amendment #7 that was approved by the City Council as Ordinance # 20418. Note that a reduction of 25% is automatically provided as a right of development (EC 9.6430) to the minimum off-street parking requirements specified in Table 9.6401. So the actual number of parking spaces that would be required with this code change would be as follows: 2 bedrooms or less - 0.75 parking spaces 3 bedrooms - 1.125 parking spaces 4 bedrooms - 1.5 parking spaces 5 bedrooms - 1.875 parking spaces 6 bedrooms - 2.25 parking spaces #2: Off-street Parking Criteria in R-3 and R-4 Zones Description of the Problem The Multi-D committee recognized that the lack of sufficient on-site parking for new multifamily development was a serious negative impact of infill. The high demand for parking in the areas surrounding the University of Oregon (R-3 and R-4 multifamily zones) is making it more difficult for residents living in these areas to find parking. Multifamily developments in these areas often provide off-street parking for their projects directly off of an alley. Methods that would allow developers to better provide off-street parking on alleys that does not result in blocking alleyways should be encouraged. Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 6 Tandem parking is where two motor vehicles park nose-to-end in tandem. The first motor vehicle does not have independent access, and the second motor vehicle must move to provide access to the first motor vehicle. Currently, EC 9.6410 on Motor Vehicle Parking Standards does not recognize tandem parking. The appropriate use of tandem parking directly off alleys could be used to more efficiently provide a minimum number of required off-street parking spaces. For a unit with three or more bedrooms, the tenants sharing the dwelling unit can make arrangements to move vehicles when necessary. So a tandem parking space should only be allowed to meet the minimum off-street parking requirements for each unit with 3 or more bedrooms. The depth of a tandem parking space should be such that a compact and a regular vehicle can park in the space without having to protrude into the alley. Tandem parking should be restricted so that it does not impose on the street face and frontage of a parcel, placing more parking on the street. The goal is that building (eyes to the street) not parking be located at the ground floor on the street frontage. So tandem parking should not be allowed a minimum distance from the public street right-of- way. An additional problem with off-street parking occurs on alleys of 15 feet width or less Off-street parking perpendicular (90 degrees) and directly off the alley can result in vehicles protruding into the alley. As infill increases, adjacent alleys become more heavily used by pedestrians, bicyclists, residents for access, and service vehicles. It is also important that alleys are clear for fire and other emergency vehicles for safety. An alley width of 20 feet is normally considered the turn out space required for backing out of a parking space. With an alley of 14' feet in width, this can be a problem if there is a fence, building, or alley parking located across the alley from the alley parking. If the equivalent of a 3-foot backout space was required for alley parking, this would help resolve this issue. Many multifamily developments already provide an equivalent backout space for alley parking. Off-street parking can also be leased from nearby multifamily or commercial developments that have excess parking. However, clear and objective criteria for code compliance of leased parking is not fully specified in the current code. There is also an inability to enforce any leased parking agreements, since the leased parking spaces are not currented marked or signed. Background Information and Current Code on Off-Street Parking Criteria Tandem parking off an alley is not currently recognized as a method to meet the minimum off- street parking requirements for multifamily development. Some recent developments have provided tandem parking, but the Eugene land use code does not recognize these as parking spaces when calculating off-street parking provided. In the past, Eugene code administration used to require a backup or backout space buffer when off-street parking is provided directly off an alley. This no longer is the case. The code requirements in EC 9.6410 on Motor Vehicle Parking Standards do not specify any special criteria for off-street parking directly off an alley. Expected Outcomes of Changes to Off-Street Parking Criteria Multifamily developments will be better able to provide adequate off-street parking directly off of alleys in R-3 and R-4 zones. The changes proposed do not affect the densities that can be achieved. The off-street parking provided on alleys will not result in vehicles protruding into the Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 7 alley and creating problems. In addition, these changes will help developers accommodate the increased parking recommended in #1 above. Proposed Code Changes for Off-Street Parking Criteria The Multi-D Committee recommends that the following code changes for off-street parking criteria. The requirements for leased parking in EC 9.6410 Motor Vehicle Parking Standards should be changed as follows: When a multifamily project leases parking to another multifamily project, both projects must meet the current parking standards in place when the city approved agreement is signed. Leased parking spaces must have permanent signs The requirements for off-street parking in Table 9.6410 Required Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking for multiple family (3 or more dwellings per lot) in the R-3 and R-4 zones in the West University Neighborhood and South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) should be changed as follows: One tandem parking space may be counted as 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit with 3 or more bedrooms. The minimum depth of a tandem parking space should be defined to be 33 feet. Tandem parking when not underground can only be used directly off an alley and must be located a minimum of 30 feet from the right-of-way of a public street. The dimensions for off-street parking in Table 9.6420(1) Motor Vehicle Parking for compact spaces should be changed with a note as follows: The minimum depth of all parking spaces directly off and 90 degrees to an alley in multifamily development shall be 18 feet if the right-of-way width of the alley is 14 feet or less. The minimum depth of parking spaces directly off an alley at other angles should also be increased correspondingly. The specific code changes are listed below in italics. Add a definition for a Tandem Parking Space to EC Section 9.0500 Definitions as follows: Tandem Parking Space. A permanently maintained space with proper access for two nose-to-end in tandem The motor vehicles parked as indicated in this land use code. first motor vehicle does not have independent access, and the second motor vehicle must move to provide access to the first motor vehicle. The requirements for the location of off-street parking shall be changed as follows: 9.6410Motor Vehicle Parking Standards. (1) Location of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. Required off-street Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 8 parking shall be on the development site or within 1/4 mile or 1320 feet of the development site that the parking is required to serve. (a) All required parking shall be under the same ownership as the development site served, except through a city approved agreement that binds the parking area to the development site. (b) A city approved agreement for parking when a multifamily development provides parking to another multifamily development that both developments must meet the current minimum requirements for off-street parking. Each parking space provided through a city approved agreement must have a permanent sign that indicates the name or address of the multifamily development for which the parking is provided. The minimum sign surface area for each sign shall be 1 square feet. (c) Parking areas may be located in required setbacks only as permitted in EC 9.6745Setbacks - Intrusions Permitted. Tandem parking spaces that are not underground must be located (d) directly off an alley and must be located a minimum of 30 feet from the right-of-way of a public street . Underground tandem parking spaces may be located in the interior of a lot. The requirements for off-street parking in Table 9.6410 for multiple family (3 or more dwellings per lot) in the R-3 and R-4 zones in the West University Neighborhood and South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) be changed as follows: UsesMinimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Residential Dwelling Multiple family developments in the R-3 and One tandem parking space shall be counted R-4 zones within the boundaries of the City as two spaces for each dwelling unit with a recognized West University Neighbors and bedroom count of 3 or more. South University Neighborhood Associations Multiple family - all other areas 1 per dwelling The 9.6420 Parking Area Standards shall be changed as follows: 9.6420Parking Area Standards. (1) Dimensions and Striping. All parking spaces shall be striped or marked in a manner consistent with Table 9.6420(1) Motor Vehicle Parking Dimensions. All tandem parking spaces shall be striped and marked in a manner consistent with Table 9.6420(2) Motor Vehicle Parking Dimensions for Tandem Parking. Table 9.6420(1) Motor Vehicle Parking Dimensions (Dimensions in Feet) Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 9 MinimumStallMinimum Clear Parking Angle in MinimumMinimum Clear AisleDistanceBay DegreesStall WidthStall Depth Widthat BaysideWidth 8.07.512.015.0 19.5 Parallel 8.08.012.022.0 20.0 8.0*1412.015.0 26.0 8.016.012.016.0 28.0 8.516.412.017.0 28.4 30 degrees 9.016.812.018.0 28.8 9.517.312.019.0 29.3 10.0 17.712.020.0 29.7 8.0*16.012.010.6 28.0 8.018.414.011.3 32.4 8.518.713.512.0 32.2 45 degrees 9.019.113.012.7 32.1 9.519.413.013.4 32.4 10.0 19.813.014.1 32.8 8.0*16.715.08.631.7 8.019.719.09.2 38.7 8.520.018.59.8 38.5 60 degrees 9.020.318.010.4 38.3 9.520.518.011.0 38.5 10.0 20.818.011.5 38.8 8.0*15.022.037.0 8.0 8.018.025.08.0 43.0 8.518.025.08.5 43.0 90 degrees 9.018.024.09.0 42.0 9.518.024.09.5 42.0 10.0 18.024.010.0 42.0 Shaded figures are the minimum dimensions for compact parking spaces. Any minimum parking dimensions, such as stall width, may be exceeded. All spaces shall be clearly marked as compact parking spaces if any of the parking dimensions are less than that shown in the unshaded area. If the right-of-way width of the alley is 14 feet or less, *the minimum stall depth of compact parking spaces directly off an alley in multifamily developments shall be increased to the minimum stall depth required for a non-compact space with a minimum stall width of 8 feet. Add the following table: Table 9.6420(2) Motor Vehicle Parking Dimensions for Tandem Parking (Dimensions in Feet) Minimum Stall Parking Angle in Minimum Minimum Clear AisleDistance DegreesStall WidthStall Depth Widthat Bayside 8.030.812.015.0 8.032.012.016.0 30 degrees 8.532.812.017.0 9.033.612.018.0 Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 10 9.534.612.019.0 10.0 35.412.020.0 8.035.112.010.6 8.036.814.011.3 8.537.413.512.0 45 degrees 9.038.213.012.7 9.538.813.013.4 10.0 39.613.014.1 8.037.015.08.6 8.039.419.09.2 8.540.018.59.8 60 degrees 9.040.618.010.4 9.541.018.011.0 10.0 41.618.011.5 8.033.022.08.0 8.036.025.08.0 8.536.025.08.5 90 degrees 9.036.024.09.0 9.536.024.09.5 10.0 36.024.010.0 Shaded figures are the minimum dimensions for compact parking spaces. Any minimum parking dimensions, such as stall width, may be exceeded. All spaces shall be clearly marked as compact parking spaces if any of the parking dimensions are less than that shown in the unshaded area. Multi-Dwelling Infill Committee Parking Recommendations - April 6, 2009 Page 11