HomeMy WebLinkAbout011325 email - Fwd_ ))) Port Ludlow logging dispute settled _ Port Townsend LeaderALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
To everyone on the board (Heidi, Greg and Heather),
Thank you for your time this morning, though it was brief (since we were not on the agenda).
Here is some background on the Port Ludlow Timber Agreeement and what is at stake.
For those unfamiliar with this agreement between the county and the Port Ludlow Authority (PLA),
this article in the PT Leader from December of 2016 summarizes things nicely.
https://www.ptleader.com/stories/port-ludlow-logging-dispute-settled,16636 <https://www.ptleader.com/stories/port-ludlow-logging-dispute-settled,16636>
Focusing on just the main points (then and now):
<https://www.ptleader.com/uploads/original/20181128-073723-eca6e465ec8fdb476227f7159bb66922.jpg>
Landowner Port Ludlow Associates logged within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, including this section of open space reserve about 50 feet from a residential neighborhood. Jefferson
County stopped the logging operations in April 2015. A negotiated settlement process followed, which culminated Dec. 19, 2016. In a press release PLA stated: "PLA conceded in the settlement
agreement that the organization will end commercial forestry in the Master Planned Resort Community (MPR) of Port Ludlow in exchange for rights to cut trees for land development and
property management purposes." Leader 2015 file photo by Patrick J. Sullivan
EIGHT YEARS AGO, QUOTING THE ARTICLE
Jefferson County and Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) have signed a settlement agreement that the county said protects “open space reserve” land and details protocols for timber harvesting
on other property within the master planned resort (MPR).
County commissioners unanimously approved the settlement Monday, Dec. 19.
Diana Smeland, PLA’s president, also signed the agreement, thus ending a year-and-a-half conflict between the county and the developer over timber harvesting done by PLA in 2015 that
at the time, the county said was illegal and that PLA said it had a right to do.
In exchange for the agreement, in addition to the two parties not suing each other, the county withdrew its May 7, 2015 letter in which former county Department of Community Development
Director Carl Smith told PLA to stop timber harvesting because it was “in violation of the county code.” Smith also had told PLA to make amends to South Bay residents and those living
near the Oak Bay timber harvest.
There are no monetary fines outlined in the settlement agreement.
“The County acknowledges that it is unaware of any evidence that PLA acted in bad faith, unethically, or unreasonably in connection with the Timber Harvests; the County recognizes that
PLA was open and transparent in its actions; and the County acknowledges that PLA believed its actions were consistent with the Development Agreement, MPR code, and other applicable
laws, orders, ordinances and regulations,” the settlement reads.
Randy Verrue, PLA owner, had said in public in September that he believed PLA did not do anything wrong.
“It is great to see that the County has recognized that PLA did nothing wrong in our prior tree-cutting activities and is withdrawing their letter of May 7,” Verrue wrote in an email
comment to The Leader. “While we have no plans to continue our tree-cutting activities in the open space areas, the agreement spells out the procedures that we must follow if we plan
on tree-cutting activities in the future,” he said.
“The permits that we secured from DNR requires us to mitigate the sites that were logged which we have completed or will complete in the future,” Verrue wrote.
In a press release issued Dec. 19, PLA stated: “PLA conceded in the settlement agreement that the organization will end commercial forestry in the Master Planned Resort Community (MPR)
of Port Ludlow in exchange for rights to cut trees for land development and property management purposes.” PLA urged people to read the settlement and contact the county commissioners
with questions.
… [County Commissioner David Sullivan] also noted that the development agreement between PLA as part of the master planned resort and Jefferson County ends in eight years. That MPR agreement
was the first of its kind in Washington state.
Once that development agreement ends, Sullivan said, “It will mean [the development agreement is] no longer in place, so all of Port Ludlow will be governed under the [county] unified
development code like everybody else,” Sullivan said.
The property owners and respective homeowner associations within Port Ludlow would need to decide what to do when that agreement ends, the commissioner noted.
“I could see them making agreements built on this settlement agreement,” Sullivan said of the homeowners’ associations. “I think this clarifies the basic assumptions” about timber harvesting,
but there are still other issues to iron out.
… Dave McDearmid of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission, which represents property owners in the North Bay area, presented a statement Dec. 19 at the county commission meeting after the
board came out of executive session on the issue, and before the board voted on the agreement.
McDearmid, Bill Dean of the Port Ludlow Village Council and Dave Jurca of the South Bay Community Association had been assigned by their respective associations to bird-dog the controversy
and communicate with PLA about how the community felt about the timber harvesting.
… They also acknowledge that the agreement does address “the overarching concern that there be appropriate restrictions on future timber harvesting within the MPR.”
GOING FORWARD, WHERE ARE WE NOW?
So here we are eight years later and no plans have been laid for “appropriate restrictions on future timber harvesting within the MPR.”
What happens if the agreement lapses and, in future, PLA wants to log?
The MPR is still the MPR and could be interpreted either way again, either allowing PLA to log as they did in 2015 (see the photo from the Leader) or considering it illegal, as the county
did at that time.
PLA says they have no immediate plans to log, but because they still feel they have that legal right (and felt exonerated by the agreement), that is not all that reassuring.
The Port Ludlow MPR still says “The MPR-OSR zone preserves in perpetuity and enhances the natural amenities around Ludlow Bay, the Twin Islands and other natural areas within the MPR.
Uses within the open space reserve shall be low impact and serve to promote or enhance the aesthetic qualities of the Master Planned Resort. No residential or commercial development
shall be permitted in the MPR-OSR zone. [Ord. 8-99 § 3.701]”
But would the county step in to disallow the kind of clear cutting they practiced in 2015 (see the photo again)? Or, with different people in charge, would they either agree with the
PLA or simply refuse to act at all?
Renewing the Timber Agreement is on the table (PLA will renew the Timber Agreement if the Development Agreement—with a minor amendment—is part of the package). But now the county is
reluctant. Perhaps renewing the Development Agreement (specific to PL) is an expense they no longer want to bear.
All of which leaves Port Ludlow residents feeling vulnerable. The words of the MPR suggest no clear cutting to me, especially when preservation and sustainable forestry are both lower
impact options, but who is listening to me, or to any of us?
Certainly people here must have felt much the same way the first time too, till their protests against the actual logging gained traction.
Perhaps it all should have just gone to court then.
Justice is expensive (a renewal of the agreement costs least something, and a lawsuit, if the agreement lapses and things go wrong, costs potentially much more), but injustice (ignoring
the situation) can be very expensive too.
And can set an unwelcome precedent.
All the best,
Gary Daugherty
Sent from my iPhone
绺큇ໟ�श袬汭釣큌⸘塖軤ᥒ戓퐮㏚揈醓咊풨驏�貳谐ꎹ貣涣粷ꠎ导緸�䕟ꧽ絧姶컞⣦⒝栢ᷰ朘ഽ婭ᢽ퉹�鱼検울䩉ꬭ琫ﱫ瞴玷鿁븽綵榪曀쁠蘐壹ꏜࢮ㋨䳼嫻딒떚駗ὖᔑꤨ崹饟ퟴ췏흨ὂ庇礟䍼ﲮ핡퇵ඩ洴柶掅�ᤣ㊎胄❹ῌ赞列贐鍪黑柞厛᩸ḹ舚⊇瞯☩媛쭞ṋףּ�ﳙ큉쳥ᵳᬲﮖ珩넬픦駲劈逷쁳縤댕䏇嫚餯䟁찮⤨≢ᮯ鵽竵Ꝼῃ쎳囼쒃�ꁍ흪屙汁壱戙뭢皗⺐蛓ꜫ┙䨚䯴꽇מּ윣ꯠ
뻆ᤓ单骽꿩즯뫨ꀟ㩾⻔࠾⍼龿ﻆ굶濢击钻ಁ嬞∙躳挴⒟刨倆妐䉗⦄瓓뷦뷷蚏돌項≢ꗥ땉錄듷靷㳴뱃糔浉쿢괚ﶂ⮒랦驙槌∛ἶ⤫ă꽛ꜘ验硘梫瓻럳ᗹ⨩唔쵉䫅桉뒹侭鿁纈딳뺽곰硒살㙦ꓺ孓䦅ῂ䀪㰛扴䜎讀ペ撌⟕畮鏎ক藗硎�鬌ﳓ漯娻쿝ꝅ㺄퐯淡㙢譛ꔳ楚Ꝅ㖃ኜ䐳�⥒尾쨂휺蒹䦕풤⾹깻ὧԷ毯鱑뒱汕㓂䇥镇쩉ꇪ镓팹�宔䶺嘝骰꽶磢嶴윾빔꿔槦枯䢗ↅ鞵需饦跤ፃ瀎볆ᗰ⧥꿆趮暩鰸᨞礸Ꝕ쫉
ዔ䦕ⷝ퍒㒕㚺䧾羜㺊茗幌�鏰폪삭撼ꁹ㝘骨脤⨁ਇ踱✀鲎縔㺯ⵚ镶꺯ꏇན౧歆轊躱鏰㊷婻둚滻麻ꊏ幷ཻ麌㾑궩蓤婚㏅ツ쫐耦룊Ů㈬獰骑쓮껊簖僳ꖔ䯗߾拇誡妝ꚇ溨ྣ⣩义꿍礫좣冼씟믄婽ᯊ�ᕥ瞜�胭脺첍ߪ쥃癗犪柳䙾⪸﹕ᰍꌴﰗ⛩ﮓ땖ዽ錾淸粩醾浫툭㻑描쿻�㐃ڨ鳎ᄡᄀퟠὦ輙ன찷闗�杲粘Ⱦ嶤⩌魫歗혴돷ᩝ穻碐잿㚾덟㥼홖狋嫑䤛�撔�昸浼⟈턼혻ᢣ諓体坮ﵴ걎躮ⱗ疫⬗笾�铗
羜�㺮砹섓◾豗嗼業ᶯ뒰頓탾ﻥ姌�ɺ㥁⿵䥕龫ḣ씞灣엒닻媻雬閯�潺�㶣ᵴ퍖凧饰셗ࠇᄄ컁屇他岤摹㺵ꢵ麵꧟磎욷蝺➆䢷䜧넹Ꮇ룉Ď鐅踁�쯕⓹᰽弖뱂ㅒﺕ㋗ÿ哒觸�汵㰮믻講顫⚷Ⴃ䦆㲢䈰䦹欇რ㥫㑦뒜鞊걍陽镝냡滲䖵㐸쫯ꛥ㮚ㅊ箟㟴⽾髪菟㋼ÿ簐ట俚뮓淅䐴⪁흉쭯겝േ햍ꆤ鿬䞵骸鍳鴓묉孙㞝侳㝭喷控쉫ሿ궵养㘚悡ᓉ붰韌䒱ꉍ燆㚶⭷릉嗈ᡗ釤由뜫瓤饦ᜮ不桕徔┯㏟띖둻뛯庆쎫糲필
㖼쀽侓薱䠶㲨璵朙鳟ᱣ踁䩏髗鮂㧶䵞뙒⸎澄븞纟㳃㏍퇆䭣㓱Ჾ랶䮸抉鶶臭纑ꒀ剮攘耘쥳⪮檔魇⁔巷ﯾỺ密ퟁ篃熓뱒핬璣꿬痕Ṛ쌋ᕚ鯎䧢ᷴ䱟叕奡擄矶噾탒鿈渼哝뻦ᥧ뵊쬈妕븷㖺ﻓ靖鮜贙㪣꼲ꦇ漙䙩毻퉤婝�딇粸ⶽ즵ᦵ氫燉ꨫ⊉蜜嵥컘�筲퇗橡ᇂ鱒�졯곹ꫥ͛䘘묒勷繯떚旟ꦡ媨柼꿔풺㵴䤷ㆸ려ꐠꏤ吹썲沨휁얓婩ꪴ煓㮅茣謏狉꣐⓪쨥髼婉�橫ͼ䓢풳儼㵧ಞ䔲岨꒝邥笀ㆮ壭咺⒫龦툲廾휜㤍݇
쉙甏Ӊ꺟ﺎ䶬輮ᣡ渭ﯴ漳�ᕏ䙈䧵ℜ錩꧊㌿焂讕⦅㑆ꑾ쥐诧障眢鎜�瑟斥幽ꀣ蔧ᬵ뒹搹⼱볚柆睻褛�㛪惧㏎꧇毵葖ꏛ굖鶼例ÿ쯔烱떇근獙�姉즮泙蘧痬띭㕺顰䠄ኩ妶ꗌꭃ唯㰇껵�勲潗⽫섳跗줙ꑢ믶륛㻦ꍱꛇ㖚俹ꨤ�틌杤聴ꨌ똣왫팪誊㺙衳❵궈㝒쎏❻詾៝ṽ疚ߟÿ뽧讅鶪䭖魊뗌륫�䂞㏼⇚쩕赣뚣驻絙椿훍鷸䆼暘ꤴ滓꒽볗ﶠ绕뻖핧�ﰍꔧ띫⑾퇑딬꽻츫�᭣㥕輙퓟힌곓䨕鵶�珥꧳
啦㥜歪�蜼ᅣऀ㰬ꥷ流谧阯䷣倻垤舒䫪Ⳮ堀鳱꿵砞ᣥ騺ꗫ풭泻眮՛흍ᦎ昮뺶�㭝뗮抔輻궈얫䈦꼋쐬롃泌뎻놹뒃쎍枭쎌っ냜ꮞꢾヷﺙᜯ덑累繪耊噩帺禍䊣䙋�쪭ᘺ剦옉蟭黣씫牱㊏ﲍ风繒钟꒔俾㭿鎳讟靷ിꭆ霮䎢鈜ч佂嶶蟌煤닝쥠ఊ⇭ࢲ蘁曢ꥯ쿮Ⰵ鸊蝣嶄摗�퍴ࡗ雽뗺�獫퍆빙旸ⵡ袷欵䝽큋뙣䦐㖏䑤聘奒暀�웝⬎⦑糆媒좿哬㚖玚劃榒�굎��ꛧ硚亏껱꒗R昀ÿ틄뙖浌뱹鞲Ɖ㟞䗰ṻ매�糤炜ꟳ눺껀
ꍤ浧쮣襁礻ウሀ柼긣឴�멬梺洬䦑▕ᆑﴤᷣ咪鞟曐檺ꛔ钹챭敷榸⥢畒햢ᬵ庹矷늺�ﳺ➎㻆蓗㌼ⷡꐶ峑뚖囗돑䚬�捡倈ڼ叏䇎懍䩑豖齕濠킗窕秊ᡥ杮귩�䗯螶�幸䷏뚼欵銨能訨燄悆㗆爛ù璳壯ꏔᙖ澕߸㲙橥哪ꉠ�涵꿭꿢㩣壾䇼䞮楷띢氏撾등⭦癷㐼놓鷇؞엶䭧겒䷯弹궱ዞꂓ妪覾廞豖콖㗮豏瑬뿛쒲ﭴ讹盭⚍﮸렬簄ꢱĎ矪쥴㷶ꖴ爚훷ꖫÿꜾ尅礕珁䄩獶쭉巋罆纈缺�끙躶⛞ᥫ�슼孀ᥰั�쯘㠞袥嚫騖徲�⥃篂閇�ꏥ뭭
雨ⶉ珯㽖ﰑ弩䌕碦咫赑퀾럶༷㨳泧⊀쟞�Ⓕݴ砵⨥裘뎺뇓諃咟낗ㅊᕕ穏⯛⾽躽亇닽ξ彙溘괮뒤潡焌醩哲욪ᬣ�焐徃玡葐鞢载粀购誛ꅵ쬩筿嶝傓뀖ᨷٗ戈랼䨱⯒웭䧂웫幏뢢뽾隀ꏕ鄀쟨㎁暟폪钂鴢毵䧳碤䪣淗䧝㲵谬䞾냰㤧⯼麫䖝텽�뚌Ặ늧릝䖗ﹻ�쉇ֺ岣恊課諩誝찓芁諍꿂鹇詶㘌ᔃ湞砘괻볼ⳏ緱쏗捝뱍䭆虫�豘桾饏闔姄ꗹ㻜ᑐ窶譗뙖焎썾�︷�𩙼梍똹骢�㒽뚾㛒哟薏䵵噷⟸綠톲껯뗮渘뒢镨摭㆗�悕㟊
뽰橝ꭓꡍ隮빊⸟췄锪剹ﭑ樻럵슦韶辵롏뾸췰₾澵߭㙋릴虜�⺜�発炭쳸☵⣧⾥켭얖瑥놱窅唕睷흫㹍釯羒⻙嫣瓔ጽềⲰ漯艺硛劢恰牦韐댼ข畺狅溼鴖﨩哇奺࿏毣ᡂ颚�闛��媖ᵹ넖囌⏸맢⺏륕뢵ኺ딭泈釄ᴻ肪㘌鳼帏橪镂ㅪ䪯圗섲᧦ಕ쁋맣랦煑檻毋퓫榼䟱볡�譸蝚뙐墾ﻥ䗑嶖ḱ扅⛨㉜胡踀倏祅サ륵Ἵ�阹缆첻䚩䮝溵㭫Ꝺ즧㷼ߢ构븺㒕搾㬢斨胚抢紁᮹뇔㨪姳픪멷䀘폘鈑롥叛銤埳캿훎㷴싗땿쌗ᝯ䏝㭫
�螄ཪᴩ�숸薽㔧כֿ驊齹负ૡꗊꬊ㮖⼺�㧼◱黖嫳⽀䄬⁹拲汖涘⼟稄뗗⩖刵呋恱챲ᙦ묒◷䩫嶯跸백ܝᘝ醙좽Ά⤜옚㊲럹ꠈနঊ伝�䄗乆몪橛ÿ툩侪艚䉚�䢗뺾捧粣븞嵠嘻廔寶鶕릤斸姹⊉䌴⪴삩ݖ줸喬偊튨듨䳽ꤑ紉퍢䑋짖➻�썧觟ᩞ蛕枃ٻ꒧䮊斆䊞黭摜岩ƒ丛�㪎ᎏ뎷빍뎷뻾齆㧛♶꾛㉞᭕짖됴홊驿�㽨㐖믵늶ᇱ㛆笛犻쟱龁ៜ鹊娏㣆嶌欨ᅭ弮㋗컩媝ᐴﮖ뿙䞿᧸뺴껗粬ỽ猍퉛볕ꯋ衛뇘鵓䦡
䧹況ཅ襫ꭷ俯奺ꃡÿ◚猊౿㤔坴얷曬연㏌☬桹頡ы薱߀ﲌꞣ켸൞퉺룶ꉴ쯣맳燰Ყ橪먓◯⽩瑍軻뽮ݣ抇䢏쬒굳涓밍瑣곊촃냤軹塑ṭ꒵鰽㲗읞;娏䦕ꗎꞒ節ﴶ�蝮簨㘙⚒㖑⠛ᗑ舢˵⢺쭒瀚恋ᱧꝫ蜍퓂뉼뾛䎟쓅쟗웅焰ﭪ귙경蝹뺊ﰼ釼х櫓⠷ᯫ뙃ꁀ眂ꌣ舁埭鹒䕙콙쮛㸘츝폫ᇎ�巍췟崭퉾粬☻ᖭꦵ욼浑恪焎뜅ΰ꺱⺬ⴣﶅ麖ノ쀀挸�ퟩ靸ꐘ튮羓⬫❾讏弗琓�࿄ꅵ浏쑰��켛㹢⏱켝袕揍䩷붔続ꮣỸᾮ
ꄩ鮆籙홢俎矞仼싾仛嚗慘쉫⺳㤒洊둣隓Ѥ僧탣魗⇭┽ﻥ畬裥䖧롳鬀㺽쓇䎐�峝�䰶偡露瞍湹ᓝ〶౷혜ÿꙗ짣痭䟳㰅屝猢骝嵺함鿺崬폾ힱ핅킉ⷮ횮寖兖ဌ磥ᬙഐ鋜湸㱗㪨鐑ⶩ癶﹛킧ǃꞄ篯뵋繗훡ꞯ陪럮퓺괚鳭뙡籛⏉烬䁲롒㌁誑ꇲ歪ẕ㽾쇚싲떽텋셿ァ�៸帄鶋罸뭨嶣�选鄙ꭘ氕㶎許賹譱䝱劯꺪翺蟫첃뽚斟宨ⳁ⬒➫᪑Ά㮠杔픕蒈Ṟ詗迻㇍窸❴⧭퉆풺識퇸�ﱛ끃瓰署闄湭ᛦꪬ觱ణ虑仠諧컼㢭媺ꮮ䟳ퟴ촊�ᩊ
훵쟇ᕿ⏾틸ᱏ橼ᕍꖎ歷숅᱃ᥱ唑豈嗣灰滄㘄ᤉ緅䨵픔天靵矨끠稸ꝲ㤋듍璘꼗�卖ᄡ췫淢졆쟝㧲뚶ᱱ遐ָ砕賛ꜞ騧߃퓮嚄鳥噙橘懴⑁�눲핷瓯㗻髫辽㖎ܯ巛�审睒ꕆ泀鲑ﮚ⎼ꝲ㭩㖟誉⫵㷢䛩䵶滯凇勻婩蕇ﳗ稣깽斘賣�䪎➨䩩欑ẕ䌮�犳쥮鶟㴞뗕漫ꐌ�뤺鼳�̸ᖠ퇢迸噡Ꞝ朞翶ቸ聯ᔾ杆轔扁␑䉴歌闷ൈ菸諾퐔靿䟵⥅绝錞筡�曆摙皼坹幸緹䥨�褑놬銕嚗띺퇬宧鋈ꗝᦆ⦵䡖騣띄ꭰᬡ嚡鰑
餞ﵚꐎ늟ểቖ�蹟矦䷥�杯뾺뜿ꮦ쾨췢伯듍႗䞫⦜幖읁�ꎹ䟼糪摅뽵咱夑ꝸ難ꉭ囹斩ࠓ藗찇埭펎ᷝᛸዞ︷掠﵈嶸獖ꠔ墨唂Ͷ窀꿵늗鏧⟳㰺嶚㒟훾ٚទ鞀烄竪푥孲⍜줲䩐箐쾃窯㤡쑒뗂椷奺⩾熴䘍筍ꮿ뼷潦쒇ᐚ寣箽ዓ᧠晀両密뜝뽦ꥀꑽ벗滵鷛洊爩�秤뛼쐱ך趢룦ဩ睆錑쮒ᲆ胳쵀孾凉饿蘞빞껓ᯯ⸽糬ﯓ숇┞�碫孏勓䣣펰砡⨺쨻뛀鑑躓ᱵ맗犓ﯔ⢎풏蕲⌜뗤펛祉轂뒃ⷋ䡧뿱㖆차基㖇鍋�悖㊲
傆쬈늙㙞쨵嗱㦱ፆ帛한鍝嚗힖繽핧?憙䷡ﴛ䤛䲗婹糜峊玒즖ᔇ铗량뙑奍쫗娕㙊끧텾葚矖읐蘁ᨨモ捈᎙멲ꤳ쀪ӷᗌ厪泌냋諸ꤒ㙙믹盉쿬疝࣯捸ꂓ�馆촅뇾祥퐽₲Ᵽ�䧯㰈ఇ�✀騜ᳱ떟꾩큿櫷葐㔣清鉖醹䟴ᅢጀ폫⯸뱚疚ᖒ蔏ૈ䁕幱绣ﻼ졇ᛱ鐚ᐱ捹鞺緦봑뚥禴䬎鍤짫ꖮ丗丩䢢述Ẏ혧㏼ꑭÿ乢ᄊ樀咺㆗♇�굖嘔㿶뜼謍ꕵ趈诚궶䵾네驩귢귥Ꮪ測殣鹱㗕⟾蜞仈れ웭떊ⲏ한榖�餞ㄼ좢ᅾ蔔ꂒ��䧔촤
ࢥ⧻멩�̓⫼ꗰ䓻榟幩逆న⯑ᔀ饜붊㜪ﳳꗏ⋉뚿K휀뾨Ꞟ粬큒辴椌됚պ妪︥튚Ӝ◎㪐爎ᡝヺ䚧੮⏚锱俩樂檜꼤姑松鵾꒥↾뎲㖁搗挦㬊♤論鳧㗣飳줹䧆놷৽ዄᮔ鏤濟뽓绐�훃챺��ꐮ軄Ɽᘘﰀ⮧탓텗。褀뗺硪䘩켾湇﹫퀧兼ᷢ�䋍摫낿妊ᮕ�ነ큱�坠晽⓹顸예줘⭂쵈횥㝲㭞蓱盗㉖퍪⺘堢矝⩣脱쾑㧢꿷�瓔꿥組핟鱲ꐩ鋗輻栝皺㾵떇嚝뤶벼�됳ꊪࠀ뜍粽懾ꌧ皸ꦴ쟓Ⅱ㖥툔톲콳⎼쑷䅽뛡殲≿ᘲ譄
脥᳘尰뢎羯鬭卫숭笡멛믨>왿❞껱뎀鿸鉐䯺䩭ⴿ咈㘪ᦷ륀옞躾┵圪䟾夶삄濕䴋鿟칞헆씯ꂆ燞ᄭꑝ䢀䣼쾮⎳㠥騲繹ⱆ�ᄃ䠏嫓홐თ⍉⊣餟⁗䚂齗⭂鲞�㶚뢪ㅚ評鎴埓㿽砖䝿ි裟쭴浱䦩ഘ㌺㬇膝㻧ᖇ댗춭혆�铇㡦䖜塊ꛦ쯾�멪ⴟ虸⧒Ƽ畵鄩鏥灔擌遳ੰﯵ펧粥䨍ᳵ祥켽⧝铕璄驊迨㲐ꡍ籟호ί䧜庤ၯ藯Ҏ兮֘呢緆탫嗁㾩䶎믺겟ꅐか㲕㘶瀊鷷뺚榩緦厃⿕ꁿ�㹜궟懯鳳⸫뀙佇⭮ᶣ瑚ᷔ�绦鄫꧓ꮎ⸈㙨嚴᭛
㓓본㑘뉅ꑘₐ㘟売뾓Ꟶ蒆塝᳝ꨘꝕ湽Ⓙὶ됑⚝엃ﴑ욆瀋�⍢ᒉ瘙벃狠쬵誎싺Ḏ麜㭟ﶶퟥ鿍砨副햾✾穪ꖆ먩�у偆䜜팜交伕鐀㉢䘆⁸ꇗ얗᥋ⷋ方Ό㱥⨭歊峝닒歭�篛輾⍏统숻⣞輀벬ꙇꥁ�毃숝꯹䴊龹汨銌�깵꿌䨏ꕕᯍﻩ朼쒎㑎㥩䗙橆篚�嵋鳺믾�雸罸葟暺醨셚찯⒐ᄘ揹䫸솃鷗꺚䵊䵃䌿リ驯ኞ�豑�믭붾㳴宩䯼ᛱᖁ鿔䕠鮵Ⳋ⽛�ᙃ陣癠ᢎ㆐귀渓퍔豽篫㻸ꭹ箿寳㥶㾍홟冼哢ힲ⓯뚼㉝獡蒈㺱쑑稘嶁勵ᖍꛋ떧䪊檊鞖侒
뗓럷㾑직魤扥⏑낧恶緀籅韥⎴갛�凹께ꒉ�ԙ鮾遪◅䪋ۨ�ᱳ㦰젍촘때樸식븉ÿ审嫅魮릧㡛圞螱⥉椢멘쏥를뷨怇㫟쨫飰➜꾴쬋䪞篷騤鷙螿᰾浛圷楋꒝슙�㏱鰪&菣㎀㗟凛玹権쮏稳쉱ᗦ偩䗑檫�ጽ�糒眿媥拏�ᖲҒ�ᕤᬡ雇呎좆휵蒇豽ﭴꅟ熖ꑒ丫暬ᩴ鿷깗뚗枾㭼✹蓲쐨認႑爲㧵닦퓃掜砲ʜ袩ꗷ뗊鹻숦峓ﳕ꽅ᅫ쬋Ίᠪ弚抙뽌賝胼ÿ឴뵷塻鳢橫糪ሗ⩢ꟓ镊娹�꿖竦씿齴㪇諷ꈭ瓕㟫랹﮸䰼
䷱㬘睝ᬩ掇ﮊ愨ꪨ탊賂鵜鷺搵旜騤햻�푴㳯䝅렮巟�╎ᦍ坞講�鎌Ϗ㖯磳뎪⚆豰뮝긟繱萆剣辒ẻ镔诞㪖伭㿐뺌뗆ᷠ쑳趚㺂榩쾧圔娪唹Ⱊ�䦅鶞岱费㨘ꤱ祭뾖갲籝℮ཇᔷꝧ뭏胯⥼쮩�姟랴簚쭱蘄荹࡞ᅢ㨀⟰牖꒕볎焦ꦎၖ垝쵧뇛濴鿂粳궭හ㜴冧鋳⑉牴⢏虓Ţ歅ꝶ됤䝖덪叄鮓㒿껓퇧ښ禧꿠椄ᥞ믰蘭澕삤�栬ꯑཋ܇놫奟뾖䋝柾䟆숭䣝륝뺮ⶥ숮쓃㖞끶생뇖랩푨籛௬ 믇�歽ㆇ�폒겹픟躰㴴㷛黸迂뾇㰏⽸
譅靉푐⃮䢒侚戱遘藭诙ू뜤厔둦싂匿妯鈖酽᩹헺嘼ሧ읉馗鞶眳꽼濝榳통삣⭾ᅢࠀ솷ﲩꁩⵋ떖䊭㯂骔�띦戮Ն뚊Ԗ뿦◦Ꞿ凒燍熵썳ᱚ얿ᩏꉸ凟誶僟葸殺쑴喠칼Ń溸渠ᗷ쇨☧뾼靖ⴜ쌸ᤋ毅歩ῷ骪ቘ㗼런ᾊ䋾�뭚ໜ餝ⳗ㡎ퟤᚥ嵾걎⫞ڵ훽蟞偳림鉦㝹ર脳Ó基䪯啲鼕둱䵡섨ᩙ튷䠺꧒䜾뵟푛ꥷ牶홑㼉젿嵝ꔕ⎆늝ᬐ贄黀䩖痉瀹⦩䧊酪쎏㫺즶ꥬ愜偤ꦤ⌇嘜䤓ꅂ畱梕䭉Ə튂姟绕�楪觶勗쎻㦱⋹ꑲꧣ苉�ᅭᄀ曮炲
䕩竩ッ☀걇ㅨﲧ霦榺浐䑢豴ꪌ鐰꿠瑱ꕗ블ﺰ硦热澐줇럟薷㵼⾽훆䥖깭彜됭熷ᰓ䖒㚒튾球䛪쳌ἡ둬淨룃墍묩갤煾槏杮䓂⠷谄谓貑耟�첡Ꞟ㿟ꐎﺑ䔜㍹䝅輦¬U毪趞䩉讫㍺㰌⦥䷎귪龶꾕㷳슿훬黓郜Ꮼ丬罹Ꮇ擋ꣶ䪚辥ꐺ句㔑紷便ꮞ⍭캥⊙괝네⏮犂흻ᬧ㑿㍿ꯆ⪬�ꗽ㯼嶢탾ฟ껭퉬땈⪟쐻�䘺䁈뻣䨇취핤阚ス㌀鳚퓟囹齍曚钋ﳒ洽鴞빩�ꇀɊ⬝ョ뙭�锎簊떉⟒�