Growth Management, Washington's Way: September 2008

Streicher v. Island County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0015, Final Dec. & Order, (Sept. 29, 2008)

Monday, September 29, 2008

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

State on team to cut greenhouse gases
Seattle Times, September 24
The Western Climate Initiative finally unveiled its plan to “cap and trade” carbon emissions among member states and provinces, which account for most of the western United States and most of Canada. See also the Seattle P-I article and the proposed WCI plan itself. At the same time, our state senators worked hard to remove oil exploration subsidies and add in renewable energy credits to our tax code. Now the House and President must approve. See the Seattle P-I article and The Olympian article.

Snohomish facility gets first loads of canola seed to make biodiesel
Everett Daily Herald, September 24
While our federal representatives work on biofuel incentives, entrepreneurs have their canola to biodiesel plant ready to go. See also the Seattle Times article. And then there’s the people in Pend Orielle County who want to burn the aquatic invasive weed “milfoil” into biofuel. See the Yakima Herald article.

Eyman plans 'Freedom Drive' to claim HOV lanes
The News Tribune, September 24
Tim Eyman is up to is obnoxious self. Already believing without-a-doubt that his Initiative 985 will pass this fall, Eyman is telling the state Department of Transportation to start changing signage and is planning a “Freedom Drive” this December to claim the HOV lanes for single occupancy vehicles. See also the Seattle Times article. Despite his claims to the contrary, opening the HOB lanes during off-peak hours is not going to reduce congestion. First, Seattle HOV lanes are used by HOVs almost all day any ways. Second, opening the lanes will just encourage more single occupancy drivers, increasing congestion. Frustrated with Eyman? Throw Pie.

City of Sammamish endorses regional affordable housing strategies
Sammamish Review, September 23
Sammamish wants to be the most affordable, progressive city in the state. Or so it seems by their flurry of activity lately. First the City Council endorsed the strategies developed by “A Regional Coalition for Housing,” a group of fourteen East King County cities to address affordable housing. Then it gave $100,000 to the coalition. And a deal that shifted development from flanks of Tiger Mountain State Park to Issaquah Highlands will include 80 affordable homes out of the total 550. See also the Seattle P-I’s editorial on September 23.

Ecology plans cleanup at old mill site near Seafarers’ park
Anacortes American, September 24
The state Department of Ecology is planning to start its cleanup of contaminated shore- and tide-lands in Anacortes next summer as part of its Puget Sound Initiative. The project includes remediating the old Scott Paper and Custom Plywood mills, cleaning up the Whitmarsh Landfill, rerouting storm drains, replacing creosote pilings, and marine habitat restoration. Meanwhile, Tacoma weighs taking on the $3.7 million remediation of the Foss Waterway and the Washington River Protection Solutions began its $7.1 billion cleanup of nuclear and hazardous waste at the tank farms Hanford tank farms.

Scoring mistake: Vancouver loses $12.5 million
The Olympian, September 25
A scoring error by the state Community Economic Revitalization Board for the LIFT grant program was corrected and Vancouver and Whitman County are both out of luck. Vancouver was set to receive $500,000 per year for 25 years for rail and road improvements as part of a $1 billion waterfront community development that included restaurants, offices, two hotels, 2,700 condominiums and apartments, and ten acres of park and open space. Whitman County was set to receive $362,000 per year for 25 years to create a retail center near the Idaho border to create 1,400 new jobs. Instead, Mount Vernon and Puyallup will be the beneficiaries. Mount Vernon will use its $500,000 per year to build a waterfront promenade, urban trail, park facilities, parking garage, and other downtown improvements. See the Skagit Valley Herald article. The City of Yakima, although it received a good panic, kept their LIFT grant money and can proceed to redevelop the 200 acres of a former Boise Cascade mill site into a mixed-use urban oasis so the city can correctly claim itself to be the “Palm Springs of Washington.” See the Yakima Herald article.

Olympia extends building moratorium
The Olympian, September 24
The City of Olympia extended its building moratorium in the Chambers Basin area so it can consider downzoning 275 acres to 4 density units per acre. Considering even this new density would be near that characteristic of sprawl, one must wonder whether the area should be downzoned further to help prevent potential flooding (and more than even the 2du/ac, as was suggested). Or maybe the city council should consider leaving the existing zoning but creating a TDR program for the area specific and limiting development to only 10% of the area. If all else fails, the state can provide grants to flood victims. The City of Olympia also addressed 6 other zoning proposals at its public hearing. And the City of Tumwater has a 10-building mixed-use complex coming its way.

Tribal family's land a treasure
Everett Daily Herald, September 22
Another tribal land development is set to occur near Marysville, just north of the existing Quil Ceda Village (home to the Tulalip Casino and Seattle Premium Outlets). Katrina Jum and the four other board of directors who manage the land for 35 owners (all Tulalips), is ready to develop 60 acres into a luxury movie theater, big box stores, and a theme park.

Whatcom County OKs ending watershed logging rules lawsuit
Bellingham Herald, September 24
Lake Whatcom appears to nearing protection at least from one side of the lake. If finalized, 8,000 acres currently managed by the state Department of Natural Resources along Lake Whatcom would be purchased by Whatcom County. Timber harvesting would cease and runoff lessened, helping to protect the 91,000 Bellingham residents that rely on the lake as a drinking source. However, runoff from homes on the lake would continue to be a substantial source of contamination. See also this other Bellingham Herald article.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Kitsap County Commissioners back Woods View Development
Kitsap Sun, Sept. 23
On Monday, the Kitsap County Commissioners ignored the spirit of the GMA by continuing to support the Woods View Development, a 78-house development on 17 acres in the county's rural area. Although the development is near the Manchester LAMIRD, it creates an urban density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre and includes an urban sewer system. The Beaver Creek Conservation Group promises to appeal.

Lake Stevens plans workshop to discuss cottage housing developments
Everett Daily Herald, Sept. 22
On October 1, the City of Lake Stevens will be hosting a public meeting on whether to allow cottage housing. This form of development is designed to be more community-oriented by increasing density.

Mistake May Not Impact Mill Project
KAPP, Sept. 23
Last week the state Community Economic Revitalization Board awarded the City of Yakima $25 million to redevelop 200-acres of a former Boise Cascade mill site. Then the Board recanted, apologizing that it had failed to properly conduct its scoring of the projects that received money. Well, it now seems life can go on and Yakima will receive its money after all. The redevelopment should be a huge boon to the city, although one has to wonder what industry is going to support the new huge amount of commercial and residential life when the city’s economy has stagnated for the past 20 years. Let’s hope the wine industry continues to flourish. Down river, the Port of Kennewick mulls its options for redeveloping the Vista Airfield (Tri-City Herald, Sept 23).

Cle Elum water issue heats up
Daily Record, Sept. 22
Cle Elum is about to adopt an ordinance to permit developers who annex to the city with more than two acres to purchase the city's excess water rights. Under current ordinance, such a developers must bring in sufficient water rights to serve the property. While this probably isn't the end of the world, the policy seems favor large developments and sprawl over the individual property owner. Additionally, the city will be in a worse position in the long-run to provide sufficient water to its citizens, especially as global warming reduces snow pack.
Continuation of hearing on height limits draws dozens
The Olympian, Sept. 22
In an ongoing saga, Olympia debates at what height redevelopment should be allowed in its isthmus. Great concern has been paid to the views from the Capital Building of Budd Inlet. Others want a park along the shore. Others probably just hate development. But if Thurston County is going to curb its sprawl and create more livable communities, Olympia needs to lead the way by providing residential and commercial capacity downtown.

Olympia sued over parking lot
The Olympian, Sept. 23
The City of Olympia has been sued by the owners of Ken Schoenfeld Furniture for allegedly contaminating their property. The McHughs (who one the property), allege runoff from a city’s parking lot has contaminated their property making obtaining future mortgages and sales difficult. The City counterclaims that it is the property of the McHughs that is contaminating the City’s property. The lawsuit sounds like NIMBY opportunism to me. The City is in the last stages of selling the parking lot to Colpitts Development Company to build a seven-story, 126-apartment building complex.

Homeless settle into 'Nickelsville'
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 23
On Monday, advocates erected about 150 fuchsia-colored tents on public land in Highland Park of Seattle to draw attention to the needs of homeless people. Besides giving a black-eye to Mayor Greg Nickels, it is unclear what will be actually accomplished by the demonstration. The advocates hope to build on the fuchsia tents with wooden shacks; meanwhile, Mayor Nickels is sending staff to do outreach and post a 3-day eviction notice. To the north in Snohomish County, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is funding apartment complexes to shelter 19 homeless families (Everett Daily Herald, Sept. 22). King County was awarded its own public housing money last week (Seattle P-I, Sept. 20).

State looks to jump-start frog population
Seattle Times, Sept. 23
Five hundred Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) are being tracked at Fort Lewis with radio transmitters. The native frogs currently face an 80% mortality rate in the region due to invasive species, including bullfrogs and plants that taking over native habitat. Ninety percent of the native habitat at Fort Lewis is already invaded.

Red dye to color Burnt Bridge Creek in water-quality effort
The Oregonian, Sept. 22
The Burnt Bridge Creek will soon look a bit, well, burnt. The state Department of Ecology is dyeing the creek red/orange to measure luminosity so it can understand the creek’s dissolved oxygen problems. Let’s hope this research helps save fish and habitat, otherwise, the creek’s bridge to the future might well be burnt.

Spent Nuclear Fuel dug up near H Reactor
Tri-City Herald, Sept. 23
Good news: clean-up begins around H-Reactor of 8-inch bits that exceed radiation exposure limits by a multiple of 200,000. Bad news: recent Hanford clean-up contract contested (Tri-City Herald, Sept. 23), creating uncertainty around the new Tri-Party Agreement on clean-up.

Now it's easier to recycle fluorescent bulbs in the Puget Sound area
Everett Daily Herald, Sept. 23
Bartell Drug is accepting your CFLs at its 56 stores in the region. CFLs that are not recycled or properly disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill can contaminate soil and drinking water. CFLs are known to reduce IQ, especially among children. Bartell’s program is noteworthy as current drop-off locations are both difficult to find and often expensive.

PDC: Clear Pike, fine Realtors PAC
Bellingham Herald, Sept. 23
The State Public Disclosure Commission has found that the “Realtors Quality of Life Political Action Committee” violated the public disclosure law in disclosing $954,000. How this will affect this fall’s campaigns is unclear.

Architecture out, "built environments" in at UW
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 22
I am loath to include anything about the University of Washington, but they seem to continue to be on the right track with so many things to protect the environment. Earlier this year they announced a new “College of the Environment.” Now they’ve got a "College of Built Environments” to “reflects our core responsibility to 21st-century challenges -- urbanization, climate change and livable communities.” My alma mater Washington State University isn’t out of the sustainability movement either. Wazzu thinks its offering

the state's first college level renewable energy course (Seattle P-I, Sept. 22).

Sprawling debate over Fully Contained Communities in Snohomish County

Thursday, September 18, 2008

I recently became aware of an ongoing heated debate in Snohomish County thanks to a blog post by Jerry Cornfield at the HeraldNet. Local developer Dave Barnett wants to build a "fully contained community" (FCC) is waging an attack against county councilman Dave Somers via the website http://www.keepsnohomishcountyaffordable.org/. At the website Barnett alleges Somers's opposition to FCCs amounts to supporting sprawl, global warming, and unaffordable housing. Somers has struck back with his own website, http://www.keepsnohomishcountyaffordable.com/. Additionally, fellow councilman Mitch Ruth, who is a Republican, apparently also does not like FCCs and wrote a letter to the editor supporting Somers. This debate is likely to continue to unfold in news articles and the editorial page of the Daily Everett Herald in the months to come.

UPDATES:
Big brawl over a mini-city still looms, Everett Daily Herald, Sept. 21
Six-month ban on applications for mini-cities, Everett Daily Herald, Oct. 30

This debate begs the question: Do FCCs prevent sprawl or do they promote sprawl? The answer depends. First, for this question let me define sprawl as any unnecessary development outside the existing Urban Growth Area (UGA). This is hardly a robust definition, but adequate for the purpose of the question. If UGAs are fully built out with maximum capacity, then, sure, FCCs are likely better than permitting higher density development in rural areas. However, if UGAs possess capacity for the 20-year population projection for a county, then FCCs are completely unnecessary and constitute sprawl. As the current Snohomish County UGAs possess more than adequate capacity for its 20-year population projection, Barnett's proposed FCC would be sprawl.

Woodland Ridge v. Gleneagle Country Club, Ct. of Appeals Div. I Case No. 59736-1 (Sept. 15, 2008) (unpublished)

Monday, September 15, 2008

Go to opinion

Summary

Although this opinion is "unpublished," and thefore will not serve as precedent in future cases, the legal conclusion should be worrisome for local communities and activists. The Court of Appeals held that third-parties are not implied beneficiaries of "zoning contracts" between a municipality and a developer, and therefore cannot sue the developer or municipality to hold either party responsible when a developer breaches a zoning contract. The Court arrived at this conclusion because zoning contracts apparently are only an exercise of those zoning powers delegated to it by state statute.

Commentary

The Court failed to analyze whether such delegation necessarily supposed that third-parties were beneficiaries of any zoning action. Indeed, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Euclid so many years ago, zoning is an exercise of the state police powers for the benefit of the public's safety, health, and general welfare. Thus, aren't third parties, in fact and law, beneficiaries of any zoning action by the city? If third parties are not beneficiaries, is the municipality properly exercising within its police powers?

Panesko v. Lewis County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0007c, Order on Motions for Reconsideration (Sept. 15, 2008)

Go to Order on Motions for Reconsideration

Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0014, Final Dec. & Order (Sept. 15, 2008)

Go to Final Decision and Order

Yakima County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., Ct. of Appeals Div. III Case No. 26783-1-III (Sept. 11, 2008)

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Go to opinion

Summary

Yakima County originally designated Jim and Charlotte Caton's property as agricultural resource lands in the County's first comprehensive plan in 1997. In 2001, the Catons requested a portion of their property be redesignated as "rural self-sufficient." The "rural self-sufficient" designation permitted an increase of development density to one dwelling unit per five acres. Despite the planning staff's recommendation for denial, in 2002 the Yakima County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners approved this redesignation for 1,086 acres.

The Wenas Citizens Association (WCA) appealed the decision to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, who found the redesignation non-compliant with the GMA's agricultural lands criteria. The Catons and Yakima County appealed the decision to Superior Court, who reversed the Board. WCA appealed to the Court of Appeals (Div. III), who upheld the Superior Court and remanded the case to the Board for proper application of the burden of proof and deference to the county. With the new instructions for applying te burden of proof, the Board again found the redesignation non-compliant. The Catons and Yakima County again appealed to Superior Court, which again reversed the Board. WCA appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals again upheld the Superior Court in reversing the Board. The Court determined there was insufficient evidence to show that the County was "clearly erroneous" in redesignating the Catons' land from agricultural resource land (ARL) to "rural land self-sufficient." In determining whether the land was appropriate for ARL designation, the Court applied the Supreme Court's test enunciated in its Lewis County decision:

[A]gricultural land is land: (a) not already characterized by urban growth (b) that is primarily devoted to the commercial production of agricultural products enumerated in RCW 36.70A.030(2), including land in areas used or capable of being used for production based on land characteristics, and (c) that has long-term commercial significance for agricultural production, as indicated by soil, growing capacity, productivity, and whether it is near population areas or vulnerable to more intense uses.

Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488, 502, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006).

The Court found that although the Catons' property was fully surrounding by ARL, the particular property was not primarily devoted to the commercial production of agricultural products and lacked long-term commercial significance. The Court pointed out that the soil quality was less than prime, no irrigation water for was available, the land was sloped at upwards of 30%, and much of the land was in the federal Conservation Reserve Program. The Board had noted this findings as well, but had found that the land was suitable for cattle grazing as this was the lands' historic use prior to its enterance into CRP. However, the land had not been used for cattle production during the past 18 years as it was in CRP. The Board provided no evidence that cattle production was viable and of long-term commercial significance in the future. Finally and probably most importantly, the Court held that CRP was not an agricultural use, noting that CRP put land out of agricultural production, not into it.

The Court next considered whether the "rural self-sufficient" designation was appropriate. The Court noted that development would be limited to one unit per five acres and agricultural production was encouraged. Thus, the Court held that the County's redesignation was not "clearly erroneous" and reversed the Board's decision.

Commentary

The Court's decision raises three concerns for me: (1) proper application of the standard of review on appeal, (2) CRP land not being considered as ARL, and (3) the need for another land use designation in comprehensive planning.

First, it seems the Board applied the wrong standard of review. While the Board applies the "clearly erroneous" standard as the first tribunal in determining whether a local government's action is non-compliant with the GMA (RCW 36.70A.130(3)), the Court is to apply the APA standard of review to the Board's decision, which is whether there was substantial evidence to uphold the Board's decision. If this proper standard of review had been applied, the Board's decision may well have been upheld.

Second, the Court erroneously concluded that CRP land should not be considered as ARL. I understand the Court's position that CRP land is not currently in agricultural production and is not of long-term commercial significance. Farmland that is put into CRP is often the most marginally productive land in the first place and would not enter the program unless all other agricultural uses were less economically viable. However, I believe CRP provides its own agricultural product for several reasons. (1) While CRP land does not provide food or fiber to consumers, CRP does provide necessary ecological services to society. The farmer cultivates his land for native habitat. (2) CRP takes land out of other agricultural production in order to support commodity prices for farmers. (3) One of the stated purposes of CRP is to increase the soil quality of land, thus becoming more productive once the land is put back into traditional agriculture. (4) CRP land is of long-term commercial significance as the land must remain in the program with native vegetation for at least ten years otherwise the farmer incurs a significant penalty. If the Court's holding on CRP remains, the state legislature should consider amending the GMA to specifically include CRP as ARL or create a new land designation (see below).

Third, the state legislature should consider creating a new land designation. Currently, the GMA requires counties to designate their lands into four basic categories: urban growth areas (UGAs), critical areas for habitat protection of listed species, natural resource lands, and rural areas. RCW 36.70A.040, .110. Natural resource areas are further broken into three categories: agricultural, forest, and mineral. But what happens when land fails to satisfy the requirements for critical areas and natural resources lands and are unsuitable for both a rural area and UGA designation? Well, based on the Yakima County decision by the Court of Appeals, the county can do whatever it wants. This is a bit inappropriate considering the principle objective of the GMA is to have smart planning. In Eastern Washington, much land is either in CRP or on steep slopes inappropriate for rural housing at one unit per five acres. Additionally, Eastern Washington is mostly a barren landscape. Development on the hillsides has a significant affect on the aesthetic value to local communities, depriving cities of both their identity and their potential as agri-tourism destinations.

One solution might be to reflect this problem within rural area development regulations by reading the GMA provision that requires counties to provide a "variety of rural densities" as more than mere surplusage. If "variety" was tied to "appropriateness" based on ecological, agricultural, and aesthetic values, a solution may be at hand. However, the Court of Appeals in Yakima County implied that one unit per five acres is okay. One per five is the minimum allowable density for rural areas. This is not a good sign.

So the solution that may be required is for the legislature to create a whole new land designation for these "no man's lands."

Futurewise v. Stevens County, EWGMHB Case No. 07-1-0014c, Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal (Sept. 9, 2008)

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Go to Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal

Stevens County v. Futurewise, Ct. of Appeals Div. III Case No. 26038-1-III (Sept. 4, 2008)

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Go to opinion

This opinion was originally posted as "unpublished." After a petition by Futurewise to the Court of Appeals, the Court decided to publish its fine decision. Now the opinion will serve as useful precedent for future "critical area" and "best available science" GMA cases.

Summary

Stevens County adopted a critical areas ordinance (CAO) that only designated critical habitat for species listed by the federal government or the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) as endangered, threatened, or sensitive by statute or formal agency rulemaking. Data that met this criteria only included "points" - known sitings of listed species - but not "polygons," which indicated the range of listed species based on scientific methods. "Polygons" were not designated in statute or through formal rulemaking, so these habitats were implicitly left out from protection. The federal government and DFW recognizes six listed species as inhabiting Stevens County: bald eagle, golden eagle, bull trout, steelhead, common loon, and lynx. Habitat of both the common loon and lynx were designated by polygons, but as the waterways were already protected for steelhead and bull trout, the lack of the polygon data most affected the lynx.

Futurewise petitioned the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for review of Stevens County's adoption of its CAO. After finding that Futurewise's petition was not barred by claim or issue preclusion (an issue I won't discuss here), the Board found Stevens County's CAO noncompliant with the GMA's critical areas designation requirements. The County appealed to Superior Court, which upheld the Board. The County appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals upheld the Board as well. The Court found that although "polygon" data was not created by statute or formal rulemaking, it nevertheless constituted the "best available science" under the GMA's definition. Therefore, the County had failed to protect all critical habitat as required. Additionally, the County failed to justify its deviation. The Court concluded, "substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that SCC 13.10.034(3)(C) does not comply with the GMA because it fails to designate all critical habitats and fails to consider the best available science in designating critical habitats."

Commentary

Eastern Washington counties have been especially reluctant in their CAO to protect all functions and values of critical habitat even when supported by the best available science. The Court's decision will strengthen local citizen's efforts to protect listed species and preserve biological diversity. Additionally, because the Court of Appeal is considered just one court (even though divided into three divisions), the opinion serves as precedent statewide.

Statewide News, September 2008

Monday, September 1, 2008

Central Puget Sound News, September 2008

King County News, September 2008

Linkbar

Growth Management, Washington's Way

Labels

Archive

Streicher v. Island County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0015, Final Dec. & Order, (Sept. 29, 2008)

Monday, September 29, 2008

Top News Today

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Top News Today

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Sprawling debate over Fully Contained Communities in Snohomish County

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Woodland Ridge v. Gleneagle Country Club, Ct. of Appeals Div. I Case No. 59736-1 (Sept. 15, 2008) (unpublished)

Monday, September 15, 2008

Panesko v. Lewis County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0007c, Order on Motions for Reconsideration (Sept. 15, 2008)

Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0014, Final Dec. & Order (Sept. 15, 2008)

Yakima County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., Ct. of Appeals Div. III Case No. 26783-1-III (Sept. 11, 2008)

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Futurewise v. Stevens County, EWGMHB Case No. 07-1-0014c, Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal (Sept. 9, 2008)

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Stevens County v. Futurewise, Ct. of Appeals Div. III Case No. 26038-1-III (Sept. 4, 2008)

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Statewide News, September 2008

Monday, September 1, 2008

Central Puget Sound News, September 2008

King County News, September 2008

Washington GMA & Land Use Laws

Other Wash. Environmental Laws

Wash. GMA & Land Use Resources

Other Smart Growth Resources

Washington State Government

Pro-GMA Groups

Anti-GMA Groups

Smart Growth Groups in Other States

Recent Posts on Blog Roll

Linkbar

Labels

Subscribe

Archive

Monday, September 29, 2008

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Monday, September 15, 2008

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Monday, September 1, 2008

Washington GMA & Land Use Laws

Other Wash. Environmental Laws

Wash. GMA & Land Use Resources

Other Smart Growth Resources

Washington State Government

Pro-GMA Groups

Anti-GMA Groups

Smart Growth Groups in Other States

Recent Posts on Blog Roll