♪♪
-Good morning. This is a special meeting
of the select committee on city-wide
Mandatory Housing Affordability, MHA.
The date is May 28, 2019,
and the time is 10:30 A.M.
I'm Council Member González, the co-chair of the committee.
And joining me this morning thus far
is Council Member Juarez and Council President Harrell.
Thank you so much for being here today.
We do expect that others will join us.
We're going to go ahead and start the meeting,
so if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.
Really quickly on a chair's report,
today, I wanted to let you all know
that today Aly Pennucci from Council Central Staff
will brief the committee on Council Bill 119500,
which is the second agenda item.
This piece of legislation is available to the public
online and in hard copy.
Following the staff briefing,
I will open up a public hearing on Council Bill 119500.
Again, as a reminder that's the second item on the agenda.
This will be an opportunity for the public
to voice their input, ideas, and concerns
with regard to the technical amendments
being made to Council Bill 119500,
and for any of those folks who are here
to testify in that particular bill.
That public hearing will occur
after the ordinary public testimony
at the top of today's agenda.
So, following the public hearing,
I will suspend the Council rules to allow this committee
to vote on Council Bill 119500
with a final recommendation to the full city council.
And we are now joined by my co-chair,
Council Member Pacheco and Bi-Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you for being here.
Okay, so as I mentioned, we will start the public hearing --
excuse me, we'll start today's meeting
with public comment on the items
other than Council Bill 119500.
As a reminder again, a public hearing on Council Bill 119500,
which is the second agenda item, will be held
following public comment period
and following discussion of the first agenda item.
So we'll go ahead and look at the sign-in sheet.
Okay. So I have six folks signed up for public comments.
And again, if I call your name and you're actually here
to provide us testimony on the second agenda item,
if you could just let me know,
then I can sort of put your testimony to the side
when we open up the public hearing.
So just make sure you let me know
if you're here for the second agenda item
instead of the first.
Okay, so, again, we have six folks signed up.
When I call your name, please come to one of the microphones
at the front of the room.
You will have up to two minutes
to address the items that appear on the agenda.
Before beginning your comments,
I'd ask that you remind us of your name.
I will call each speaker in the order that they signed in,
and once again, we thank you so much
for showing up today and providing us public comment.
Also before we go ahead and start public comment,
just want to recognize that we have now been joined
by Council Member Sawant and Council Member Herbold.
Thank you for being here this morning.
Okay, so the first person on the sign-up sheet
is Ruby Holland.
-My name is Ruby Holland.
Today, I'm asking Seattle's LGBTQ community
to denounce the racist and bigoted policies
of one of your own, Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Even as the Trump administration wants to reverse
LGBTQ antidiscrimination protections,
Jenny Durkan is participating in housing discrimination
against people of color in Seattle.
We feel that both policies are wrong
and that everyone deserves to be treated
with dignity and respect.
And yet it is common knowledge that the Durkan machine
intends to force all people of color out of Seattle.
The signing of the overtly discriminatory MHA
is confirmation of that fact.
The red-lining map used against people of color
in Seattle's past is strikingly similar
to the MHA upzone map being used today.
It is shameful and absolutely appalling
that racism in Seattle city government
is alive and well.
But times have changed.
During the red-lining, you had what we wanted --
access to housing.
Today, we have what you want -- housing.
The best way to mitigate displacement
is to keep us in our homes.
And so we reject your vision of an all-white Seattle
and your envision to encourage homeownership,
development on city-owned surplus property.
This is an insult.
Taking away our dignity and our right to live
and our own property in Seattle.
We also call out your community preference policy
as a lie that's told year after year
to those facing residential displacement,
inviting them back into the community
to accept the crumbs of whatever is left of housing.
Your executive order has many words,
but very little substance.
Thank you. -Thank you, Ms. Holland.
The next person signed up for public comment is David Ward.
-I wanted to say that I'm strongly opposed
to upzoning in the University District.
The additional upzones.
It's been the poorest of all the neighborhoods
in Seattle for a long time.
Heartland Report in 2012,
when it was working for the city,
looked at developing the University District.
And in that report,
developer from the U-District said that it would take
an income of 80k a year
to live in one of the high-rise apartments in the U-District.
That same report also said that 69% of the people
living in the U-District make under $50,000 a year,
so to live in an apartment there
would require $30,000 more
than 70% of the people in the U-District make.
And also with what has happened so far with MHA,
there has been more displacement of affordable housing
than there has been housing
that's going to be more affordable.
So if you take a 20-unit apartment building
that's affordable because it's very old,
which there is a lot in the U-District
and there is in what you're trying to upzone,
if you take a 20-unit apartment and get rid of it
and you build a 40-unit apartment
with three affordable units,
that's not an increase of three units,
that's a displacement of 17 units.
So please do not increase displacement in the U-District
and eliminate affordable housing
under the pretense of providing more affordable housing.
Thank you.
-Thank you. The next person who is signed up
is Rick McLaughlin,
and I'd also like to acknowledge that we've been joined
by Council Member Bagshaw and Council Member O'Brien.
Thank you for being here this morning.
-Good morning, Council. -Good morning.
-I've been working for the U-District
Small Business Association for a long time now.
I've been the president for four years.
Back in February 2017, I worked with you guys,
and we did a study,
and there was a resolution that was approved
that you guys said that you would work with us
and work us with on the seven different key points
in the resolution.
They have not been done yet.
The fact that you're bringing forward another upzone
in the U-District before even completing the resolution
is kind of sad.
Please work with us.
Don't just just try to push upzones
and then try to work with us afterwards.
Come to us, talk to us,
and fully support.
If it is about affordable housing,
fully support Lisa Herbold's one-for-one replacement program,
go after a historic, you know, historic avenue,
and go after every historic building that's there
for, you know, keeping affordable units.
I don't understand why this keeps coming up.
It gets us a little fired up.
But we want to work with you. We want make this happen.
I just don't understand why you would try to pass
another upzone in the U-District
when we are already going to grow so drastically.
I just don't see the need for it.
We are going to be paying into affordable housing
more than any other neighborhood.
And I just don't see how it is justified.
So please contact us, please work with us,
and support Lisa Herbold's one-for-one program.
Thank you.
-Okay. Our next speaker is Corey Crocker
followed by John Fox.
-I think Corey is missing here.
-Okay. Why don't you go ahead, John.
-Thank you. -And if Corey comes back...
-Sounds good. John Fox, Seattle Displacement Coalition.
In February of 2017, after an exhaustive
three- to four-year process,
the city approved massive changes in zoning
that cover nearly two-thirds of the U-District.
Areas containing over 1,000 low-rise,
low-income affordable apartments,
were rezoned for 240- to 320-foot towers.
No neighborhood was hit with such a significant change
in increased density.
The plan assumed the district would add
3,900 to 5,000 units by 2035.
But that plan zoned for a capacity
of over 10,000 units,
nearly double what we are expecting in growth
and targeted for the neighborhood by 2035.
And despite what developers were saying,
that the MHA requirement would discourage new construction,
there are now 27 new projects moving forward under MHA rules
that would add over 2,800 mostly expensive
and market-rate units in the neighborhood,
eight of those projects result in the loss,
the demolition of 110 units.
A number greater than the 88 MHA units required
of these projects.
Taken in this lights, and I know I echo
the sentiments of the community,
what in the heck are we doing
even considering still more upzones for our neighborhood,
when our neighborhood already has been zoned
and is facing uncontrolled and unmanaged growth.
And we have more than enough capacity to meet,
through 2035, our growth needs.
There are an existing 200 units of low-cost housing
along the Ave, and then another 500
existing low-cost units north of 52nd.
These are areas that now are planned for these new upzones.
And there are over 200 small business along the Ave
that are at risk of being displaced.
And I want to reiterate, and I'll close by saying,
meet your obligations under the resolution
committing first to addressing the needs of small businesses,
preventing the displacement, and helping us preserve
the historic buildings and the character of our community.
Let's move first in that regard,
then we can return to anything new.
Thank you. -Thank you.
Steve Rostello is our last speaker
signed up for today.
-We don't have a shortage of housing,
we have a shortage of affordable housing.
And MHA and all your actions are making it worse.
You're talking down right now, soon, up front,
the affordable housing,
and some day you will have housing
for people who make a lot more money
than the people who live there.
Maybe you should think about the people
who currently live in Seattle.
The maddest that Rob Johnson ever got at me
is when I pointed out that the Central Area
used to be 80% black,
and now we're looking at possibly 20%, 25%.
We'll see what the next census says.
And we can see rather easily
how you've been pushing people out of the city.
And it's not because of their color they were pushed out.
They were pushed out because of economic reasons.
You're doing the same thing through the entire city.
It doesn't matter how long you have lived here.
You're very welcoming to new people.
But I can tell you, to people of moderate income,
whatever their color, you are not very helpful.
It's harder for people of moderate and less income
to move than it is for rich people.
And you're doing a very good job of taking people
on the upper end of the scale and doing very good.
The people who are in the absolute bottom,
there are programs that have.
They don't take care of nearly enough,
and they wouldn't want to have discrimination
at that level for people who have lived in the city
all their lives because, you know, they may not be
quite as needy as someone who just came here.
And so therefore there's a war on the middle class,
the in-betweeners, you know,
not the bottom few percent, not the top few percent,
but those in the middle.
And there's a lot of people,
especially as we age out, as you would put it,
who are not going to have rising incomes.
-Thanks, Steve.
All right, that was the last person I have
on this sign-up sheet.
Jodi, is there anybody else signed up?
Okay, thank you so much.
We'll go ahead and close out
the period of public comment.
And we'll go ahead and begin
with the items of business on our agenda.
I would ask that the clerk read the first item
into the record,
and while she does so, I would invite those
who are here to present on that item
to please make their way up to the table.
-Agenda item 1 --
update on MHA implementation
in portions of the University District.
-Thank you, Jodi. All right.
So we now have our presenters at the table here.
And if you can please begin by introducing yourself
for the record, I would appreciate that.
-Aly Pennucci, Council Central Staff.
-Geoff Wentlandt, Office of Planning
and Community Development.
-Thank you for both being here this morning.
I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Aly.
I think you're going to kick us off on this conversation,
and then we will open it up for questions
and further discussion
once we make it through the presentation.
-Thank you. Good morning, Council members.
In February of 2017, the Council adopted ordinance 125267
that made zoning changes to increase height and floor area
and implemented MHA,
the Mandatory Housing Affordability program
in portions of the University District.
At that time, Council made a policy decision
to delay zoning changes along University Way Northeast,
also known or referred to as the Ave,
with an expectation that the proposal
would be revisited during discussions
of the city-wide MHA bill that was recently passed
by this council.
During the discussions of the city-wide bill,
staff determined that some of the proposed changes
in the U-District study area were potentially
not adequately covered by the environmental work
for that bill, and so that area,
the U-District study area was removed
from the city-wide proposal
and included in a separate bill,
which is Council Bill 119483.
Action on that bill is awaiting completion
of the environmental work that Geoff
from the Office of Planning and Community Development
will describe now.
-Thank you. Geoff.
-Okay, thank you, Aly.
So the update is that the Office of Planning
and Community Development is taking steps
to complete the environmental review
for potential MHA implementation of the U-District.
We looked at past environmental documents,
the EIS for the U-District
and the EIS for MHA city-wide,
and had a conference with the law department,
and looked at what the appropriate SEPA process was
for this action
and determined that the appropriate process
is a supplemental environmental impact statement.
And that process would supplement the U-District EIS.
And it provides an opportunity for public comment
at a couple of stages of the SEIS process.
The steps are very similar to a full EIS.
So on Thursday of this week,
OPCD will publish the notice and call for scoping.
And that will open a scoping period,
and members of the public are welcome to comment
on the scope of the EIS, what should be included.
There will be a scoping meeting on June 12th
here at City Hall in the evening.
Following scoping, the next step in the process
is to complete the analysis,
an issue, a draft, supplemental environmental impact statement.
We would expect that to be completed in late summer,
August, maybe early September time frame.
The public also has a chance to comment on that draft.
And the city responds to all the comments
that are received,
and follows that with a final environmental impact statement
that would occur in the fall, some time around October.
And following completion
of the final environmental impact statement,
Council can take action,
if it chooses to implement MHA in the U-District at that time.
So this will primarily focus in on the lands
that were removed from previous MHA implementation actions,
but it will technically be a study area
that is the same as the original 2015 U-District EIS.
Thank you.
-Any questions or comments, colleagues?
Council Member Herbold.
-Thank you.
Less about the process for moving forward in this scoping,
but more would love to hear, from OPCD's perspective,
how the city has fulfilled the commitments
in the resolution that accompanied
the University District MHA legislation back in 2017
and whether or not you agree with folks
that we heard from in public comment
that there's still some work to be done.
-I think we would agree there is still work to be done,
and we hope that we can do some of that work
as a part of this process.
We know the issues
of the potential commercial displacements
are really important,
and I think we can study them to a certain extent
as part of the EIS.
But we will also study them kind of in parallel
because they are not all kind of within impacts
to the bill or to natural environment.
Office of Economic Development has also done work
with Community,
and we hope that that will continue
in parallel with this process.
-I think it's worth noting that the companion resolution
that was adopted with the University District,
just like the companion resolution
that was adopted with the city-wide MHA,
represented additional work that the Council was asking
the executive to do and work with the community
that was both part of and in addition
to potential land use code changes.
So my recollection of that resolution
and Council's intent was not all of that work --
essentially that you've solved all of the challenges
any neighborhood is facing prior to following through
with implementing MHA in this area.
The idea was, in delaying that decision at that time,
was really focused on what are the right
development standards to try to include incentives
and opportunities to retain small,
locally owned businesses in new development,
retain historic buildings,
both that have already been designated
or that are potentially eligible.
And so the proposal in the U-District that was implemented
in some areas and would be applied on the Ave
includes opportunities for transfer of development rights
for historic buildings.
It also looks at adopting requirements
that new development include smaller commercial spaces
that are likely to be more affordable
to smaller businesses.
Whereas right now, I think, along the Ave in particular,
redevelopment can occur,
and it could occur up to 65 feet
without any of those requirements in place
or incentives, to sort of maintain those buildings.
So it is a little bit of a challenge
in terms of getting all the pieces to come together
at just the right moment.
But the land use proposal,
to the extent that land use code regulations
can address some of those concerns,
does have some of those pieces built into it.
-Thank you. It looks like -- I just pulled it up,
It looks like section five of the resolution
is speaking specifically to the Ave.
Perhaps we could get some additional information
about what we have done and what we are continuing to work on
as it relates to that section five, actions A through G.
-Sure. -Thanks.
-I think that's a great suggestion,
Council Member Herbold, and was going to offer it myself.
So I'm glad that you did it first.
So I think getting a written response
of a better sense of how the executive
has complied with or been responsive to
the sections in the resolutions that are applicable
to this particular body of work would be extremely helpful.
Council Member Juarez? -Thank you.
-First of all, Geoff, thank you. I had an opportunity
to read your May memo, your May 24th memo,
and on page 2, where you talk about
the SEIS content about the three alternatives.
One will be to consider zoning changes as proposed.
A second alternative to consider more intensive height.
Than the third is no action, no action alternative at all.
So let me ask you this --
Your last sentence is what I was more intrigued by.
"The SEIS will also add information
from the U-Dub campus master plan,
which was not complete at the time
of the 2015 U-District urban design alternatives EIS."
So my two questions are,
when did the plan come out and how do you foresee
OPCD responding to -- or how would that be helpful
in our analysis going forward?
-Thank you.
The way that that information will be used --
there was an environmental impact statement
on the U-Dub's campus master plan,
and so it has some good estimates
for growth in that area,
and growth in that area would affect
what we're studying in the area of this proposal.
That information wasn't available
when we did the U-District EIS,
and it also wasn't available for the MHA EIS.
So it is a lot about just updating
the background information
to have good information on things like traffic,
trip generation, demand for services
for the growth that's anticipated and projected
in that U-Dub study area
and incorporating that in this review.
So it's sort of updating the background information.
-Madame Chair, may I ask a follow-up?
-Of course.
-So will you be working with the University of Washington
and the folks that put together their campus master plan?
-I hope so, yeah.
-Oh, okay. -Yes. Let's make that a yes.
-Okay. Thank you.
-All right, any other questions or comments?
Council Member Pacheco.
-Aly, is it safe,
that this process will result in a slower process
for full consideration of the full MHA implementation
in the U-District than we had previously anticipated
when the Council removed this area?
by doing this process?
-So at the time that the Council removed the area,
it wasn't clear -- we weren't certain
which environmental review process would be required
because that requires sort of analyzing
what was studied previously and identifying
the correct procedural path.
I think, at the time, there was an assumption
that it was likely to be an addendum,
which could be issued
and doesn't have all of the steps involved
in a supplemental, nor is there an opportunity
for an administrative appeal.
So it will delay --
it will delay the time under which Council
can take action on the changes in the U-District.
-Okay. -Of course.
-And can you remind us of how many units will be lost
if MHA is not implemented in the U-District?
-That is an excellent question.
I don't have that number in my head,
but I can follow up after the meeting
with the analysis we did during the MHA discussions
on what that number is, unless you happen to have it
in front of you, if I did it previously,
but if not, I'll follow up to the full committee.
-Thank you.
-Okay, no other questions from my colleagues.
I don't see anybody else raising their hands
or waving me down,
so I'm gonna assume that there are no other questions.
Whoop. One last one.
Council Member Mosqueda.
-Thank you very much.
I apologize if you have commented on this.
But as we look at the memo
and we see in the second to the last paragraph here,
it says that the final EIS could be issued
approximately October 2019.
What assurances do we have that this date will not slip?
Ideally, I would love for us to be able to have
a concrete plan in hand by --
before the end of the year,
and late fall would be ideal.
So what assurances do we have that this date will not slip?
-We'd love to be able to give you assurances,
but I don't think that it would be possible
to give a specific date.
There are uncertainties related to the amount
of comments on the draft EIS,
technical issues that might complicate analysis,
and also whether or not there's appeal.
Those are things that, you know, are difficult to anticipate
and probably outside of our control,
so it would be hard to give a specific assurance.
There are also other priorities that the office and the city
has to fit this work in amongst,
so it would be difficult for us to give a specific hard date.
-Okay, Madame Chair, on the former,
the not knowing what external realities
may present themselves, I understand that answer.
On the latter, if this is a matter of staffing
or priorities or or resources,
I would expect this Council to get a far heads up
on what those restrictions are,
because as Council Member Pacheco
or Co-Chair Pacheco had just mentioned,
every month that we delay this process
is loss of housing.
And I would like for us to count these months
in terms of lost units versus actual days.
If there is any indication
that this somehow is going to be delayed
due to lack of resources or staff,
please give us a heads up and let us know.
I think if you can do the analysis and let us know
far in advance of the budget, that would be ideal
because, given where we are at,
the latter cannot be a factor in this situation
for us after budget,
given that we have budget coming up
and the opportunity to enhance resources there.
So please let us know as soon as possible
if that is the reality.
-Thank you. Will do.
-Okay. I would just conclude by saying that
maybe a little bit more forcefully
than Council Member Mosqueda just articulated,
but it would be my expectation
that this issue be resolved in full
by the end of this year,
and certainly before the end of the year
and before we go on recess for winter break.
So we will keep a close eye on the timelines,
and one of the things that I would like to see
is have this text turned into a little clearer of a timeline
in terms of what actions we can expect by when
so that this Council and the public has a better sense
of when we can expect work product
or when there might be decision points
in the coming months.
And so I would ask that that document be pulled together
so that we have a clearer sense
of exactly what those decision points
and associated timeline is going to be,
with the assumption that the final EIS
will be completed in approximately October of 2019,
I would again signal that it's my expectation,
as one of the co-chairs of this committee,
that that actually -- that date be met
and that there be an opportunity
for the City Council to consider
a legislative process and/or final package of legislation
before the council recesses for winter break,
which is some time in December.
So that would be my expectation as one of the co-chairs here,
and will stay close in contact with my colleagues
to make sure that we continue to stay on track
as it relates to this.
I really do feel that we have a sense of urgency
and a sense of priority on this Council
to ensure that the full suite of MHA opportunities
are dealt with before the end of the year.
Any other comments or questions?
All right, we will go ahead and close out this agenda item
and we will move into the second agenda item.
So we will go ahead and have the clerk read
the second agenda item into the record.
-Agenda item 2 -- Council Bill 119500,
an ordinance related to land use and zoning,
amending ordinance 125791
to correct map errors contained in map A
for 23.58b.050, section 94,
and map A for 23.58c.050, section 97,
and attachment 1 to ordinance 125791.
-Thank you, Jodi. Okay, Aly, take it away.
-Thank you.
Council Bill 119500 would correct mapping errors
that staff identified after adoption of ordinance 125791,
the legislation that implemented the MHA program city-wide
by amending the land use code
and amending the official land use map
to make zoning changes across the city.
These technical corrections are necessary
to correctly reflect the policy decisions
the Council made previously
and does not reflect any changes
in that previous policy direction.
Specifically, the bill amends Map A
for sections 23.58b.050 and 23.58c.050,
that those maps identify the MHA payment level
of high, medium, or low that is used
to determine fees that a project is required
to pay or the number of rent-
and income-restricted housing units
that a project is required to include.
When ordinance 125791 was adopted,
staff inadvertently incorporated
the incorrect versions of those maps
that identify the North Beacon Hill residential urban village
as a high area, that area has been medium.
There were no Council amendments or directions
to make changes to that map,
and so this corrects that.
And in addition, map A for 23.58c.050
was not updated to reflect the amended urban village boundaries
that were adopted by this Council.
So these really are just
essentially typographical errors.
In addition, the bill amends maps 8, 32, 33, and 37
that were included in attachment 1
to ordinance 125791.
Again, these are typographical errors
on the labels to those maps.
In some cases, the incorrect existing zoning designation
was listed or the wrong high, medium, or low MHA suffix,
so this is just correcting those errors.
So this is an opportunity for staff to have
their errors discussed publicly.
-[ Laughs ]
Well, sorry to put you through the paces, Aly,
but thank you so much for being gracious
and highlighting those errors
and giving us an opportunity to correct them.
Are there any questions or concerns
about the amendments to Council Bill 119500
before I open this up for public comment?
Okay, hearing none, we will,
as required by law,
open up the period of public hearing
on Council Bill 119500.
We have one person signed up for public comment
on Council Bill 119500.
Once again, when your name is called,
please come to either of the two podiums
to one of the microphones,
and you will have two minutes to address this specific item.
And as usual, before you begin your comments,
I'd ask that you state your name.
So the one individual who is signed up
for public comment is Steve Rostello.
-Only in fantasy land
do you talk about how this is improving.
Now the map changes that you have are upzones.
To you, they're minor things.
To the people who live in those areas,
I submit that it is probably not minor.
What we should be taking a look at
is the full impact of what is happening.
We're having a city where, if you believe
what you're saying,
is that we should have more and more and more
affordable housing.
I can tell you, out in the city,
we're seeing less and less and less affordable housing.
And these map changes will affect probably
a relatively small amount of people,
they will affect what is happening all over the city.
You probably keep saying that you're opposed to homelessness,
and maybe only 10% of the people that are displaced
will be homeless,
and if that's an acceptable number,
that's be fine for you.
But I think we need to take a look
at how many legacy and heritage trees we're losing.
Look at the cost.
And you never want to talk about
how many times the population of the city of Seattle
we're already zoned for.
Primarily what I see here is a movement
to make construction and development
very, very profitable for the most large.
The smaller developers don't seem to be on board
as much as the larger developers are.
And we continue not to count the displacement.
We count, as was pointed out earlier,
you have 20-unit apartment houses
that are affordable,
you replace with three subsidized units
somewhere, at some time,
and you call it an improvement.
-Thank you, Steve.
Okay. That was the one and only person signed up
for the public hearing,
so I will go ahead and close out
the public hearing on Council Bill 119500.
And we will go ahead and move through the rest
of the business on the agenda.
In order for this committee to vote
on a final recommendation to the full Council,
we first need to suspend the Council rule
relating to voting on legislation
on the same day a public hearing is held.
So with that, if there is no objection,
the Council will relating to final committee recommendations
on legislation on the same day a public hearing
is held is suspended.
Okay. Hearing no objection, the Council rule is suspended,
and we will now proceed with a vote on the underlying bill.
I move that the committee recommend passage
of Council Bill 119500.
-I second.
-Okay, the bill has been moved,
and there has been a second.
Are there any comments?
Seeing no comments, all those in favor
of the recommendation that the committee pass
Council Bill 119500 vote aye.
-Aye. -Aye.
-Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
The motion carries, and Council Bill 119500
will be forwarded to the June 3rd City Council meeting
for full Council action.
That is the last item on our agenda.
And with that, we are adjourned.
♪♪