Seattle City Council Briefing 31119

Good morning, everybody.

So, welcome to our regularly scheduled council briefing.

Today is Monday, March 11th, and the time is 9.35.

Council President Harrell is excused from today's council briefing and city council meeting.

In his absence, I'll be serving as president pro tem.

Council Member Theresa Mesquita is also excused today.

So with that, we're going to move right into our 2019 state legislative session updates, and I believe we have our folks here from OIR, Office of Intergovernmental Relations, and I will turn it over to them.

It looks like we have quite the Quite the agenda here.

Good morning.

Looks like you have, what, 31 pages and eight topics of a bunch of stuff.

We will try to condense our pages into a brief 20 minutes for you today.

Lily Wilson-Kodega, Office of Intergovernmental Relations.

Cheryl Schwab, OIR.

Karen Cargill, Director of State Relations.

Christina Postel-White, State Lobbyist.

And as you all know, we have currently passed two major hurdles through the legislative session, both the Policy Committee cutoffs and the Fiscal Committee cutoff dates.

We are driving quickly towards the fast-approaching Wednesday House of Origin cutoff, where legislation needs to leave the floor of the House that the bill was introduced in.

And we are working on many priorities that the council has in the areas of gun responsibility, housing and homelessness, education, environment, that we'll go into more depth about today.

But first, we did want to touch base with you about some logistics for our upcoming lobby day.

I believe we landed on The 21st, and for folks who are not able to make that date, we do have, AWC has a lobby day scheduled the next week, and we were thinking that could be a good avenue if folks have availability then but aren't able to make the 21st.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Karen Cargill to talk a little bit more about lobby day logistics and give a brief session overview.

So we are on day 57 of the 105-day session.

As Lily said, March 21st, we've reached out.

We try to pick the day that worked for the most folks.

I know that last year we had some challenges finding a day that worked for everyone.

So we were hoping that a little poll would help identify the best day for everyone.

So how that typically works is that we just ask you to kind of hold as much of the day as you're able to.

And we will work on scheduling meetings with legislators down there.

have you go with another council member and talk to legislators with one of our lobbyists or one of the OIR staff.

We will organize a lunch, and we will be in communication with your offices to coordinate transportation.

Oftentimes, we'll try and bring a larger vehicle down to help everyone get down there.

But everyone, of course, is welcome to drive independently if they so wish.

And we can help you know where to park and all of those things.

So if your office has any questions, I know we've been a little light in communication as cutoff has been rapidly approaching and keeping us quite busy.

But we will get all of that organized once cutoff happens and we kind of know what the realm of bills that we're working with and what the priorities should be when we go down and where we think that you will be most instrumental in helping push our agenda through this year.

So yes, 31 pages of our bulletin today.

So I'm going to dive right in.

On education, I'm going to highlight two bills.

There's the Child Care Higher Education.

So this is a bill that had some action last week.

It moved out of the House with a vote of 96. That's on page 1 and 2 at the bottom, House Bill 1303. And so for the Working Connections Child Care Program benefits, this would remove some of the folks that are pursuing that benefit, if they're enrolled in a technical and community college pursuing certain programs, that they would not have to have a work requirement in order to access this program, which is a really interesting concept that's being explored right now.

And an additional one that I wanted to highlight for you, this was passed on February 27th out of the Senate on page three.

This is Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5395, and that's the Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Bill.

And that makes it a requirement for some comprehensive sexual education to be brought into the curriculum.

We're first looking, I think it's through six through 12 in the first half, and then looking for some younger years.

and what they can incorporate.

OSPI also is going to be having some responsibilities of putting together a list of what some of those resources might be that can be used by the schools.

There's still quite a bit of uncertainty about what's going to go on with the levies.

All of those, the school levies, a lot of those are NTIB.

I listed all the different proposals that are out there.

They're on here.

I can give you the list of bills if you want them, but they're kind of scattered about.

List within the education section, but they're kind of scattered around so there's 1547 53 1 3 and again all these bills are in numerical order so you can kind of find them in that way 53 1 6 and 54 66 All of these bills are considered NTIB so they don't show progress at this stage, but that doesn't mean mean that they're necessarily dead at this point.

So we're watching that closely and we'll keep you guys informed about what the legislature is considering for working with this with these levy issues.

Council Member Johnson.

Karen is it fair to say that you anticipate that as part of the final negotiations on the budget that some fix will come into place for school districts and per pupil assignment?

I think it's possible.

I think that the school districts have been really clear that they've had some challenges with their budgets.

The governor came out with a proposal that this was going to be a priority for him.

Superintendent Chris Reykdal, this was a priority for him as well.

So I think that we're hitting all the right pressure points.

And a lot of this is, again, it's expanding local levy authority.

It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to, state dollars are coming with it.

So that focus can be on the special education component that's also being considered.

Just a reminder for our colleagues that just a couple of weeks ago, the school district announced a $40 million shortfall for the next proposed school year and is planning to take action to close that gap.

So unless we get a fix out of Olympia, we're going to see additional cuts at all of our local public schools in the 2019-2020 school year.

So I'm hopeful that the legislature can create this fix for us, Karen, and thanks for the work.

I mean, Council Member Johnson, you mean 40 million for the Seattle City School District?

Correct, just for Seattle Public School Districts.

Is it operating?

It is our operating funds, yes.

So again, with the per pupil levy cap that was set as part of the McCleary fix, we need those caps to raise in order for us to be able to raise enough revenue to keep schools open and operating as they are today.

We certainly also need fixes for the students with disabilities numbers and a whole lot of other things that I think are also in the list.

But I think that that issue, the cap issue, is the one that is the most prevalent to the folks that I talk to at the district.

But the chair of the committee may have something to add.

Councillor Gonzales?

That's OK.

Just a gentle reminder.

Thank you.

I'm going to move on to the environment section.

It starts on page four, but I'm going to jump right to page six to highlight two bills on there.

On the top of page six, that's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 577, and that's the single-use plastic straw bill.

I know that the city has done quite a bit on this, and so they're working on a statewide effort that would make it You'd have to request a straw.

They can't just offer you a straw.

The local ordinances that we have in place have been preserved.

SPU has been very, very involved in the conversation with this.

And a special shout out to Sago Jackson, who's really great with a lot of our recycling programs and the waste take back and whatnot.

But on March 4th, that was voted out of the Senate with a vote of 27 to 21. So we're really excited to see that one move.

Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead.

No, that's quite all right.

So when you referenced establishments having to offer or to provide a straw when asked, you're speaking specifically of the plastic straws.

Correct.

So otherwise, and it's tailored to folks who have a disability that would lead them to prefer the use of a plastic straw.

There is still, the legislation would still, with that exception, have a ban in place, correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And I just want to give deference to Councilmember O'Brien, although the straw ban went into effect under my leadership under SPU.

It was really Councilmember O'Brien's leadership 10 years ago, I think.

Yeah, not quite, but I believe the straw ban went into effect back when I was joining the committee.

The exemption went out of effect under your watch.

That's what happened, so anyway.

That's my recollection.

So all of your hard work is being preserved.

So anything that was in place at the time that the effective day goes into place will be preserved.

And then I know the 100% clean energy bill, that is a huge topic in Olympia still.

That's kind of middle of page six.

In gross second, substitute Senate Bill 5116. It did move out of the Senate on March 1st.

It had a public hearing in the House Committee and we're expecting executive session sometime this week.

So we are continuing to monitor that one closely and just a really big conversation point still.

And I'm not going to get into details because I have to.

Yeah.

The House and Senate bills different or are they?

So the House bill is no longer moving.

The Senate bill is the only vehicle.

And deadlines on that one is that?

So since it already moved out of its house of origin, now it's in the opposite house.

It's well ahead of its deadlines.

But just kind of within the same conversation, I haven't actually had a chance to go through it very closely, but Senator Carlisle did drop a new bill, Senate Bill 5981. That's on page eight, which is a cap and trade program, a greenhouse gas cap and trade.

So nothing's been scheduled for that, but I did just want to highlight that that is something that is being

So when something's been dropped now, a new bill now, how does that work?

Because we've already gone through 50 days of changing houses.

It can mean a lot of different things.

It might mean that they want to incorporate this into a conversation with some other legislation.

If it is deemed necessary to implement the budget, it could still receive a public hearing and move through the process.

But a lot of times it's often introduced in order to meet the request of a certain group that has been working on something that may not have had the ability to get something through right away, and just want to have it as part of the larger conversation, especially with a lot of these.

I mean, I know that some of the transportation packages are discussing a carbon fee and then with 100%, and so allowing them all to kind of exist together.

I would imagine part of the objective is just to get something in the conversation so that as we're finalizing the bills that it can be incorporated.

I wouldn't, I'm not gonna say that specifically for this one, but a lot of times that is the goal, yes.

And so that's all I'm going to highlight for environment.

And moving on to general government, I actually just want to highlight one particular bill on page 10, and that's the wrongful injury and wrongful death bill.

And that's substitute Senate Bill 5163. This has moved out of the Senate at this point.

That moved out on March 6 with a vote of 30 to 17. We are expecting there is a House version, which has not moved out of the House floor, but we are anticipating it moving by cutoff on the 13th.

I know it's made quite a bit of progress.

It got caught up last year.

So this is quite the advancement that it's made this year.

So we're watching it closely.

Just a quick question, and I've really not been engaged in this, but I got something on Friday where there was concern about the additional liabilities for cities.

Do you want to discuss that more?

I know that AWC has voiced some concern about what the potential liabilities would be.

I believe that the city's position has been that they think that's still the right thing to do, regardless of what the additional liability is.

So our position remains that we're supportive of this concept.

But other cities do have some concerns, but they will not, though they are opposed, they will not be weighing in on the bill actively at this point.

That's great news.

I appreciate hearing the update because I know that you all sent out a message about this particular bill.

I feel very strongly about supporting this particular bill and I'm strongly opposed to the Association of Washington City's position on this one but appreciate the fact that they are going to stand down given the fact that we continue to be a member of that organization and so really appreciate that but to me this is This is a bill that has been in desperate need of correction almost since its inception, and as a former trial lawyer who represented people who were injured in terrible, terrible situations as a result of potential government liability, not being able to represent and find justice for individuals who, for example, are unmarried or for siblings, et cetera, is one of the most difficult conversations I've ever had to have with families who have a clear claim, but for their relationship to the decedent or the severely injured.

And so I really appreciate the ongoing work of the trial lawyers and others to continue to correct this wrong.

Thank you.

Great.

Moving on to health care, I want to highlight just a couple big wins that we experienced this last week.

It's always fun to see hard work pass off of the floor.

So we want to make sure you're aware of these ones.

First of all, I want to touch base on it's the top of page 13. 1513 or 5444, that's the governor requested true blood case settlement agreement.

The House version is still within rules on the House Rules Committee.

The Senate version was adopted and passed unanimously off the Senate floor on March 7th.

We're very excited about the progress that's being made there.

I also want to touch base on immunizations.

So in the middle of page 13, House Bill 1638, this would repeal the personal belief exemptions from the MMR vaccine.

This bill passed off the House floor late at night on March 5th with a vote of 57 to 40. Very excited about that.

There have been a lot of people on both sides of that issue, and we're excited to see that this was approved off of the House floor.

And what was interesting, too, about this is that when this was first brought up for debate, there were a lot of amendments that were initially attached to them.

42 were proposed to this bill.

And then they were whittled down, so 33 of the 42 were withdrawn quickly.

Another three were withdrawn during debate because they're out of the scope of the bill.

And six amendments were adopted that I think strengthened the overall language of the legislation.

And then, let's see.

under housing and homelessness.

I wanted to highlight a couple things here as well.

So the top of page 19, trying to remember my page numbers this time.

The top of page 19, that's the local option bond bill.

We continue to track very, very carefully.

This is the Senate version, does not appear to be the vehicle moving forward this year.

However, the House continues to have great momentum.

It passed out of the House with strong bipartisan support.

on March 5th, 66 to 32 and it's referred to the Senate Housing Stability and Affordability Committee where we're still working very closely with a large group of stakeholders who are supportive of this bill.

Yes.

And then I also wanted to share another one that we're very excited about passing on the House floor.

So further down that page, 5946, the SEPA shelters and encampments bill.

Senator Nguyen has really been a champion for us on this bill, and it passed off the Senate floor with bipartisan support.

It was frankly, it was great to see some of the support on this from people we haven't typically seen weigh in on a lot of our housing bills.

So we're excited about that.

It now heads over to the House.

And we continue to see a lot of support from stakeholders within the Seattle and housing community in general.

And also good news on ESSB 5600 on eviction reform?

Yeah, so that passed out of the Senate on March 9th.

Very excited about that.

This is, it's on page, bottom of page 18.

Councilmember Herbold.

Eviction reform bill that extends a three-day notice to pay or vacate to 14 days and even I think in some ways more importantly allows judges to exercise discretion in a court, which they have done right now when it comes to non-payment of rent.

And a real game-changer.

I just wanted to add I believe Councilmember Swann and Councilmember Herbold the language that you had flagged for us as a concern is incorporated into the representative Macri proposal.

It is.

Thank you for all of your advocacy on this.

For the Macri?

It's incorporated into the non-payment of rent bill?

No, sorry the eviction reform.

Yes, yeah.

Yeah, so we should probably talk a little bit more offline.

Okay.

house version of sorry that for and just so you do know that 1453 which I believe is what you're referring to it did pass out of the house with the 5444 vote on the fifth I'm happy to follow up with you on that as well a question on housing accessory dwelling units we have a way to step We have a chart that we can send out to all of you that shows the kind of different proposals, the initial Palumbo proposal.

Representative Peterson is working on a different version for the House.

We're working on those right now.

We can get that over to you so you can see the differences between the two bills.

Is Gregersen's one not?

It's working off of Gregersen's, yeah.

And it shows SDCI's response.

Yeah.

Great, good to see all those.

Yeah, we'll make sure you get those.

Thank you.

So just to clarify, the chart that I got does not seem to evaluate Representative Gregersen's It's looking at comparing the SSB 5812 striker with Peterson's proposal.

So I just want to be really clear that we're not, at least the chart that I've seen, does not purport to build on or analyze Representative Gregersen's bill.

It's an amendment on, Peterson's amendment is on Gregersen's bill.

Which is the companion.

So it's the current versions of the bills that are being discussed.

I think the chart is a little unclear.

I have it in front of me So I think it would be helpful to get a better understanding of what what this actually is So I appreciate receiving the chart at the beginning of this morning's briefing, but I think you know as we continue to evaluate this particular suite of bills in this space and it's becoming increasingly increasingly confusing in terms of who's proposing what and what the different components are and what the amendments are purporting to do and what's striking what.

So it would be really helpful to get a clear understanding of that.

I think Council Member Musqueda and I both have an interest in responding to some inquiries that we have received from folks in the state legislature, both on the House side and on the Senate side, and really want to be thoughtful about how we respond to some of those concerns and And I'm not gonna pretend that there probably isn't, I mean, there probably will be some conflicting positions within the city family on this particular set of bills.

But before we put that out there, I'd appreciate an opportunity to get a more robust understanding of the substantive differences.

And I know that it seems that the biggest issue is around preemption.

of our ability to advance some land use policies in this space.

You know, I'm interested in exploring whether there is a legitimate, reasonable, prudent reason to have a small window of preemption in this particular space.

And I'm interested in sort of getting more information before taking an official position in that regard.

Do you want to talk about this?

Can we just do some follow-up comments here?

Not at this moment, I won't.

For the record, so first of all, thank you.

And I know we just got this chart.

Just because a lot of people don't have the chart in front of them, and some of the viewing public probably would like just a little bit of background.

This started with a letter to the state legislature with many elected sign-in, including some city council members in Dow Constantine.

And then representative Paulette responded, and then we responded back.

So I'm hoping we'll get the chart, and we'll have a better sense of, And this has got regarding ADUs, accessory dwelling units, the Senate substitute versus version looking at asset that Peterson, I would be representing Peterson's his substitute and then the review by SDCI.

And so hopefully we'll have a more deeper discussion when we all have this chart and then you can incorporate Councilmember Gonzalez's concerns.

because it's a lot of paper flying back and forth and we've all gotten phone calls on preemption and the memos and emails.

So this may not be the time right now.

I'd like to wait for my colleagues to all have an opportunity to look at this.

I'm sorry, you mentioned that there was a, that we responded, who's the we?

I'm looking at with council member, I'm sorry, I'm looking at what the email that we received, the council member Ms.

Skater responded yesterday.

Oh, I think that was just an internal email.

So we haven't, the city hasn't formally responded to Representative Paulette's letter.

I apologize if I, what I meant to say is that Council Member Mosqueda responded yesterday to us.

However, our team here is aware of this as well.

So I just want to make sure that we all have the same information in front of us with the letter that originally went out.

And I don't have the date of that letter.

I just have the dates backed from Representative Paulette.

But in any event, I'd like it to where everybody has everything and then we can have a discussion so everyone's on the same page.

So thank you.

Let's move on.

Madam Chair, if I may just briefly.

I just want to offer support for my colleague Councilmember Gonzalez who articulated her interest in a possible review of some areas where preemption might be okay with the City Council.

There are a lot of elements of this bill where there is a suggested preemption of local land uses authority.

I think that some of those are warranted for us to discuss.

So I too look forward to seeing if there's an opportunity for us to have a unified position.

I know that Representative Paulette's letter asked some very big questions of us, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for us to express also that there's been some frustration about the legal process that we've gone through just to permit more accessory dwelling units in the city.

And I think it's fair for us to ask some of those questions and get some responses from OIR and SDCI, and ideally use that to formulate what could be a final position that is more easily able to be articulated by our government relations friends here at the table to our colleagues in Olympia.

Absolutely.

So let's move on.

And I'm sorry, just really quickly before we move on, and I think that again, the city has historically taken pretty clear line on preemption, but I think that it's important for us to not be so stringent on that particular principle in an area like this where we have seen an incredible amount of resistance to change in this space and feel like it's really important for us to perhaps take a little bit more of a scalpel approach if at all possible in order to facilitate a strategy that could provide us, at a minimum, a floor of what we minimally must do in this space or can do in this space, as opposed to conceding to field preemption, which would preclude us from doing anything that would ever conflict with the state law.

So I do think that there is an opportunity for us to find some nuance here in a way that really meets the call for identifying concrete solutions that are going to help us address the affordability issues as a region, as opposed to Seattle going it alone once again.

And so I really want to challenge us to think about how this is different and can be different by providing us a floor around that preemption space, but also by making sure that we acknowledge that our housing crisis issues are regional.

And because of that, we need the state to step in and provide us at least a minimum of density requirements across the state that allow the city of Seattle to move forward on ADUs and other housing strategies.

And I feel like this is an important I think it's important that we have a unique circumstance that might allow us to make those arguments in a way that is reasonable and in a manner that doesn't set a precedent that Seattle is categorically okay with preemption at any given point in time.

I'm going to go ahead and start in on the public safety portion of our bulletin today.

We've seen just incredible movement around many gun responsibility, victim rights and protections issues with many bipartisan and several unanimous votes off the House floor.

So I'm going to review some of those specifically starting at the bottom of page 19. Substitute House Bill 1002, sponsored by Representative Orwal, would eliminate the requirement that a victim clearly express lack of consent in order to prove rape in the third degree.

That is one that passed the House unanimously and is currently scheduled for executive session in Senate Law and Justice on March 14th.

Sorry, can you tell me what does it say exactly?

Does it say you don't have to have done that at all?

Because oftentimes I think in a situation like that, the victim may not be able to verbally express lack of consent.

This would eliminate the evidentiary requirement that a victim clearly expresses that by words or conduct in order to prove rape in the third degree.

It illuminates.

Yes, correct.

Also on the bottom of page 19, substitute House Bill 1010. Representative Senn's proposal to provide the Washington State Patrol more flexibility to destroy legal firearms passed out of House Civil Rights and Judiciary on January 18th and is currently on the second reading calendar.

substitute House Bill 1068 on the bottom of page 20, the High Capacity Magazine ban bill sponsored by Representative Valdez, also made both cutoff deadlines and is currently in rules.

In the middle of page 21, Representative Jenkins' proposal that would require law enforcement officers secure firearms when responding to domestic violence calls passed the House 60 to 38 on March 5th and has been referred to Senate Law and Justice.

And then on the bottom of page 22, A proposal to ban undetectable 3D printed guns, sometimes referred to as ghost guns, also sponsored by Representative Valdez, passed the House 55 to 41 on March 4th and has been referred to Senate Law and Justice.

And then finally, in the gun responsibility area, Senator Palumbo's proposal, substitute Senate Bill 5174 on the bottom of page 24, would put training requirements in place for a concealed pistol license, and that also survived two rounds of the committee cutoffs and is also in rules.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

President Pro Tem, not Chair.

My apologies.

You can just say Debra.

Madam President Pro Tem.

Madam Debra.

Question about House Bill 1016, the sexual assault notice.

I like the first part of the bill requiring hospitals that do not provide sexual assault evidence kit collection or have appropriate providers available to develop a plan by 2020, but then there appears to be a pretty big out for those hospitals that do not develop a plan.

And I just want to, the out is that they have to, within two hours, Do something.

And as I read bullet number two, it reads like they're just talking about referring the person to another place.

Is that, am I reading that correctly?

Coordinate care with a local community sexual assault agency and assist the patient in finding a facility with an appropriate provider available?

And so that they can have the test completed.

And that, to our requirement, is also enforced and punishable by a civil penalty of $2,000.

But why wouldn't we just require all hospitals to make the kits available?

Why would we allow hospitals to re-traumatize somebody who's already in trauma by re-referring them to another facility?

I'd have to follow up on with some of the victim advocates about why that specific language was important to them.

But I do think there was sensitivity around the work group that was established around making recommendations that ensured that if hospitals are not currently equipped, that there are protections in place to make sure that folks are getting the resources that they need if they are not within that hospital system.

And I think they may be leading towards a stronger requirement.

have a requirement for all their hospitals, emergency rooms to have rape kits.

That makes sense.

It does make sense, right?

But yeah, I would like to know more about how we landed on this as a solution.

Absolutely.

And then I'm going to focus next on protections for victims, protections for victims of sexual assault beginning in the middle of page 20, House Bill 1016, or we just reviewed the Representative Caldier proposal.

Also in the middle of page 20, House Bill 1055, sponsored by Representative Entenmann, would authorize a warrantless arrest when someone violates a no-contact order issued in a prostitution or trafficking case.

That passed the House unanimously and is scheduled for executive session in Senate Law and Justice on March 14th.

Then on the top of page 21, substitute House Bill 1166, sponsored by Representative Orwal, would address our state's backlog of untested sexual assault kits.

And this is incredible, just given it is not without a significant fiscal note.

But the bill passed the House unanimously on March 6 and has been referred to Senate Law and Justice.

So congratulations to many of you who have done a lot of work in that area.

Lily, may I ask you a question on this one?

Absolutely.

What is the identified revenue source to the extent it has been identified?

I know that you had expressed concerns around that not negatively impacting victims, and that is not currently in place.

I think it's just they're looking at general fund resources for that $14 million.

Yeah, I mean, I obviously believe in the importance of making sure that the backlog of the that exists across the state that that backlog is addressed.

I also want to make sure that whatever the funding source is, is not going to be punitive towards victims who might be more disproportionately impacted by gender-based violence.

So in the past, there have been proposals around taxing the entertainment industries for this particular revenue source and I would continue to object to that type of a revenue proposal.

And I believe those concerns were heard loud and clear and that disconnect was remedied by not actually taxing people who are injured by this and looking for other alternative revenue sources.

Thank you.

And lastly, I wanted to flag two bills that I know Councilmember Herbold has worked closely on, two representative Pellicciati proposals.

On the bottom of page 21, House Bill 1382 would grant immunity from prostitution charges to those seeking emergency medical assistance, and that is currently in rules, along with Substitute House Bill 1383 on the top of page 22 that would change the second conviction of patronizing a prostitute from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, and that passed the House unanimously on March 6th.

And lastly, under Civil Rights and Safety Net, I'll touch on a few pieces of legislation including Substitute House Bill 1713 in the middle of page 22 that would require WSB developed best practices for an improved law enforcement response to missing and murdered indigenous women, as well as established liaison positions within the agency to build relationships between government and Native communities that is currently in rules.

Oh, excuse me.

And that bill actually passed the House 98 to 0, so unanimously, and will be heard in state, Senate, government, and tribal relations on March 15th, so congratulations.

A bill that would restore voting rights for those in community custody, substitute Senate Bill 5076, is on the second reading calendar, and legislation that would eliminate the death penalty continues to move along on the top of page 27, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 5339 sponsored by Senator Carlisle passed the Senate 28 to 19 on Councilmember Bagshaw's birthday and has been referred to House Public Safety.

And with that, we'll go ahead and move into the transportation section.

Actually, before you do that, I have a question about the public safety area stuff.

So House Bill 1282, driver's license suspensions.

This is at the bottom of page 21. It looks like it's being sponsored by Representative Reeves.

Can you talk a little bit more about the categories of those licenses that would not be subject to administrative reinstatement?

So there are suspended under Article, is that four?

I'm terrible with Roman numerals.

Okay, so article four of the non-resident violator compact.

I don't like that's just a bunch of gibberish to me.

What does that mean?

Absolutely.

I'll try and demystify the gibberish.

So this bill would essentially decriminalize the failure to respond to a non-criminal traffic infraction.

that requires the payment of associated penalties or DWS3 as it currently is, which is right now a misdemeanor charge.

That would eliminate it as cause to suspend someone's license and it would create a new DWL or driving while license suspended for which would instead change that to a traffic infraction if the person has resolved the underlying issue but isn't able to reinstate their license due to unpaid fines.

So it's kind of decoupling that from decriminalizing.

So this is a further effort around addressing the legal financial obligations components of the regressive nature of our system?

Exactly.

I want to thank you and thank you Council Member for flagging that because that was something I had flagged too.

With the driver license suspended in the first and second and third degree and the costs keep going up and not just court costs but fees, most people end up getting their license taken away.

It has nothing to do with the fact that they haven't done everything the court has asked them to do, it's just that they haven't paid those fees.

And so they have to continue to drive to get to work and then we saw how it's a I'm glad to see this is finally being taken care of.

Thank you.

I think it's worth flagging to our John shock and our city attorney's office has been instrumental in this and has been working very, very closely with Rebecca, one of our contract lobbyists down there on this and have pushed it for years.

So we're, we're very thrilled to see it continuing to move at this point.

Thank you.

Keep flagging that for you.

So very quickly on transportation, we continue to work with the AWC who's been super helpful on the scooter issue.

Also working with the industry to see if we can come to some agreement.

Not sure exactly how that's going to turn out.

I'm sorry.

I'm on page 30 at the bottom.

They're sort of halfway down Motorized foot scooters, but I'm actually going to turn it over to Christina to talk to you about automated traffic enforcement Unless there are questions about unless you want to talk about scooters.

No, but I I'm I'm channeling councilmember mosquito at this point Thank you for the work on this because I know something important to her and I think you've you've thread threaded the needle nicely Thank you

So moving to the top of our last page, page 31, we wanted to give you a brief update about the automated enforcement that blocked the box legislation, which has now officially moved further than it has in its history.

So we're counting that as a win.

We're knocking on wood that it continues to move forward as well.

When it came out of the fiscal cutoff, one of the changes that was made was to make sure that it was Seattle only, that the first citation was a warning.

And then I'm, yeah, I think those were the two that were the main ones.

And so we're just awaiting it being heard on the House floor right now.

We continue to work with our stakeholders to make sure that we're connecting with the right legislators to express the importance of this.

As you can probably tell based on the way it's written that the House vehicle is the primary vehicle for this legislation.

So we will continue to track and we'll let you know.

Hopefully we'll have some news sometime soon on this one.

Maybe youíre being more vague than on some of the other ones, but you said itís gone further than it ever has before.

Whatís the likelihood of this passing at this point?

You know, it's still quite a heavy lift.

There's still quite a bit of opposition out there around this one.

This is right up there with any time someone's done a red light camera bill.

But, you know, I think by narrowing it, we've got a little bit of a better shot.

But it's really just going to come down to continuing to work with our stakeholders and communicating with legislators why this is important to us.

I know there are a lot of other cities who are eager to have this in place within their own jurisdictions, so that's very helpful.

It's always helpful to have cities other than us helping, yeah.

So we're continuing to work really hard on this.

We've put a lot of good work in, and SDOT has been incredibly helpful with this legislation.

So we'll keep you posted, and hopefully the next update, well, maybe it's gone even further than this.

I also...

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead.

No, go ahead.

Then Councillor Herbold.

As relates to that bill, are any of the concerns being expressed related to the use of the revenue?

That was an issue that I know we had discussed.

I had discussed with OIR during our budget and I'm wondering to the extent that Those might be concerns that we're using the revenue for general fund purposes instead of purposes specifically associated with pedestrian, bike, traffic safety.

We could maybe tie our hands if that would help.

That's not currently the issue to my knowledge.

It's not that was an issue on the Senate version but on the House version we haven't really defined what where the revenue would go.

That's helpful.

That's very helpful for us yeah I we haven't we haven't kind of begun that conversation we're just trying to get this on the right track right now.

The flexibility has been very helpful, as many of you have thought through this policy creatively with our team.

I also just wanted to add Chief Best, through many weekends, has made herself available to do legislator outreach on this to talk about some of the public safety implications and why this is important to the city.

So I just wanted to acknowledge the incredible work that Chief Best and SPD have also done to move this forward.

Are you done?

Okay.

Councilmember Johnson has a question.

Just if I may, I want to highlight two quick things for my colleagues.

It appears that the MVET collection bill, which we've talked about a lot, is not moving forward.

Although, you know, anything could always move forward, could be designated as NTIB at any minute.

But that was the bill that would have cut about $7 billion worth of funding out of the Sound Transit 3 program.

So fingers crossed that that continues to be stuck.

And just again, because I know many of my colleagues will be going down next week, there is still a bill being discussed in Olympia that would raise a whole lot of transportation revenue.

It raises a lot of flexible transportation revenue, flexible meaning it is not required to be spent on roads, but it spends a lot of that flexible revenue on roads.

So as you're thinking about talking points to connect with your colleagues in Olympia, making sure that flexible transportation money goes towards flexible transportation projects would be a good and welcome thing for us as a city.

Because right now we're spending a whole lot of carbon tax fee money on a whole lot of roads that are going to result in a lot more carbon.

So those have consistently been positions that we've taken as a city.

I would encourage my colleagues to make those points when they meet with legislators next week.

Anyone else?

All right.

Thank you so much.

So we will go around the table, and then I understand that we have a presentation from the Seattle Design Commission.

So I'm just going to start.

First, let me read the notes from Council President Harrell's office.

As you know, he's excused today.

It turns out that.

Number one, as part of the rotation of the three co-chairs, Council Member Bagshaw, Council Member Mosqueda, and Council Member Sawant, for the Select Committee on Homelessness and Housing and Affordability.

Council Member Sawant will chair the next Select Committee on Homelessness.

Do we have an agenda yet?

Okay, let me finish, please.

We'll be tomorrow, March 12th at 2 o'clock.

Council Member Sawant, I believe Council Member Bagshaw asked you a question.

Okay, so yeah, can I get through this and then you can do that?

Thank you.

Let me quickly go over what the Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee has.

We have seven items on today's agenda.

The reappointment of Robert Nellums as Director of Seattle Center.

We have an ordinance allowing the utilization of $2.4 million in inflation adjustment dollars in the development category of the parks and green space levy from 2008. It's basically an inflation contingency that we're shifting money over to to take care of.

We have an ordinance accepting the gift from the Parks Foundation of a timber pavilion in Occidental Park.

And we have four appointments to the Seattle Center Advisory Commission, Daniel, Tam, Claiborne, Jana, Lamon, Elaine, Federa, and Raquel Russell.

They're all wonderful folks, and I'm excited to get their appointments approved.

And our next meeting for the Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee will meet on Wednesday, March 20th at 2 o'clock.

And I think that's it.

So we will just go around the table.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Juarez.

Good morning, everyone.

There are no items on today's full council agenda from the Human Services, Equitable Development, and Renters' Rights Committee.

The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for a special time, Saturday, March 16th at 1 p.m.

at the New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, which is at 124 21st Avenue in the Central District.

At that meeting, we will discuss equitable development in a Central District apartment building called the Chateau, which I talked about last week.

Office of Housing and the Department of Construction Inspection of the City of Seattle will be joining us for the committee meeting along with the residents, which we really appreciate.

That committee meeting will also include another agenda point, which is the legally required retroactive public hearing on the emergency legislation to establish an emergency moratorium on the mobile home parks in Seattle.

This was a legislation that council members will remember to make sure to preserve the Halcyon mobile homes, which are affordable housing for seniors and the disabled community members.

And this is a legally required hearing, which is on a legislation that has already been enacted into law.

We will also be holding the next meeting of the Select Committee on Homelessness this week, Tuesday the 12th at 2 p.m.

here in Council Chambers, which is the usual slot for the Equitable Development and Renter Sites Committee, but since that meeting is being held on Saturday, we can hold a Select Committee at this time, which is Tuesday at 2 p.m.

And I believe my staff have sent out the agenda.

We have two agenda items, one to discuss the immediate future of share and wheel shelters after June, and then the impact of rents and evictions on homelessness.

And we will be joined by Dr. Tim Thomas, who is a researcher at the University of Washington who's been doing research on King County and statewide data on evictions.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

So I have no items on today's full council agenda, although I do have an amendment that I'm going to hold talking about until Council Member O'Brien speaks because it's related to his legislation.

I have a light committee meeting this week, Tuesday.

The Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee will be meeting at its regular time.

I have reappointments on the agenda for the LGBTQ Commission.

And we are also going to hear from central staff presentation of a draft version of a council bill on closed captioning in public accommodations.

This is a bill that was brought to me as an idea from a People with Disabilities Commission member.

And again, it's in draft version at this point.

It has not yet been introduced.

I'm really excited about it.

It extends the work that the council has done here at City Hall on closed captioning.

And though it's been in play for a little while, the Seattle Channel has asked me to mention that they have added real-time closed captioning to the Seattle City Council meetings streamed live on Seattle Channel's website.

So we've had it on television, but they've just recently added it to the streaming online as well.

Events coming up this week, Sound Transit will be having a Delridge-specific workshop at the Youngstown Cultural Center from 6.30 to 8.30.

This is a meeting that Councilmember Joe McDermott, King County Councilmember Joe McDermott and I requested of Sound Transit to do a bit of a deeper dive on the potential impacts of proposed alignments on Delridge.

On Thursday, there will be a Families and Ed Levy Implementation Meeting, also in District 1, also at Youngstown.

Lots of Youngstown love this week.

And then on Sunday, March 17th at City Hall, we will be having our third annual, now, NORUs celebration.

And we will be circulating a proclamation later this week.

That's it.

Thank you.

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

There are two items on this afternoon's agenda from the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

One is a council bill that would grant a 10-year permit for University of Washington to operate a pedestrian tunnel.

This, we discussed last week, is between the parking garage at the Triangle and between Montlake and Pacific in the campus, and it connects that parking garage to the hospital.

And it's been in place, the tunnel's been there for a little over 30 years, and so we would renew that and extend it for another 10 years, and then they could redo it for two more 10-year terms after that.

The other piece of legislation is lifting a proviso on the Delridge Multimodal Corridor Project.

This was a proviso we put in place last year during the budget.

to ensure that there was significant community outreach as it went through the various design levels.

They're at about 30% design right now.

They've done some really good work with community members and committee.

We heard a lot, or we heard some from community members who were pleased with the feedback that ASTAD has taken at this point.

And so this legislation would lift the proviso so they can continue to do the design work to the next level.

and we expect to get future reports back.

That said, Council Member Herbold has been working closely on this and has an amendment too.

Yeah, as a result of feedback that we received from community members both in the Transportation Committee itself and a subsequent meeting I had with the West Seattle Bike Connections Group, we added just a little bit more specificity.

We worked with SDOT and it just relates to the expectations that the City Council has before appropriating the next set of funding, and we will be doing that during the 2020 budget process.

And so the items that folks wanted queued up relate specifically to several items that SDOT said that they would be doing during the 60% design process, as well as some additionally identified items.

I could go through them, or you could read them together.

They're on your own there.

Just generally speaking, there are issues related to bike safety in the area, traffic calming for both bikes and pedestrians, as well as some expectations about agreements with Seattle Public Utilities and SDOT.

because there are some needs for capital improvements for Seattle Public Utilities as well.

Council Member Herbold, is this, it says version two, is this different than the one you gave me Friday?

It is.

Okay.

So this is a new and improved.

Yes, I would like to think so.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just one quick comment.

Thank you for doing this.

One of the issues that we've had around Neighborhood Greenway since 2011 is that they don't connect to each other and having independent little lines that they're like worms across a map.

But until we get them to connect, we're not going to have the safety that we want for all ages and abilities.

So thank you for taking it on.

Thank you.

And I support the amendment and appreciate your working and community members working on this.

And it's consistent with what I believe ASTAD is trying to do, too.

So I don't think there's any controversy there.

That's it on this afternoon's agenda from sustainability and transportation.

And we do not have a committee meeting this week.

We'll be meeting next week.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Bryan.

Council Member Bagshaw.

I'm sorry.

Oh, go ahead.

Are you done?

Yeah.

Good.

Thank you.

Your turn now, Council Member Bagshaw.

Thank you.

We have nothing on Finance and Neighborhoods Committee for the afternoon, but we will have a meeting this Wednesday with three very exciting ordinances and a resolution that will be dealing and correcting with amendments in the coding from the 2019 budget.

So I know you're all excited about that.

I know.

So I'm sure that we'll have all seven, eight, nine of us there.

But the other thing that actually is something that people may want to pay attention to is we have a Pike Place Market Ordinance that actually renews the PDA and Daystall Agreement that's known as the Hilt Lakata Agreement.

So it's Michael Hilt's agreement that was then amended by Nick Lakata, and it provides a term of 10 years for the vendors in the new area of the Pike Place Market.

Those will be the four things that are on our agenda for when I shoot question of course on the PDA for the market Yeah, that are those done every ten years.

This is this Particular amendment focuses on the vendors in the location and who gets to sell what okay?

So this doesn't deal with our PA itself right or with the Steinbrook Park next door, which is something we're continuing to work on.

Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Johnson

Good morning.

No items on full council for this afternoon.

We do have several items on the introduction of referral calendar.

The first is Resolution 31870, which is the companion resolution to our citywide mandatory housing affordability program.

I want to say thanks to all of your offices for working closely with central staff last week to get that resolution ready to go.

So that will be part of our discussions a week from today when we contemplate the final passage of the mandatory housing affordability program.

There are two other plus related items on interaction referral calendar.

They're both quasi judicial.

So the following messages brought to you from our law department.

Clerk file 314420 is an application of Mount Baker housing to rezone 17,992 square feet located at 2802 South McClellan Street from Seattle mixed North Rainier with a 65 foot high limit.

to Seattle Mixed North Rainier with a 75 foot high limit and an MHA suffix of M.

We also have clerk file 314421, an application of Green Lake North LLC to rezone a 24,700 square foot site located at 420 Northeast 72nd Street for neighborhood commercial 2 with a 40 foot high limit and pedestrian designation.

to neighborhood commercial two with a 75 foot high limit and pedestrian designation and an MHA suffix of M1.

Those applications are now pending for the purposes of our quasi judicial rules.

So you should therefore avoid communications about the merits of the reason applications with other proponents or opponents.

and as usual, please see Ketel Freeman of our council central staff.

Wednesday evening on a sound transit related business, there will be a community workshop in the Chinatown International District at Union Station to allow community members to come and get a preview of the proposed station locations that we've analyzed so far, and to collect community feedback before the workshop that the West Seattle Ballard elected leadership group will be attending later on this month on March 29th.

So for those who really want to dig into some details with community members, I encourage you to join us.

on Wednesday evening at Union Station from 5 to 8 p.m.

I also just want to finally surface that at the conclusion of our little round-the-table discussions, we'll be bringing up the Seattle Design Commission to give us their annual report.

As part of the recusal process for me and my future employer at NHL Seattle, I'm going to step away from the table at the conclusion of Council Member Gonzalez's report to maintain the firewall about not getting any briefings about the Seattle Arena Project, though I believe that this presentation will receive as retrospective to 2018. On the off chance that council members may want to ask questions about the Design Commission's work moving forward with the arena folks in 2019 I'm going to be stepping away from the table so that there's no appearance of conflict.

Thank You councilmember Johnson.

Councilmember Gonzalez.

Thank you.

I Will be happy to go through my report so we and I will also be needing to probably leave council briefing early not because of a conflict of interest but because I have to be in South Park by 1115 AM this morning, and we ran a little bit longer than I expected.

So I apologize to the folks from the Seattle Design Commission for potentially missing most of your presentation.

So nothing on this afternoon's agenda from the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans in Education Committee.

We do have a regularly scheduled committee hearing this Wednesday.

That is March 13th at 930 AM.

We have two agenda items.

in our committee hearing.

The first will be to hear about the Families Education Preschool and Promise Implementation and Evaluation Plan.

That's a mouthful.

It's a mouthful, yeah.

And the second item will be to hear from the Seattle Police Department around shots fired data and how SPD is continuing to respond to gun violence throughout the city.

I just want to really highlight that Wednesday is going to be, again, the kickoff of our discussion in my committee on the FEPP levy implementation plan.

We all remember that we began work in this space last spring, and then the levy was renewed by the voters in November.

and it was a renewal and slight enhancement from the city's prior levies.

And we're really excited about being able to have a robust conversation about how DEEL is intending to propose the implementation of those plans across the full spectrum.

Of course, it's an expansion of our preschool program by a nearly doubling of the classrooms slots available to children throughout the city.

We'll also hear in the implementation plan that there is a proposal to expand pre-school access to three-year-olds as well as four-year-olds.

It will be a huge improvement over our existing system.

We'll also talk more about our existing investments in the K through 12 space.

including supporting family support workers.

And I'm really excited about one of my big priorities that I championed during the levy development, which is a new line of investment for students and their families who are experiencing homelessness.

So this levy, through this levy, we anticipate being able to generate an additional $7 million to be able to support students experiencing homelessness will hear from DEEL, some of the work we've been doing with them about how to craft that program in a way that is as easy and flexible for our providers to reach those families.

So I'm really, really excited about being able to roll out a strategy that will focus squarely on students experiencing housing instability in a doubled up sense.

About 62% of the students experiencing homelessness in our Seattle Public School Districts are actually experiencing what is referred to as housing instability, meaning that they're doubled up and not actually experiencing homelessness.

Unfortunately, that's a space where there isn't a lot of investment made by philanthropy or other government agencies in terms of addressing those individuals.

So we're really excited about being able to strategically target housing-unstable students with really flexible dollars to make sure that they can continue to be stable and learn and have academic success.

And that's through the K-12 system.

We also, as you all recall, renewed the city's commitment to the family support workers in our public schools as a cost-sharing model with the Seattle Public Schools to reach more Title I schools.

And we spent a considerable amount of time under Councilmember Johnson's leadership rebalancing our investments in the K-12 space to ensure that we were not stripping away severely our investment in the K-5 space in particular.

So I want to thank Council Member Johnson for his leadership in that area.

We'll be able to see proposals around how to best structure those dollars ongoing to make sure that we are supporting our kids in the K-5 space in addition to the 6-12 space.

We have a memo to distribute that will lay out the process moving forward.

There is a last minute conflict that came up unfortunately on my behalf for the week of April 8th.

So we are currently exploring alternatives for April 10th.

We may either have a special meeting the following week.

or we will have one of my committee members chair that committee hearing in the event that we need to continue on April 10th.

So just handing this out with a caveat that the timeline towards the end is going to be modified slightly because I've had a personal issue come up that I need to tend to that particular week.

So I apologize that we didn't get a chance to incorporate those potential modifications into the timeline before we distribute it, but we will do so as soon as we have confirmation of how we're going to move forward.

So that's it on the FEPP levy.

On the second issue that we will hear in my committee, we'll hear again from SPD on their recent shots fired data and how they respond to those issues.

I know that in the past when we have had SPD come into committee and present on this issue, there's been interest from district based council members around more specific nuanced data for your districts to the extent that you want SPD to address.

Those particular issues, I'd ask that you connect with my office, Cody Ryder in particular, to submit any sort of inquiries to him now so that we can get the police department to start thinking about how to cull through that data in order to be able to present it.

answer questions specific to your districts in in committee on Wednesdays so I'd appreciate that and then lastly I will be out of the office on this Thursday and Friday March 14th through the 15th I've accepted an invitation to join members of the Seattle Municipal Court in Denver, Colorado to attend what is known as the Pretrial Innovators Conference.

It's a pretrial justice, it's put on by the Pretrial Justice Institute and looks at new trends, emerging practices, promising practices around how to divert individuals from coming into contact with our criminal justice system at the municipal level in particular.

And so this is part of our ongoing effort to work both with community and institutional players around realignment of our criminal legal system.

So this will be an opportunity for me to go out to Denver and attend a ton of workshops.

around issues that we all care about, including how to reinvest in community if we're divesting from the criminal justice system, looking at bonding practices and how punitive they are for our community, and just really listening to a lot of the experts, subject matter experts in this space who spend a lot of time thinking about how to reform a criminal justice system that is more equitable and just for our community members.

So I will be doing that on Thursday and Friday and excited to come back and share what we've been able to learn.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your leadership because I know your background and the pretrial issues are so key because we want people to come to court to take care of their business without having to be arrested for failing to appear or some of the pretrial issues that happened.

So thank you very much for doing that.

And also thank you, Council Member Johnson and Council Member Gonzalez, again, for your leadership on the levy.

You did a great job.

I understood the issues.

You flagged the issues.

So I really appreciate that, since that was my first time sitting as an elected and trying to understand how these levies move forward.

And you made it very painless.

It was a complex body of work, and I'm glad that there were two of us working on it, and looking forward to the continuing conversation in my committee about how we're going to implement and evaluate the success of those investments moving forward over the next seven years.

I will warn you that the implementation plan is about 120 pages.

It's incredibly dense, and so for those of you who have ongoing interest in this space, I really do invite you to join us on Wednesday, or you can watch the video at your leisure afterwards, but this will be DEEL's first opportunity to give us a high-level overview of the different components of the implementation plan that specifically respond to those priorities that City Council indicated we had in the resolution advancing the levy to the voters.

So the conversation on Wednesday will really be centered around how does the implementation plan meet city council's stated priorities in the accompanying resolution to this ordinance.

So really urge you all to join us on Wednesday if you have the time and availability.

Lastly, I just wanna conclude by making sure you all are aware of some of the work that is being done by the Seattle Office of Inspector General for Public Safety.

Inspector General Lisa Judge just copied my office on a notification of her first, what I think might be her first audit out of that office, and it'll be with regard to mutual aid and special commissions.

related to the Seattle Police Department.

So just wanted to, as a courtesy, make sure you all were aware that that work was continuing on.

I'm passing out a notification from her office as to that audit.

For those of you who have an interest in how the Seattle Police Department manages its mutual aid agreements.

I know that the council had some interest around that particular issue last year.

Wanted to make sure that I flagged for you that this body of work is going to be evaluated in a very systemic way by the Inspector General's office and wanted to let you all know that that work is happening and if you have any additional questions about the body of work or the substance, I would encourage you to reach out directly to Inspector general judge.

That is it for me.

Thank you.

You and Councilmember Johnson set the bar high so when Councilmember Bagshaw and I start the library levy.

Thank you.

We are happy to support your work in that context.

Thank you.

So let's move on at the agenda.

Let's have our folks from the Seattle Design Commission come on up and do their 2018. You mean 2018, not 19, annual report.

OK, great.

I'll let you guys come on up and introduce yourself.

And I know that you gave us material ahead of time.

I hope everybody has it in front of them of your presentation outline.

Thank you.

Let's go ahead and introduce yourself, and then we'll just get started.

Hello.

Good morning.

Thank you for having us.

My name is Brianna Holin.

I'm the Urban Planner Commissioner.

I'm just entering into my third year on the commission.

Thank you for having us this morning.

Thank you.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

I'm Michael Jenkins, the Director of the Seattle Design Commission, and thank you so much for making time today.

In previous years, we've oftentimes gone to Councilmember Johnson's committee as part of OPCD, being a part of OPCD and going to the PLUS Committee, although I do think the Commission oftentimes looks at projects that affect many of the Councilmembers and certainly in their districts.

So we really appreciate you taking the time to hear from us today.

And you all have printed copies?

Okay, great.

So we'll go ahead and get started.

I'm going to provide you with an overview of the commission, and Brianne is going to go through a number of the projects that the commission has looked at in 2018.

Oh, close.

Council Member Bagshaw wants mood lighting.

Not a bad thing.

So we've broken the presentation today out into four topic areas.

An overview of the commission, just to remind you about what the commission's makeup is, the work that we do, and how we review projects.

As well as some stats on our review of the year last year.

And then Brianna will go through a number of project highlights that we think will be of particular interest to you.

And then finally, talk to you a little bit about what's coming in 2019. So just to give you an overview of the commission, we were established in 1968. So actually, this year, we're trying to plan a 50th anniversary party, which we're hoping, I think, is going to be in June.

It's taken a fair amount of time to go through and look at.

I think we're up to 1,270 projects that the commission has looked at over its 50 years.

And so trying to figure out within the context of those projects which ones we think that the commission finds particularly important or compelling.

We're also hoping to go out to the public and ask them from their perspective about what capital projects, parks, community centers, and projects like that particularly resonate with them as a community member to hear from them as well.

So the commission advises the mayor and the council on projects that affect the public realm, including capital improvement projects, which are predictable slate parks, community centers, police stations, fire stations.

We also look at right-of-way projects.

As Council Member O'Brien knows, we have a significant role in the review of street and alley vacations.

We also look at sky bridges and then other projects that require a long-term use of the right-of-way.

The Commission also looks at major transportation projects.

For 2019, we're concluding our review of the proposals at State Route 520 for the Mon Lake Lid and a pedestrian land bridge before moving on to our review of the replacement of the Portage Bay Bridges and a lid that's called the Delmar Lid, which is up around Seattle Prep.

The Commission also does plan and policy reviews of projects that affect the public realm.

We've looked at the Ped Master Plan, the Bike Master Plan, plans that have an overarching policy and implementation strategy for affecting the public realm.

And then finally, the Commission used to be one of the key members of what was called the Light Rail Review Panel.

Light Rail Review Panel completed its work in 2016, and it was members of the Design, Arts, and Planning Commission.

The focus of the Light Rail Review Panel was looking at light rail stations and their neighborhood integration.

Certainly, the Seattle Design Commission is trying to determine right now what their role will be in a re-envisioned Light Rail Review Panel for ST3 investments.

I just want to make a plug with the other members of the elected leaders group here for working with the Seattle Design Commission, the Planning Commission, the Ped and Bike Commissions, all of the transit the transit advisory board to pull together another entity like this as we move forward with Sound Transit 3 organizing.

big added value, and I think the more that this work is done up front instead of on the back end, the more we can meet, I think, Sound Transit's goals of delivering a project quickly, as opposed to, I think, some people might be concerned that This kind of review would slow things down.

I don't agree with that.

I think getting these issues into the community and getting them to grapple with them early on is a better process and also will smooth the way when the hard decisions and hard changes start to occur.

Well thank you.

You don't have to plug very hard for me on that.

I'm totally in support and of course I met with you and some of your commission members within the last six months and we know just looking as an example at the waterfront that part of what we did on the front end was to say we want the engineers and the designers to be working hand in hand.

We didn't want the designers to come in afterwards and have to either redesign or try to rescale what the engineers said were what they needed for engineering practices.

So I really appreciate the work you're doing.

I think Councilmember Herbold is right on.

Love to have that.

information up front and long before final decisions are made because it does speed it up.

We know that if we have to go back afterward and then try to fix things, that's when we start getting the appeals and the lawsuits, but to the extent we can bring you in on the front end, I'm all in favor of it.

I'll talk a little bit more about the role that the Design Commission played with ST3.

I will say that there is a meeting coming up on March 29th.

We're trying to schedule with different ELG members' offices the week of the 18th to provide you with some observations that the commission has flagged as a result of a joint commission meeting that we had with members of the Arts, Planning, and Design Commission to really look at the issue what Sound Transit's impacts are at Chinatown ID and really focusing in on the issues of equity and placemaking and trying to develop and flag issues for you, which I'll talk about in a little bit.

So there is a meeting this Wednesday.

Are you planning to participate with the Chinatown International District and Sound Transit?

The design Commission is not specifically I'm imagining that OPCD where we're housed probably is but we're not scheduled I don't think that we have anything specific.

We may have a staff member going.

I think it's valuable.

I'm Councilmember Johnson talked about it I'm planning to attend to be able to hear from the community directly because it's so easy to begin saying well This is what the community wanted.

But if we weren't there to hear it first the first go

At our joint commission meeting on the 27th that we had, we had members, we had not only members from the community, Cassie Chin representing in her role as the arts commission, on the arts commission, but members of the community, including Michael Winkler Chin, others offering their impressions about what they're saying.

So we're gonna have an ongoing conversation with the members of the ID to hear more from them about their expectation about placemaking.

So, Again, moving on with the presentation, the commission includes 10 appointed members.

All the commission members are appointed by the mayor and they're confirmed by the council.

We are awaiting mayoral appointment on three of our positions.

our landscape architect, our transportation planner, and one of our architects, as well as our chair.

The mayor appoints our chair, and the council confirms the chair.

Those, including Breonna's role, who would be, she's a reappointment this year, has not been approved yet, and we're hoping that that will occur relatively soon, because their appointments ended in March, and our quorum requires five commissioners.

Okay.

So what's the delay on that?

What needs to happen?

I think that what needs to happen, in my opinion, is that the mayor's office, the mayor's office has a large backlog in all commission appointments.

And I think that they're trying to figure out a way to prioritize ones to move ahead, in particular commissions like our commission that affects the timing of projects, as well as commissions that have a regulatory review.

That's for the short term, for the long term, I think that's a larger question between you as a council and the mayor's office to figure out a way to streamline the appointment process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next slide is the commission's mission, and it's a six-point mission that really looks at elevating design, neighborhood integration, sustainability, equity, looking for partnerships between the capital departments.

We think that's quite important because when departments work together to elevate projects, we often find successes in projects like Bell Street Park, where they come together to create a place larger than their individual investments.

And then finally, effective investments, looking at the best value.

I think that commissioners, speaking for commissioners, I think that they would agree, good design doesn't need to cost more.

It just needs to be, reflective of the community's expectation and elevating urban design is a fundamental project goal.

This is an overview of how we look at projects.

Now we always provide this just in context to understand how the commission works in the context of permitting.

More and more in terms of capital projects, I think that the commission is really interested in trying to get in at the very inception of a project, after a project has been funded, oftentimes playing a role in the selection of architects or the design team, because I think that it's particularly important.

Brianna recently served on a selection panel for Freeway Park.

And I think it's particularly important because it's a way to make sure that the teams that are investing in capital projects or implementing capital projects for the city, that they identify and elevate what matters to the commission early on in prioritizing not only the project goals, but the team to implement those goals.

Talk a little bit about Freeway Park.

Are you in a position where it's public information?

Because I was there on Saturday with a group that, and Lyle was there, but it was led by Scott Bonjuki and this LID I-5 effort.

So can you talk a little bit about that specifically?

Well, I don't think it's public information of who was actually selected, but we did interview four really great candidates.

We had a good field to choose from.

I think it's a $10 million investment that's going in from the public benefit package from the convention center.

What was the scope of work on that?

What was the ultimate scope of work?

Well, different project teams had different approaches to it, but it's essentially a refresh of the park of making it more accessible, and I think there's a bathroom that's potential to be remodeled and maybe an opportunity to do something unique.

And reopen it.

Yes, and reopen it, of course.

Make it functional.

I think when the...

And the other thing I'd like to point out is the street and alley vacation process changed dramatically last year with the adoption of new policies that affect the timing of our review.

Before a applicant applies for a vacation, whether that's for a private applicant or a city or another government, they're required to come to the commission first.

And the role of the commission before they start the permitting process, because what we had been finding over time is that the permitting process had begun.

The commission would come in after permitting.

And so really important issues about access, massing, open space, public realm enhancements were already set.

before the commission could actually influence it and develop a list of priorities that they wanted the applicant to pursue.

Similar to the comments Councilmember Herbold made a few minutes ago about the Sound Transit.

just the concept of kind of early feedback at a high level is really valuable.

And I'm really looking forward to see how this plays out.

But too often we would get to a point in a process where we see some really great alternatives and the reality, or at least the perceived reality is we're so far down this one path that for us to stop and go back and consider a different change would be really problematic.

Which leaves us in a really tough decision to deny something or accept it as is and so this This we've had some really success on this which has been great and obviously we'll see how it plays out in the next few years So thanks to your leadership on that.

You're welcome.

Thank you Councilmember O'Brien for leading the charge on making these changes to the street vacation policies Thank all of us so we can all move on

So in the past year, the commission looked at 16 projects around the city, distributed throughout the city, downtown, Ballard, Southeast Seattle, West Seattle.

It's been interesting.

This year, we've been a little bit slower, and I think that's okay because, and I'll let Brianna, Brianna's, It's a full day every other Thursday and it's a huge lift for commissioners and we're very clear with commissioners when we recruit them that it is up to 20 hours a month in the day.

So a little bit of breathing room isn't necessarily a bad thing for them.

Yes, I would say.

And even with the full day, there's also various subcommittees and in-between meetings and prep for all that as well.

So certainly appreciated to have a little bit of breathing space.

And I think the nature of the projects we've been looking at are very complex as well.

And that's what's happened is some of the stats that I provided for you.

Well, we've been seeing less projects.

The projects are getting more complex.

We had 10 reviews last year on Sound Transit pulling together different workshops to help create the recommendations that we did for you for the level two review.

We had five reviews, excuse me, seven reviews of Seattle Center Arena.

Our meetings typically will be a three-hour review of a particular project just because of the complexity of the projects.

So, but I think commissioners and staff appreciate a little bit of breathing room this year.

That's going to change.

We've got Sound Transit coming back to us next year.

In the following year, we've got a lot of projects coming.

So, we'll take this year as a breather than last year.

Thank you for helping me with Yesler Crescent and I want to acknowledge and appreciate your help.

We are helping you, we are helping Council Member Bagshaw at Approach the Commission to look for a way to get a conversation going, an interdepartmental conversation in a workshop format which we're currently organizing to look at not only the Yesler Crescent work but Forreston Square and how do you tackle a multi-departmental, multi-stakeholder issue where frankly equity is at the front.

is an organizing principle.

So we're looking at holding a workshop with bringing all of the players together and looking at where we can figure out ways for that site, all of those sites, to work together or not.

They may need to be independent sites based upon culture, identity, history, historic resources within the park.

We're working currently with the Parks Department, OPCD, and the historic boards to pull together that workshop.

I think it's going to be in May.

So we're doing it in a timely way to respond not only to the proviso, but with Council Member Bagshaw's expectations.

Are you going to the workshop?

In May?

We don't have that.

We don't have a date yet, but I'm imagining that Daniel Strauss from your office has been, we've been talking to him about that.

And of course, any council members' offices, we're happy to, you know.

And I sent you some information over the weekend.

Parks Department has helped us with City Hall Park.

And one thing I want to make really clear is we had $900,000 in the budget last year, but I'm hoping that isn't all going for workshops and planning.

I'm hoping that we'll have some action on a number of items that we've been talking about for way too long.

But in particular, when you talk about Fortson Square, we have the deaccession of the art there, and I know that Randy Engstrom's been involved.

Sound Transit's been great about our little pre-Fontaine area with the pedestrian Sound Transit exit and cleaning that up and painting it and fixing the plexiglass that you can't see through all that, but also just lighting it.

SDOT's been working with us about putting some more festival lights I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

I think it is a good idea.

So we're going to move on to projects quickly, aware, being conscious of time.

Just because I want to get to the projects.

That's all.

So let me walk you through.

So the first project I'm going to highlight, and then Brianna will take the rest of them on ST3.

Seattle Design Commission is currently, again, developing recommendations for you in advance of the March 29th ELG relative to CID, although we may touch ground on Delridge, although Delridge in and of itself demands I think a level of work that we may take on as well.

We're also, which we discussed a little bit ago, we are evaluating, we are trying to evaluate how the design commission will fit into the permitting process.

We are looking at a model similar to what the light rail review panel did before.

The problem is that that was really based upon, it was an ad hoc approach and we want to be much more intentional because The Sound Transit's review process is really geared up in its fast track permitting.

Permitting, I think, will begin in, permitting reviews will begin in 2021. The questions that I have is, who would be impaneled?

Clearly, the Design Commission has a role, but I think there's a definite role for our Ped and Bike Board.

and other boards with license over how do these get integrated into our neighborhoods.

We'd also like to consider having a member of the community be a part of it.

However, that's impaneled.

In previous, in Sound Transit 2, in the previous, in the first investment, it was done through memorandums of agreement.

I'm thinking that might not be the best way to do it.

I think it needs to be codified.

I think expectations need to be codified.

I think the measures of success need to be codified, much like our design review program.

So I think that everyone's expectations from a policy perspective needs to be enshrined to figure out What is the value, what are our design values?

How are they being implemented with these stations as they're seeking city approval to integrate into our neighborhoods?

And I think that's an important point for us, for you, and for the executive to figure out how does that, what is the measure of success in terms of integration into our neighborhoods?

How is that expressed either through design intent, design manuals, things like that?

Our big takeaways from the Chinatown ID meeting were we need to figure out a way to protect cultural infrastructure, we need to figure out a way to elevate equity in the designs of anything that occurs there, and that the city should be taking a lead for developing the vision for how ST3 fits into city neighborhoods.

I'm going to turn it over to Brianna.

All right.

So I'm going to run through a couple of highlights of projects that we've looked at the design on versus the process of ST3.

So the first is the Seattle Center Arena.

So the arena itself is actually a landmark structure.

So we've tried not to overlap with what the Landmarks Review Board has been.

And they've really looked at the bulk of the program.

And inserting our own role is looking at the public realm.

There's a lot of opportunities for how the building itself is being reoriented towards Thomas Street.

It's currently main access is along First Avenue.

And to look at that interface and the opportunities for how that public space and south facade has opportunities for art and landscape and those considerations and also how the pedestrians navigate through and to the site is a key piece.

And especially with considerations for the post-event accommodations because that's really when the potential surge and transportation demands are going to be the most acute.

Are you working with OVG or the NHL and then folks on the wayfinding signs and all that too?

We are.

We're trying to figure out how do their public investments fit with our public investments and by reorienting and how you go back and forth after an event has been a critical It's a critical issue.

It's a critical problem to tackle.

Because again, as you leave Seattle center arena, people are going to be crossing Thomas.

And they have a garage that will exit on to Thomas.

Then they've got the existing investment south of there.

How are people moving back and forth?

And it's a critical issue to make sure that

We've done a lot of work on this, obviously, in the last year, and Nelson Nygaard has been very helpful.

There are a ton of design ideas out there, including getting people by bike through the campus and over, of course, if they want to cross over to Myrtle Edwards Park on using the So what I'm really excited and hopeful for is that we can take these good ideas and figure out how to coordinate them.

Once again, it's like what we were saying about neighborhood greenways.

If they don't connect, I don't want to say they're useless, but they really don't help somebody who is riding her bike and then suddenly the bicycle path ends.

So around here, as much as you can help create those pedestrian networks, we know ultimately light rail is going to be there in 17 years, but between now and then, It's the monorail, it's bike, it's ped, it's figuring ways to make these connections that are going to be really helpful.

So your voice is important.

And TNC, the ride share programs.

Yes, those are all on our radar.

And, and, and, and.

Not only, oh, we're moving on to the next.

So Smith Cove Park in our Magnolia Interbay neighborhood is this very unique opportunity to convert what's existing as a play field into a larger shoreline integrated park for both active and passive recreation.

So tell us more, please.

So we've looked at this project four times in the past, starting in 2015 and our last, I think we approved the schematic design finalized in October of last year.

Yeah, this came through our committee.

Yes.

This is in a line item.

Yes.

So there was a number of challenges that there was some disagreement with the commission.

One being that the challenge of the road, the 23rd Avenue West that bifurcates the site and creates a little bit of a barrier between the two actions or two sides of the street.

There's a vacation that wasn't viable because of financial constraints, but it does provide a challenge for it being a holistic connected vision.

Also, there's a CSO that's not, it's timing is a little bit further out.

put some hindrance on progressing.

And also the, excuse me, yes.

You're not talking about the big county reservoir we've already put in.

I mean, that's in, it's done, it's into the ground, and it's a million gallons, and we spent a lot of money on that.

So what are you talking about?

Well, I think that's the problem.

Obviously, the King County CSO is a critical element, but it's also, its location isn't necessarily well placed when you look at how do you create a larger park.

So you have the challenge of the CSO where it's located, where it needs to be located, and then a road that bifurcates the site.

It's not an optimal, it would be perfect to have a clean slate, but we don't have it.

So it's a design challenge that I think in many ways limited probably some of the programming options we would have liked to have seen.

So how are you working with Parks on this?

Because I know Parks has been working on it most of my lifetime.

And I'm really hopeful to see something that is accomplished.

So I guess my questions are, do you have a plan different than Parks?

Are you working with Parks?

Are we going to get seriously, are we going to be able to move forward?

Because we've put a lot of money in this.

So they're moving forward with their phase one, which is the western half of the park, which is primarily the active recreational pieces.

And that was a little bit of concern, too, of not doing the shoreline restoration and the more passive parts that are a little bit more accessible to all than just the specific users of the play fields.

That said, we certainly gave strong messaging that they would move forward for the phase two and that shoreline restoration as soon as possible, and that's going to require some coordination with the port as well.

There is some, as you can see on the slide, some waterfront access in terms of a stair, but yeah, the overall restoration is delayed, unfortunately.

Okay, let's move along.

So Marion Street Bridge is an integral part to the Office of the Waterfront proposals.

This is very much a gateway project, huge use for as Coleman Dock is being redeveloped.

This will be connected to that new structure and then take the bridge all the way to Western Avenue as the viaduct is coming down.

That is the phase that's funded.

The second phase of it that'll take you all the way to First Avenue is funded.

in the future, and that was one of the big pieces that we worked with the designers on of how to make that an integration.

Also, the column shape of making it more of a human pedestrian scale and taking considerations for sight impaired and making sure there's no barriers there.

Can I ask you a question?

They look exactly alike.

What am I missing?

You're missing the change.

It was not cheap for them, frankly, to not only change the column dimension, but also integrate stormwater into it.

The column on the bottom is actually scaled.

I know it doesn't look to, it's a little bit design.

I'm looking at one of those cartoons that says find the differences.

And the goal being, how do you integrate stormwater facility into a column design?

How do you get the column to be a little bit scaled, a little better scaled for the scale of people walking by it?

It makes it feel a little less ominous and a little more integrated into the neighborhood.

It's the little things, Councilmember.

I just got it, thank you.

The light just came on.

I couldn't tell what the difference was between before.

It's the why.

It doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a big deal to do that.

And this is just a synopsis of, you know, a hundred page presentation.

We just, yeah, just a summary.

It's a highlight.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And so one of the other features is because it's phased that the railing will be upgraded on the entirety of the bridge.

So it feels like a cohesive thing.

And if and when the rest of the bridge is So if we can get some of that redone, then we can reuse those railings and lighting scenarios.

So, are we going to integrate with what is there now?

Is that the plan?

Yes.

And it's approved by you?

Yes.

So, I also heard that there's some temporary bridge structure that has to come up.

Is that right?

Because it seems awfully expensive for a year's worth of use.

The timing of the new bridge in the context of they need to get rid of the existing facility, that old metal bridge that crossed, they've got to take that down as part of what they're doing to build.

the waterfront.

So they have to have a temporary structure, which they will use, I think it's about a year, and then this will be built to replace it.

Is it a perfect solution?

No.

Is it the only solution?

Apparently.

Because we need to maintain, you know, that's a major arterial next to a marine highway, and it needs to maintain use for people to be able, that's the ADA route as well.

I would think that Marshall would look for a different way, but this is probably the only way he can do the project.

Right, well I know that they've been doing a lot of work.

When I heard that they were going to put up a temporary bridge that would go actually around one building and then reconnect and then have to take that down and do it straight through, I just thought that seemed like a lot of money for a short period of time.

The good news is that any replacement building here that will occur, and I know that there have been a number of proposals, in particular an 18-story tower, they are looking at integrating the bridge into any new structure, which I think is a good thing.

Whoever that is is another story.

Well, we I think we know I mean we've been meeting with that particular developer and I just want to underscore that the initial request was to go up to 240 feet and I just said Absolutely, not that we've been doing step-downs Step-downs is what we're trying to accomplish and then there was well we have by right to go to 185 feet if it's residential then they change their mind and want to go commercial and They still wanted to go up to 185 feet.

I said, not going to happen.

We really are looking for as much residential as possible down there.

And if commercial is what is chosen, and they may have that by right, we just have to make sure that it goes to 175 feet and that we stay strong on that.

Okay, South Park Pump Station, and then we're going to do what's ahead.

So the South Park Pump Station initially came to us in 2017, and they were actually asking it as a response for the consent decree in the Duwamish Waterway for SPU.

They were originally asking for a vacation on that 7th Avenue South that was actually dropped, I think during the meeting.

Because of the access needs for the abutting property owner.

So they brought in a redesign, a refresh that was actually very encouraging.

It was part of, it came out of the SBU's new design and innovation lab that I actually participated in one of their conversations earlier on last year.

that's been developed under the direction of Mami Hara.

And it's really working to advance urban design goals and with how we deliver these types of infrastructure and investments that urban design plays a real role in it.

We've seen that trend across the board, I'd say, in a lot of the different city departments, and it's really encouraging.

to be able to participate in those conversations has been great because we think the results of what has come out of this project of bringing actual placemaking, water view access, and the facility itself has a very public presence as well.

Thank you for working to think of this as something more than a pump station.

And yeah, the work that's been led by Director Hara has been great and valued by.

The community, I think we're actually going to be breaking ground this year, I think.

This has been a bit of a head-spinning project for the community because of the many changes and the delays.

And I don't say so for purposes of creating any additional delays.

I definitely don't want that.

But have you done any integration with the conveyance project, which is also supposed to be located nearby?

We will.

It's been a little bit delayed, I think.

But I think they recognize that this needed to happen before anything else.

They're not putting it aside completely.

They just needed to have some way to pump excess water.

It won't be our ideal integrated design approach, but we're working with what we got so we can get things moving.

I think the good news is that SPU's leadership in elevating urban design, they're looking at how do you institutionalize urban design incrementally?

How will this fit in with the next one and the next one?

And I believe we have a Bloomberg grant to thank for some of the work that SPU's been doing.

A Bloomberg grant to thank for some of the work that SPU's been doing, so shout out there.

So finally for 2019, we're going to be completing our review of not only the Mon Lake Lid project, but I mentioned that we're also going to be looking at Portage Bay and the Del Mar Lid.

It's a big lift, but it's an important lift for that community, and it's a unique opportunity to create place from where a freeway was.

And frankly it's also a very quick shout out to WSDOT.

WSDOT has systematically elevated urban design within the city as a key project goal.

It's new territory for them and we very much appreciate their willing to commit to it.

It also seems to me that it's been shrinking over the years.

It has.

Part of that shrink was because they could have lit it over the entire segment, but that would have required venting stacks.

And so I think the venting stacks with, yeah.

And so was it better to get rid of that as opposed to having venting stacks with machinery and mechanical air and noise?

I think that was the trade-off and we're trying to make sure that that trade-off is in the city's interest.

We have a number of parks projects.

There are land bank sites, which you all may be familiar with, that are coming our way.

We're completing our review of Seattle Center Arena on April 18th.

We're going to continue to work with Sound Transit 3 to figure out where the design commission integrates into their process.

And you saw my shout out about the 50th anniversary.

With that, any further questions?

You don't look old enough to have been there 50 years.

It just feels like it's the grade.

Is there anything else, colleagues?

Did you get it all out of your system, everybody?

Only starting.

I just really appreciate the work you're doing.

And, you know, when you all talk about having a bit of a breather this year, I mean, that's only in comparison.

to like the marathons that you've been running in previous years.

I imagine if you look back over the history, it's still a really busy year.

It's just not as busy as the previous year.

I've been with the commission for six years.

The first four years, there were four meetings.

They were 830 to 430 all day.

And there were subcommittee meetings a couple of times a week.

It's nice to have a little bit of a breather.

And the work you all do and the thoughtfulness you bring to projects, I definitely do not sit through all those meetings, but the conversations I get to have and the outcomes we see in the projects is amazing.

So just so grateful for the volunteers that are clearly so dedicated to the public realm and what we're doing as a city to show up.

And grateful that we created space for that expertise to actually influence projects.

Thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Brianna.

I see you guys every Thursday morning.

Or whenever you meet, you're all downstairs?

Yes.

Yes, see you guys all the time.

At least I think that's what you're doing.

Anything else?

OK, that concludes this morning.

Thank you guys very much.

Thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Brianna.

What do you and I need?