AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 7.24.040, 7.24.050, 7.24.060, 7.24.070, and 7.24.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); adding new Sections 7.24.035, 7.24.036, 7.24.038, 7.24.110, 7.24.120, 7.24.130, 7.24.140, 7.24.150, 7.24.160, 7.24.170, 7.24.180, 7.24.190, 7.24.200, and 7.24.210 to the SMC; and repealing Section 7.24.090 of the SMC; all to limit the amount of security deposits and non-refundable move-in fees, to allow residential tenants to pay security deposits, non-refundable move-in fees, and last month’s rent in installments, and to establish enforcement provisions for Chapter 7.24.
Please read the report of the Energy and Environment Committee. The report at the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item four Constable 118817 relating to residential rental properties amending section 7.20 4.0, 20.0, 30.0, 4.0 50.0 60. And you can read a short version. Of the committee recommends the bill passes amended. Council member. So what? Councilor O'Brien wants. To. Councilmember for. Brian would like to speak. I just need to disclose publicly that I am a landlord. I'll be voting on this, but I wanted to make sure I'm transparent with the public. Thank you for that disclosure. Thank you, President Hill. I'm excited to introduce this ordinance that would limit the exorbitant move in fees tenants are expected to pay in the city of extremely high rents. The laws in the state overwhelmingly are stacked against tenants, particularly the arbitrary and draconian state ban on rent control. However, as tenants get more organized locally, we are starting the process of winning individual tenant rights that will add up to a significant tenant bill of rights for the city. This Council bill limits nonrefundable fees to only those explicitly mentioned under state law limits, security deposits and nonrefundable fees to no more than one month's rent, which is pretty standard anyway, and most importantly, allows tenants to pay the security deposit and last month's rent on a payment plan. That final aspect of the bill will allow many tenants to overcome a substantial hurdle to finding housing. As you have heard from public comment and this public testimony today shows how significant it is for tenants that they have this legislation for those who who would like their decisions to be based on the data. Washington Community Action Network survey of tenants found the move in fees to be the biggest obstacle to finding rental housing nationwide. According to recent studies, over 50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in checking and savings accounts. So coming up with 4000, 5000, $8,000 is really an impossible hurdle. I want to give a little bit of the history of this bill because it has come up in council briefing and it will come up today in this item. This past December, actually, December last year, council central staff started writing this bill at my behest. And and that was in combination with other tenant rights legislation that my office had also asked for. Around the same time, Washington can survey tenants to find out what issues are the most important for renters. And as our survey progressed, it became increasingly, increasingly clear that the issue that my office was already raising was a very important one for renters. And in fact, the most important can organize an amazing press conference at the end of July this year to publicly unveil our legislation. And I formally introduced it to the council almost three months ago. And if you will recall, at that press conference where we unveiled it, we not only had renters and renters advocates there, we had labor unions and small businesses supporting this legislation. It was first discussed in committee on September 13th, over a month ago. But Councilmember Gonzalez, who is also a member of the committee and myself participating in the conversation. At that meeting, several amendments were discussed and incorporated, and a new version of the bill, including those changes, was vigorously discussed and voted on at the next meeting of the committee on September 27th. At that meeting, six council members participated and amendments were brought forward by councilmembers Suarez, Gonzalez and Herbold and perhaps others. Which were incorporated. Councilmember Johnson also moved an amendment that did not get the votes to be incorporated in the final vote out of committee was 5 to 0 recommendation for the Council to pass this ordinance either on October ten or on October 17th. Accommodating the request of Councilmember Suarez. We agreed to bring this to a vote on the 17th today, two and a half weeks after it was passed out of committee in case council members needed extra time to put together last minute amendments. It is worth, in my view, comparing the rigor of this process to that used for the resolution some council members rushed through to endorse building the North Precinct. That resolution was introduced and voted on on the same day. This bill has been discussed and has been given more time than most ordinances and tenants who are also working people who have to take time off work. They have come to council again and again to ask that we pass these basic protections. In reality, the tenant protections in this bill are extremely reasonable. Landlords or property owners will still collect the same money. They will just have to wait a little longer for the payment of the money that they are supposed to hold in escrow anyway until the end of tenancy. Everything else in the bill is normal behavior for most landlords anyway, or according to state law should be, for example, when the city enforces procedures for security deposits. That means the city will now have the ability to enforce some of the already existing state laws regarding how tenants get security deposits back. Landlords have to do a walkthrough with the tenant to establish a checklist of the condition of the apartment so that the tenant cannot be charged for a preexisting condition. This is already state law, but tenants will tell you how hard it is to get some landlords to follow this law. And the Seattle city's Department of Construction and Inspections expects this to be the biggest challenge to enforce. But the alternative is to just let tenants have their security deposit stolen. We have to be clear that the lobbyists on the ultra conservative Washington multi-family housing association who have opposed almost every tenant right bill passing passed by both the city and the state are putting real resources into derailing this bill despite how reasonable it is. They sent a letter to council asking and I quote, We ask that you send this bill to an appropriate committee and engage a stakeholder group to properly analyze this ordinance and its negative long term effects before it becomes law, unquote. We should be clear this is not a benign or innocent request for more time to improve the law. In that same letter, powerful landlords advocate for 50% upfront payments, defeating the most meaningful part of the bill, and request that the quote unquote negative effects be analyzed. In other words, they hope the council will send this back to committee in order to either kill the bill or to pass loopholes that will render the legislation ineffective. No one should be confused about what an action like that would be. I want to thank all the tenants who have sacrificed so much to come to testify to three council meetings on this topic. I also thank labor unions like your CW. Local 21 UAW Local 4121 two for coming and talking about housing rights. I also want to thank socialist, alternative and socialist students for being here, and I particularly want to thank the fantastic organizers from the Washington Community Action Network and the Seattle Education Association, and particularly Sochi. Michael, which for showing such incredible leadership. If we if we succeed in passing this today, it will be because of your our activism. And if we are delayed today, it will be because the senior council members who say that they are on the side of the tenants are actually on the side of the landlord lobby. But we will continue to fight until this council bill becomes law. I also particularly want to thank all the property owners and property managers who came to speak today in favor of moving fees. They are testament to the fact that there are landlords who are doing the right thing and that this law will not impact them negatively at all. This law, like every other tenants rights bill, is to make sure that renters do not have to depend on joining the landlord lottery in order to have fair renting conditions. We want all renters to be protected by the city law, and that is why the good property owners are also here speaking in favor of it . I also want to thank council members Herbold O'Brien, Suarez Gonzalez and Johnson for engaging with this bill thoroughly in committee. And I look forward to my colleagues support for this tenant rights bill. I would also urge Council members to remember that the burden of activism falls on ordinary working people, and the more we delay it, the more they will have to take time off work in order to fight for their basic rights. So I urge voting on this and passing this on a full council today. As I said before, the Energy and Environment Committee unanimously recommends five votes to nothing that the full council pass this ordinance. And lastly, I will say this council has just voted unanimously to support Initiative 75 against Citizens United, which means that the Council has taken a formal position that corporations should not be treated as people and that elected officials have to represent people. Let's vote yes on this bill to show that we truly stand with ordinary working people, not with corporate interests. Thank you, Councilmember. So once we have an open discussion on the bill on the floor and I know I am also aware there are some potential amendments as well. Councilmember Worse. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank all of you that are here today that provided public comment about this very important piece of legislation. I also want to thank my chair of my committee or her committee councilors who want in Herbert for all their work, as well as Ali from central staff. Before I go any further, I just want make one comment that discussing a potential bill is different than passing a law and then changing your mind a year later. So let me start with the facts and where we're at. On a personal note, I know what it's like not to be popular being a caseworker at the Saladin Center. To being a public defender. Legal services. To being a judge. And to representing tribes in underrepresented communities. But let me just say this. I believe in this proposed legislation. I believe in its intent. Its goals is protection of renters, particularly low income renters, and today's housing crisis and rising rents. My sole purpose in requesting that this very important piece of legislation be referred back to committee now allows. Back to Council member Sawant, in which I am also the vice chair, is to answer some very critical questions that I believe need to be addressed. What I want. Is I'm going to ask people refrain. I know it's tempting to just shout, but please let her speak. Thank you. I want this legislation to be able to withstand any legal challenges or concerns from the people it will affect. I want it to be able to be able to withstand any type of scrutiny and to ensure it is implemented, executed and applied with rigorous enforcement and cooperation. I want the transparency and public comment necessary to address outstanding issues from the public and those that provide housing, including the education, a real education piece. I'm committed to working with all stakeholders and as the Vice Chair of this particular committee, I look forward to working with council members who want Gonzalez, Herbold and Johnson to make sure that we do this right. I also want to see the Department of Construction and Inspection Inspection to work with our committee to make this legislation a model and a successful law. Hopefully, we can build a strong foundation and we can build upon this proposed law. As some people stated today, this law doesn't go far enough. And I agree. Furthermore, I want to incentivize landlords to lower moving costs. I don't want the unintended consequences of landlords raising rents. And also, more importantly, I would like this legislation after more consideration, to become the law of the city and applied with all deliberate speed. What I don't want I don't want this to make this a us versus them issue. I don't want to kill this bill. I don't want it to divide us as a city where it's clear we all want the same thing. We want to make it easier for renters to move in. We want to remove barriers, and we want to allow installment payments for moving fees. I don't want to see or create loopholes. I don't want this to become a wedge issue where we get bogged down in unrealistic objectives and expectations or have it stalled because some stakeholders believe they were not part of the process. I don't want this proposed legislation to pass and then sit on a shelf somewhere because like a lot of laws that I've seen since I've gotten this job, we did not do our due diligence. We weren't pragmatic on how we actually implement and enforce the law. As it stands, the proposed legislation would go into effect January 2017. That is true on September 27th. There are many issues we looked at and that was 20 days ago and now we're in the middle of a budget. So why my position is this and have some more to add. The benefits of referring this legislation back to committee far outweigh the burden of fixing things way after the fact, as I have witnessed in my short time here on city council. I don't want to see us set up for failure, but success. During this morning's hearing, you heard comment from all of us about how we felt about what we wanted to do with this legislation. This morning, I received a statement from CCI. They expressed support for having this legislation get more committee time. Stsci has been charged with implementing several new landlord tenant laws, including the Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance Real and the new source of income discrimination law. Given these changes, Stsci would like more time with with council members to ensure there's a coordinated effort for implementation and enforcement of all landlord tenant laws. I would like this work to be done at this table, not staff to staff. Again, I'm very supportive of the intent of this bill, and I believe I helped draft it. I met with many people from Kan. My staff and I looked at other states, the other 49 states to see what kind of legislation was out there and in fact, gave them ideas about how they could make this this piece of legislation stronger. The need for better access to housing continues to be a struggle in our current housing market. I also recognize that landlords have to take up the responsibility for providing housing to people. And just like we expect every other business to follow certain rules to ensure health, safety and access, we are asking this sector to do the same. I just want it done right. I voted this bill out of committee and when I did, I asked for more time for council members to deal with some outstanding issues and concerns from the last meeting from September 27th. Like I said, that was 20 days ago. During that meeting, council members had limited time to address seven new concerns with the language of the bill, its potential effectiveness, its ability to hold all parties accountable. One of those seven issues regarding enforcement had ample discussion, but it came to no resolution at that time, and the other six issues got very little time for discussion. In the interim, the enforcement issue was resolved at a staff level staff, not council members. This legislation has only had only two meetings in committee. The CCI inspection. The department tasked with enforcing and monitoring this legislation never got a seat at the table to discuss the bill. Implementation, enforcement and costs since September 27th me here. There have been several meetings with staff and council members all behind closed doors without the input of the public attempting to clarify the outstanding issues. I'm not suggesting anything nefarious was going on, but my concern was that these additional issues were not is resolved and done transparently at that table, not appear. Is the city going to require that tenants have a lawyer before changing the terms of their own lease with their landlord? What is the effect of holding fees that are typically collected the time of application before a lease agreement is written? Is there a way to use this legislation to incentivize lower moving costs? We haven't had a chance to share with the public what enforcement mechanism or outreach mechanisms have been put in place. Should we take the time to do that? We also have landlords in the city with experience doing payment plans with their tenants, specifically nonprofit housing providers and landlords that participate in the multi-family tax exemption programs. We should have them at the table and talk to them about their experiences or successes and learn from them how we're going to set up our law for success. And yes, I could do all of this in my office behind closed doors, but in my but it's my job to make sure legislation holds up to public scrutiny in the public interest. That's my job. Not to be popular, not to be right, but to do it right. And I we I believe we need transparency and that work should happen at the committee table. Given the potentially significant changes happening today and the questions still left to discuss, I motion that Council Bill 118817 be referred back to the energy environment committee for additional committee work. So why are you serious? This was not an easy decision. Excuse me, sir. If I can continue. This was not an easy decision for me. I have to admit, I have tremendous respect for my colleagues and the dedicated staff working on this very important issue. It's not important for me to be right. It's not important for me to be popular. I just want to get this done right. And I want this law to withstand and hold up time. And I want to make sure that Seattle remains a progressive city and working with our landlords and our renters. Thank you. So what's on the table is a motion to refer back to the committee for the Bill Back to Customers Wants Committee. That discussion will take precedence over the amendment, so we have to hold off on the amendments to resolve this issue. I do want to remind both the audience, all my colleagues, that the bill in front of us is not effective until January one, 2017, even if passed. So if the work is done, it could still be done before the effective date. But right now we have a motion to refer back to the same Energy and Environment Committee. We can have more discussion, but before we do that, I'll ask if there's a second that's been moved in second. And so it's been moved to second to refer back to the committee. And I remind again my colleagues before the effective date, we would like more discussion from any of my colleagues and at the end of discussion we will have a vote since has been moved in a second councilmember back. Shall I just thank you. I just want to assure all my colleagues that I support this bill. I would vote for it today and I will vote for it if there are amendments. I just want to make sure that those who have asked for more time get the respect of having more time. Very good. Any further comments from any of my colleagues, Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Sharma. And I will I will not be voting for the motion to refer. I support the bill. I understand the questions and concerns. But I having been through the committee meeting and had a chance to review this, I believe the legislation is sound legislation as it is today. I think that if there are things that continue to come up between now and January 1st or even in the future that we feel like we need to address, there's always the opportunity to do that as we are in the middle of our budget session. I don't know that there's a lot of opportunity for a while to get back into it, and my strong preference is to move forward today on this legislation, the sound piece of legislation that I think could have an immediate impact or a January one impact on a lot of folks that are struggling today. Thank you. Because it's. Cancer. I'm going back for the hearings, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. My preference is as well to vote on it today. Last week on on Friday, I was asked whether or not I would actually support referring this bill back to my own committee, my own civil rights committee after the completion of the budget process at the end of November. I said at that time I wouldn't. I was asked to support re referring the bill to Councilmember Johnson's Planning and Land Use Committee again after the completion of the budget process at the end of November. Again, I said I couldn't. As has been said, the drafting for this bill began in February this year. It was sent to the Council President's office on July 13th, and this council voted to refer it to the Energy and Environment Committee on August 1st. On September 13th, the bill was discussed in committee. Several amendments were made. On September 27th, the bill was again discussed in committee with more amendments being made and the committee voting 5 to 0 in favor of the bill. Two council members at that time requested additional time before a full council vote. That time was granted and the commitment fulfilled. I do believe there's a great deal of urgency around this issue. Upfront housing costs are a major barrier to accessing housing, making more and more people unsheltered. Seattleites, including homeowners who have major concerns regarding our homelessness crisis, expect us to take concrete legislative steps now to get people into housing. Building more housing and shelters takes time, but reducing barriers to housing is something that we can do now and will work in the long term. For this reason, I told Councilmember so on last Friday that the only way I would support a re referral of this bill is on two conditions. One that it be referred to Councilmember Sawant's committee, not some other committee. And two, if the Arts Council Budget Chair, Councilmember Burgess, agreed to allowing Council members to want to schedule a committee meeting during our budget process, waiting until after the completion of the budget process would mean the very earliest the committee could meet would be on December 13th. I could not and cannot support that. So all eyes are on me at this point. That's all customers want. Appreciate the comments by councilmembers O'Brien and Herbold. For those of the members of the public who might be tempted to buy into this argument that has been made by some council members that there was an adequate discussion. I would urge you all to watch the Seattle Channel recording of this morning's briefing. You know, the council meets for a briefing at that table every Monday morning. And at that meeting, I thought Councilmember Horrible laid out a very good summary of how much detail had been discussed at the committee meetings. So there's not been any shortage of discussion on the details of the bill. And I think if you watch that video, you will know that every single aspect that that has come up was discussed thoroughly. Councilmember Juarez, who is a member of the energy committee, missed the first meeting when we discussed this on nine September 13. Now, sometimes council members have to miss meetings. I have that same experience, and that's fair enough. But if as an elected official, you miss a meeting, you cannot tell struggling renters that they have to wait for their rights to be upheld because you need more meetings. But more importantly, more importantly, there have been two and a half weeks between the committee vote and today. I have not seen Councilmember Juarez do anything with that time. It's not like she approached me for discussions about this. It's not like she has brought up new amendments. So I'm not clear at all that if I am to take this request for more time at face value, then what exactly is going to be accomplished by this further delay? That's not clear to me at all. As far as the claims that this needs to be legally sound. I want members of the public to know the city's law department and the city. Seattle Department, Department of Construction and inspections have thoroughly vetted this legislation. And at this point, all the departments that are relevant for this legislation have given us the go ahead. So there is no honesty in this claim that we haven't included the departments. As Councilmember Herbold said, we we've discussed this for months, and the first people we interacted with my office interacted with was the department because we wanted to make sure that this law was legally sound and all of that has been addressed. I also want to make it clear that when councilmembers say that they want transparency, the public please know that this process of moving this motion to delay was so transparent that I was not approached at any point about this. I knew about these plans to delay it and any attempt to send it to another committee, only because Councilmember Herbold share that with me, as she mentioned. So that's the transparency that they are talking about. And as far as their transparency that we have engaged in, we have brought these discussions out into the open. For months we have been discussing this out into the open for months. Landlords have been able to weigh on this. As I said before, they've spent 18 to over $18,000 in the last three months, which is more than the average Social Security recipient makes in a year. So they've had ample opportunity. And yet this bill passed out of Committee five to nothing. And I'm not sure that the council members who already voted yes on it, I'm not sure why they are now voting to delay it. If you're voted yes on committee, that vote has to count for something. So I'm I'm still unclear. I would prefer it if council members came out in the open and said they've had phone calls from landlords and they're trying to delay it at their behest. And the last point I'll make is this my sisters and brothers, this is what the corporate politicians mean when they talk about the Seattle process. It means, Jane, make up as much as possible, manage the rights of ordinary working people. And when it's for the police department that is cited by the Department of Justice and for corporations, then ram the process through to make it happen. And we will keep fighting. We will keep fighting to make sure not only this law is passed, but also that every tenant's right is upheld. And I will I will request all my colleagues who are going to vote yes on this motion to actually speak openly about why you're doing so and not just vote for it. I see a few folks. Few hands up, but I missed the order, so. Councilmember Herbold, did you want to clarify something after you saw your hand go up right after you spoke? I didn't need to clarify anything, but I was signaling for one of my two conditions potentially to be responsibly spoken. Okay. Yes. So in that condition, being the meeting in after budget or before budget or during budget? During budget? During the budget. Okay. So we have Councilmember. Burgess. Along with someone else in. Q after Councilmember Burgess. Okay, everyone. Okay. You get you'll get what you want. Everyone. Everyone. Put some skin in the game. Remember, I'm. Responding to Councilmember Herbold request. And so I have checked with council's central staff, which more than maybe any of us up here controls the schedule for the budget. And yes, we can accommodate. An additional meeting of council members who wants committee in November. Okay. So that clarifies that matter and consumer concerns. Did you want to respond back? Councilmember Herbold, so sorry. I'm making faces here. Okay. Like I do. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Okay. Thank you. So I am very aware that this bill doesn't actually go into effect until January 1st of 2017. And I guess from my perspective, there are there are three things that would be nice to see added into the bill. And if we had an opportunity to have another hearing in November in councilmembers, the wants committee, which I sit on, I, I think it would be helpful. The three things that I'd like to see substantively changed is I'd like to see an anti retaliation provision added to the ordinance. I'd like to make sure that there is a reconciliation between this proposed ordinance and the city's just cause ordinance, which prevents tenants from being unjustly evicted from their homes when they're on a month to month tenant agreement. And the last thing that I had brought up in the committee hearing, I think in early September or maybe late August, was related to what to do about landlords obligations to put money into an escrow account, that that would be an interest bearing account where that interest would go back to to tenants at the time that the tenancy relationship ends. And so if there is an opportunity to to go back to committee and develop those three things, which I don't think are loopholes, I think those are actually pro tenants and would be helpful to two tenants in this endeavor to make sure that we are shifting power from the landlord over to the tenant. I would really appreciate the opportunity to be able to develop those three additional policy proposals as part of this bill. The other thing that I would mention that, you know, one of the amendments that I had made early on is reflected in Section 12 of the existing bill, which creates an explicit requirement by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to engage in community outreach and education that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for communities. And it instructs the department to work both with the Office for Civil Rights and with the Office of Immigrant Refugee Affairs to make sure that we are setting up the appropriate language access provisions that are going to be necessary to educate, particularly tenants who may not speak English or understand the system that we have here in terms of how the landlord tenancy relationship exists. And during this budget process, I am seeking an additional $50,000 of funding to support that particular out outreach work. So I am committed to this this policy. If there's an opportunity to continue to work on it, I would I would support that to the extent that I'm allowed to propose these three additional policies as part of this of this council bill. And so long as it goes back to the Energy and Environment Committee, so that councilmember can continue to lead on this work. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. So I concur with what I've heard from several of my colleagues related to not wanting to change at all the effective date of this legislation. I think the fact that we've got January 1st effective date doesn't preclude us from spending a little more time to make sure that we do get the legislation right. From my perspective, as the person who as committee oversees the Seattle Department of Construction and inspections, I've had a chance to talk with them a little bit about just sort of the implementation of this as it relates to other critical pieces of legislation that we've adopted this year and that I've been supportive of, including the first in time legislation as well as several of the other prohibitions on rent increases when unions don't make basic standards, basic maintenance standards provisions. I think that there's also a direct correlation here between the work that we're doing and the budget process. And I believe that there's a strong responsibility for me as the person who oversees the Department of Construction inspections to make sure that they've got adequate resources to do outreach to tenants and landlords, to make sure that everybody does understand the effectiveness of this law and its implementation. So, again, I concur with colleagues who have said that January 1st is still my intention. My intention isn't to delay this process in any way, shape or form. The fact that we have a little more time to bring this back to Councilmember Science Committee is something that I support without delaying the actual implementation, but making sure that we've got the. Funding in the Department of Construction inspections to really do the work. Thanks. Thank you. May I? Sure. COUNCILMEMBER Worse. I just want to address it. Something that. It's kind of the elephant in the room. I don't believe any of us here who want to work on this bill want to kill it. I don't. I don't want to create a landlord loophole. I'm not. I don't know where this landlord conspiracy and we're against tenants and renters come from that certainly it. It certainly doesn't come from. So when we talk about things, I think it's important for people to know that when I do hear from the CDC, who will be in charge is us. And they are telling me, telling us, told me today that they would like more time on this in light of what Councilmember Johnson just shared. And I want to add that I did speak to Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Herbert told me, and I concurred, and I could have done the same thing. And she said, Well, I'm going to let Councilmember Silent know what's going on. And I said, okay, great. I didn't think it was a big secret. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I think that when people make this personal, I think people need to know in this room that I actually work really well with council members who want. I consider her a friend and I actually enjoy. Work my whole life. Okay. Well, I hope so much. Was will find it. Well, my wife kicked me out now. Oh. So with that, my hope is that we can create this and make it a incredible law that we can be proud of, that we can implement, that doesn't sit on the shelf somewhere, and that a year from now we're not fighting about definitions, enforcement, education, how do we implement it and who does it? This isn't about not passing this law. It's just asking for the right and some more time for it. Thank you. So so I'm going to call for the question and I'm going to ask people vote by show of hands. And before I do that, I want to make a few statements. There's been a few very negative, I think perhaps allegations or accusations that were made. And I first heard as an example about a motion for a delay this afternoon. And when I first heard it, I grabbed my colleagues and said, How do you want to handle this? I pointed out quickly that the effective date is January, because if it did get referred, we all wanted to go back to Customer Response Committee in July. We had to make a decision as a council as to what committee this would even go to, because one could argue it was a housing issue, one could argue was a planning land use issue. But we know Councilmember Want is probably been the strongest advocate for tenants and a leader in that regard, probably nationally known for that. So very appropriate for her to shepherd this through. When this does pass, this is going to be a glorious day. It's going to be nine in and. Oh, and whether it passes today or not to me is, I think, gives some closure. But I don't think we're going to open up in the middle of a budget. We're right in the middle of the budget. So I want it to be a glorious day to speak volumes to this country about what we're trying to do for renters. And I just don't like, quite frankly, the personal attacks, because I assume everyone up here are trying to trying to good do good by the city. So having said that, this motion is on the table to refer Council Bill 118817 back to the Energy and Environment Committee. There was some discussion, by the way, about there could be a meeting during November. So all those in favor. Can ask for a clarification. Yes. You mean do we need to include in the motion that it will be during the budget process that we will have a special meeting? So I don't. I'll put it this way. I don't think it has been a motion, but I'm just stating on the record that everyone here has full intentions to have a meeting for you to have a meeting during the budget so it won't be a substantive part. You see this heads nodding with the TV going that that means, yes, we're going to have a meeting in November. And so we'd be castigated if we didn't. So not part of the motion, but part of the understanding on the record. Yes. So what was that date in November you back to. Know how did you. By December 13th. By December 13th. Okay. So what we're going to do comes from Swan is I'll make it in the motion that will have a report back date by your committee on December 13th, said on Monday I hope that Sunday what I know can we we by December 12th so I'll start over and said cleaner but Councilmember Gonzales yeah . My preference would be if there's no objection by councilmembers the want is that the motion be couched in a way where it would be by December 13th. So it's the latest, but it could come back sooner if if it's ready. I would prefer that, actually. And also. Just I'll say on this for. Just to remind the council, several councilmembers have already taken official leave for for many of the weeks in December, starting late November. So it's better we do it before late November, actually, because we want the council to be present. Correct. But the report back will be on or before December. We said 712 or 1312. Okay. So. So we'll schedule the meeting when we get a good turnout. So let me clean my motion up a little bit or clean. Councilmember This motion up. Council Member No, I'm not, sir. Not in Seattle. Councilmember Suarez's motion is to refer the Council Bill 118817 to the Energy Environment Committee and a report and with the understanding that there'll be a report on or before December 12th. That's the motion. Is there a second? All those of favor? Vote I in. Raise your hands by all the polls. Vote no and raise your hands. No, sir. The vote, the motion refer pass 72 and we will move to the next. We'll move to the next agenda item. On the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. Agenda Item five Council 118 683 Amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes responding to the Resolution 315 77 to increase the plan's emphasis on race and social justice equity and improve its reliability, modifying and adding new goals and policies in several elements of the plan that