>>> GOOD MORNING.
JUNE 19, 2019 MEETING OF THE
SEATTLE PLANNING LAND USED
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
9:34 A.M.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON
CLERK FILE 314413 CARBON
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
EXPANSION IN THE NORTH SHUTTER
PRECINCT.
A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
ON COUNSEL BILL 119471,
CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF A
VESSEL.
AND BRIEFING DISCUSSION AND
POSSIBLE VOTE ON COUNSEL BILL
119546 WHICH UPDATES THE RENTAL
REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION
ORDINANCE TO CONFORM WITH STATE
LAW.
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
GETTING IS WEDNESDAY, JULY 3 AT
9:30 A.M.
IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION I WILL
ADOPT TODAY'S AGENDA.
HEARING NONE AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS THAT
APPEAR ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
WE HAVE 20 MINUTES TODAY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT.
EACH SPEAKER IS LIMITED TO ONE
MINUTE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF A SPEAKER'S COMMENT EXCEEDS
ONE MINUTE THE MICROPHONE WILL
BE TURNED OFF.
PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND
THE AGENDA ITEM YOU WISH TO
ADDRESS.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO
THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA ARE
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
COMMITTEE.
FIRST, WE HAVE SARAH WEAVER.
AND THEN WE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
DAN OBERT.
>> IS THE BACKYARD COTTAGE IS
NOT ON THIS AGENDA TODAY?
>> NO.
I'M ASSUMING YOU MEANÃ
>> THE REZONING.
>> THE A/D YOU BILL.
THAT WAS YESTERDAY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> DAN OGBURN.
>> THAT IS CURRENTLY, IT WAS
VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE IN THE
SUSTAINABILITY IN
TRANSPORTATION.
CHAIRMAN O'BRIEN HAS THE PLAN
TO BRING THAT BEFORE THE FULL
COUNCIL ON JULY 1. THANK YOU.
IRENE HATCHETT.
>> ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE PRESENT
TODAY?
>> IT APPEARS SO.
>> SO IS THIS AN EXERCISE IN
FUTILITY FOR ME TO COMMENT?
>> I WOULD RATHER THAT YOU
SPEND YOUR MINUTE PROVIDING
PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> OKAY.
I'M HERE FOR THE NORTH SEATTLE
POLICE PRECINCT MATTER.
I WAS HERE LAST TIME.
I SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE
COMMITTEE AND I ASKED HIM TO
REVIEW.
I TRUST THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED
IT.
GIVEN THAT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE ARE NOT HERE I
DON'T KNOW.
IF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY REVIEWED
IT OR NOT.
ONE OF OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS IS
PRESERVATION OF THE GREEN SPACE.
THIS PROPOSAL IS TEMPORARY IN
NATURE.
WE WOULD LIKE THE COUNCIL TO
COMMIT TO RESTORING THE GREEN
SPACE TO GREEN SPACE ONCE THEY
NO LONGER NEED THIS PARKING
LOT.
THIS IS A TEMPORARY PROJECT IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PROMISED
úTHAT GREEN SPACE AS GREEN SPAC
WHEN THE POLICE STATION WAS
ORIGINALLY BUILT.
>> I DO BELIEVE A LETTER WAS
RESPONDED TO.
I DID HAVE A FOLLOW-UP.
ELISE BOLAN.
FOLLOWED BY JUDY CAROL.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M ALSO BOWMAN.
I'M A RESIDENT WHO LIVES
EXACTLY BEHIND THE POLICE
PRECINCT STATION.
MY CONCERN, ACTUALLY, IS NOT
THE PLAN.
I THINK WE HAVE AGREED THAT
WILL GO FORWARD.
MY CONCERN IS THE INCREASED
TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS
THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED WHEN WE
DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE PRECINCT
PERSONNEL AND THEIR PARKING
NEEDS ONTO THE STREETS
SURROUNDING US.
WE DESPERATELY NEED A COHERENT
PLAN THAT WILL INCLUDE
RESTRICTED STREET PARKING AS
THERE IS NOW SOUTH OF NORTH
100, PLUS CONSTRUCTION OF
SIDEWALKS ON NORTH 103rd
BETWEEN WALLINGFORD AND AURORA.
I WOULD BE HAPPY FOR THE POLICE
TO HAVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
FOR PARKING IF THESE
IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE MADE.
THINGS WILL ONLY GET WORSE WHEN
THEY LIGHT RAIL STATION OPENS
AND THE PROJECTED BRIDGE ON
NORTH 100 OVER I-5 IS BUILT.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ADDRESS
THESE SAFETY ISSUES.
I'M ASKING YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBERS, AT LEAST MISTER
PACHECO, TO DIRECT ME TO THE
PROPER DEPARTMENT SO OUR
COMMUNITY CAN BE INVOLVED IN
FINDING A SOLUTION FOR THIS
TRAFFIC AND SAFETY PROBLEM.
WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU MY
LETTER.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS CHERYL FILMER.
>> NO.
JUDY CAROL WAS NEXT.
>> MY APOLOGIES.
>> I HAVE BEEN HERE 26 YEARS
AND WE AS A COMMUNITY OF 16
HOMES HAVE SPENT A LOT OF OUR
BUDGET ON LANDSCAPING OUR AREA.
WE WOULD HOPE THAT THE PRECINCT
WOULD ADDRESS THEIR LANDSCAPING
WITH THE INCLUSION OF
IRRIGATION.
WE HAVE SEEN PLANTS DIE OVER
THE YEARS. THEY PUT THEM IN
AND THEY DIE, BECAUSE THERE IS
NO IRRIGATION.
WE REALLY WANT YOU TO ADDRESS
THAT ISSUE. AND THEN IF THIS
EXPANSION OCCURS WE HOPE THAT
YOU WOULD PUT THE LAND BACK TO
ITS RESTORED NATURAL STATE.
WE HAVE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS TO
THE POLICE PRECINCT AND THEY
HAVE BEEN TO US, BUT WE WOULD
LIKE THIS TO PUT SCREENING IN
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT
THOSE BUILDINGS.
AND CARS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT IS CHERYL SELLMEYER
FOLLOWED BY JUST WATCH.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS CHERYL FELDMAN WITH
THE REALITY, 350 SEATTLE WHICH
IS A GRASSROOTS CIVIC COMIC
ACTION ORGANIZATION.
AS A LISTEN THIS MORNING I CAN
SEE THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS
ISSUES DETAILED THAT CONSUME
ITS INTERESTS.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MORE GENERAL COMMENT TO ASKED
THE COMMITTEE TO KEEP IN MIND
THAT URBAN DENSITY IS ONE OF
THE MAJOR SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE
CHANGE IN SEATTLE.
I URGE YOU TO LOOK TOWARDS
SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE MORE INTENSE
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBER
PACHECO.
GOOD MORNING, STAFF MIKE.
I'M HERE WITH 350 SEATTLE.
YESTERDAY I WAS A PART OF ABOUT
150 FOLKS WHO CAME HERE TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO DELIVER A MAYOR
TO -- A LETTER TO MAYOR DURKIN.
IT ADDRESSES HISTORIC INJUSTICES
, CREATE THOUSANDS OF GOOD
GREEN UNION JOBS.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS A KEY PART
TO PLAY IN THE REALIZATION OF
THAT TRANSFORMATIVE GREEN NEW
DEAL.
WE SEE A PRINT DENSITY AND ALSO
STRICTER REGULATIONS ON ENERGY
EFFICIENCY TO CREATE BUILDINGS
THAT REDUCE OUR CARBON
POLLUTION, BUT ALSO LOWER OUR
ENERGY BILLS AS A KEY PIECE OF
HOW SEATTLE CAN MOVE FORWARD
AND LEAD THE WAY CLIMATE.
AND COMING HERE TODAY I WANT TO
LIFT UP THE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS WHO HAVE ALREADY SIGNED
OUR COMMUNITY ENDORSEMENT LETTER
IN ADDITION TO ABOUT 100
COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONS AND
BUSINESSES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
O'BRIEN, SO ONE, AND MOSQUEDA
HAVE SIGNED ON.
I INVITE THE REST OF COUNSEL TO
JOIN US AND I WANT TO THANK
THIS COMMITTEE FOR PASSING
YESTERDAY'S LEGISLATION AND
CONTINUING TO HELP THE CITY
LEAD ON CLIMATE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE SCOTT McLEAN.
>> GOOD MORNING, THANK YOU.
I'M A SCOTT McLEAN WITH 350
SEATTLE.
I'M HERE BECAUSE CHAOS IS
IMPACTING US NOW AND IT'S
GETTING WORSE.
TWO DAYS AGO THE PAPER SAID
PERMAFROST IS MELTING 70 YEARS
AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. WE ARE IN
DEEP TROUBLE.
I'M SCARED TO DEATH AND WE HAVE
TO ACT.
SO WE CALL FOR ENDING FOSSIL
FUEL EMISSIONS. THAT MEANS
THAT WE HAVE TO END NATURAL GAS
HOOKUPS WE CALL IT FRACTUS GAS
BECAUSE MOST OF IT COMES FROM
FRACKING.
ALL GAS USED MUST BE PHASED OUT
BY 2030.
WE ALSO NEED INCREASED
DENSITIES SO THE A/D YOU IS A
GREAT FIRST STEP.
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING IS A RELIC
OF RACISM AND MUST BE
ABOLISHED.
TODAY'S NEW YORK TIMES HAS AN
ARTICLE THAT OREGON HAS A
BILLING PROCESS FOR THE STATE
LEGISLATURE TO ABOLISH THE
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING.
MINNEAPOLIS HAS ALREADY DONE
THAT.
WE HAVE TO JUMP ON BOARD.
DUPLEXES, TRIPLEX IS, AND FOUR
PLEXUS WILL INCREASE DENSITY
AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
MATERIAL USE EFFICIENCY.
THE REAL GOAL IS NET ZERO
BUILDING CODES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE ENJOYED BY COUNCIL
MEMBERS O'BRIEN AND COUNCIL
MEMBERS HERBOLD.
THANK YOU.
NEXT ON THE LIST IS MORI MOORE
SCHULER.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR
HAVING US HERE TODAY.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAKE
UNION. WE WHAT IS INCLUDED IN
THE UPRISING OF THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
THERE ARE PLACES IN THE CODE
THAT THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE MY
CONFLICT WITHIN THE FUTURE.
I DO WANT TO THANK COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD FOR HER
AMENDMENT.
IT'S A REAL STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RECONSIDER
VOTING ON THIS TODAY, BECAUSE I
THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SCRUBBED
WITH THE REST OF THE PARTS OF
THE CODE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE YOU TO THINK
ABOUT IF YOU DO POSTPONE THIS
TODAY IF YOU DO NOTHING AND PUT
IT OFF, YOU MAKE IT
APPLICATIONS FROM BOATS THEY
DON'T HAVE MOTORS TO BECOME
FLOWERS.
AND THEN YOU CAN REGULATE THEM.
YOU CAN ACTUALLY VERIFY THEM AS
FLOWERS AND REGULATE THEM.
THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO HAVE THEM
ON THE WATER AS ON WORKING
BOATS THAT YOU HAVE NO
REGULATORY POWER OVER.
TO ME IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE
THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND LET THEM
APPLY AND BECOME FLOWERS.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS JOHN CHENEY.
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS
JOHN CHENEY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PAST
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU
ABOUT THIS.
I LIKE TO INTRODUCE TWO RECORDS
AND TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION
INTO THE RECORD.
I HAVE COPIES FOR ALL OF YOU.
THE FIRST ONE IS A BEST OLD
SURVEY THAT WAS DONE BY THE
CITY ITSELF IN 2015.
IT IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WERE
POTENTIALLY TO HUNDRED 20 TO
POTENTIAL FLOWER OPPORTUNITIES
FOR VERIFICATION.
WE ARE AT TO HUNDRED 30
SOMETHING RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING SOME
HUGE OVERWHELMING CHANGE IN THE
LAST FIVE YEARS.
THIS IS PROPOSING TO SOMEHOW
CLOSE THE DOOR TO THAT. IT IS
TO CLOSE THE DOOR NOT FOR THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE
ARE VESSELS, BUT RATHER THAT A
RIGHT THAT WE HAVE AS FLOWERS
IS REPLACEMENT, JUST LIKE EVERY
OTHER VESSEL.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE OUR THE OTHER VESSEL
DEFINITIONS FROM ACROSS THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, STATE
GOVERNMENT, AND THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
THE DEFINITION AS IT ALREADY
STANDS IN THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS AN
OUTLIER AND WOULD ONLY BECOME
WORSE AS AN OUTLIERWITH THIS
CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT IS STEVE PRISCILLA.
FOLLOWED BY GLENN BULLINGER.
>> GLAD THEY DIDN'T THROW YOU
TO THE WOLVES SO YOU'RE NOT
HERE ALONE AGAIN.
WOULD YOU TAKE AT HOUSE
ELECTIVELY GREEN THIS COUNSEL
SEEMS TO BE.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CARBON
BUT YOU ALSO DON'T WANT TO SAY
AND HERITAGE TREES.
ANTHING THAT GOES AGAINST THE
DEVELOPERS IS SOMETHING THAT
YOU DO NOT SEEM TO WANT TO DO.
YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT
HOW MANY TIMES THE POPULATION
OF SEATTLE, WE WERE ALREADY
ZONED FOR.
WHAT WE SEEM TO BE IS IN A
CYCLE WHERE WE ARE GOING TO
MAKE DEVELOPMENT MANDATORY AND
VERY, VERY PROFITABLE.
IF YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING AT
GREEN YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAVE
SOME TREES.
YOU ALSO, IF YOU WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE POPULATION YOU MIGHT
ALSO THINK ABOUT FAMILY UNITS.
YOU ARE DESTROYING MORE FAMILY
UNITS. WHAT WE ARE BUILDING IS
NOT FAMILY UNITS.
IF WE KEEP GOING THIS WAY WE
ARE GOING TO MAKE SEATTLE A FAR
DIFFERENT PLACE AND IT APPEARS
YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS THAT
WITH THE CITIZENS.
AND LONG-TERM PLANS FOR THE
PRECINCT.
ARE THERE ANY?
Q
>> AND GLENN?
>> NEXT WE HAVE ROSA MARIE
BULLINGER.
SUSAN WHITEHEAD?
>> HIGH.
I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THE
REDEFINITION OF A VESSEL BUT I
HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE.
I'M NERVOUS.
QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T REALLY,
I'M REALLY PUZZLED EVEN AFTER
TRYING TO READ ABOUT WHAT THE
IMPLICATIONS OF CREATIVE
FINDING VESSEL IS.
I DO THINK THAT SOME FLAWED
DATA HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU
GUYS.
I THINK THAT MAYBE YOU'RE
TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED
ON INFORMATION THAT'S NOT
CORRECT.
I DO ALSO AGREE WITH LULA THAT
I WOULD URGE THIS VOTE BE
POSTPONED UNTIL THE SSM P IS
REVIEWED.
I DO THINK, I THINK COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD FOR THE
AMENDMENT THAT IS GIVING THE
EXCEPTION, THE EXEMPTION FOR
EXISTING FLOWERS TO NOT BE
AFFECTED BY THIS.
I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT.
OKAY.
THAT'S ABOUT IT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP IS BARBARA INGRAM.
>> WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO
DO, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD
FOR THE AMENDMENT, WHICH I
THINK IS HELPFUL AND AGREE IT'S
A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE THE CITY
COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE PROCESS
THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN
TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF THE
SITUATION.
THAT IS ONE SMALL PIECE HAS
BEEN PLUCKED OUT OF A VERY LARGE
SET OF REGULATIONS.
WE ARE FOCUSING ON THAT.
THAT'S A VERY POOR PROCESS.
WHEN YOU DO THAT RUN THE RISK
OF CREATING A PATCHWORK SET OF
RULES IT DOES A NUMBER OF
THINGS.
IT MAKES THE RULES MUCH MORE
CONFUSING FOR PEOPLE SO THAT
COMPLIANCE IS HARDER.
IT CONFUSES THINGS IT RUNS THE
RISK OF CREATING INCONSISTENCIES
. AND IT ALSO RUNS THE RISK OF
CREATING LOOPHOLES THAT YOU
DON'T WANT.
AND THE MORE YOU PATCHWORK THIS
THE WORST THAT PROCESS IS GOING
TO GET. I REALLY URGE YOU TO
STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT THE
PROCESS THAT'S GOING ON AND TO
CONSIDER THE WISEST COURSE
MIGHT REALLY AND TRULY BE TO
LOOK AT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF
REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PLAN SO YOU CAN TRY
TO WRITE REGULATIONS THAT HAVE
CONSISTENCY.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT ON THE LIST IS SHOW
WETLAND.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M SPEAKING ALSO FOR THE
VESSEL DEFINITION.
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO LISTEN
TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS INSTEAD
OF DCI REGARDING THIS.
I WANT TO THANK BOTH COUNCIL
MEMBERS O'BRIEN AND HER BOLT
FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD FOR HER
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD SAFEGUARD
MY HOME.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IS RARE AND ANYONE WHO
SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THAT DID NOT
SPEAK?
PLEASE SIGN IN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M GLAD TO SEE AT LEAST THREE
HERE.
I LIKE TO SEE ALL OF YOU HERE.
YOU LIKE TO THANK LISA FOR HER
HELP AND PERHAPS GETTING THIS
DELAYED.
THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE
GET IT DELAYED.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU FOR
TODAY, TO DELAY THIS DECISION
ON THE VESSEL DEFINITION.
I WORK IN THE INDUSTRY.
I LIVE ON A HOUSEBOAT.
I LIVE ON A FLOWER.
I'M ON THE WATER EVERY DAY.
WORKING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S BOATS.
THE DEFINITION AND THE
STATEMENT THAT JOHN CHENEY
ISSUED BASED ON THAT STUDY, A
LOT OF MISNOMER'S ARE IN THERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED IS
THAT THEY DESCRIBE BOATS,
HOUSEBOATS, AS HAVING BEDROOMS
AND BATHROOMS AND A KITCHEN
JUST LIKE SHORESIDE HOMES.
THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED LIKE THAT.
OUR BOATS THAT ARE BIG ENOUGH
FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE ON, OUR
YACHTS, OUR SUPER YACHTS ALL
HAVE THOSE THINGS.
RECENTLY CALLED THEM DIFFERENT
THINGS.
THE LIVING ROOM THE SALON, THE
KITCHEN THE GALLEY, THE GALLEY
THE HEAD, AND THE BEDROOMS ARE
STATE ROOMS.
THEY SERVE THE SAME FUNCTION.
HOUSEBOATS HAVE BEEN A
DEFINITION FOR MANY, MANY
YEARS.
AS JOHN HAS SAID, ALL OVER THE
UNITED STATES AND ALL OVER THE
WORLD THEY ARE HOUSES,
HOUSEBOATS THAT WERE BUILT FOR
PEOPLE TO LIVE ON SPECIFICALLY.
PEOPLE LIVE ON OTHER BOATS.
THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THIS,
IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.
THE BOATS THAT WE LIVE ON,
HOUSEBOATS, CONTAINED THEIR
SEWAGE AND THEY CONTAIN THEIR
WATER.
AND THEY REDUCE THE WATER WE
PUT OVERBOARD BY USING LESS
WATER. WE USE ENVIRONMENTAL
FRIENDLY SOAPS.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DEFER THIS
DECISION PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> HELLO.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
MY NAME IS DAN WELLSHIRE.
I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
HOUSEBOAT BUILDER AND THIS
GREATLY AFFECTS ME AS WELL AS
EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY.
BY REDEFINING A VESSEL THIS
ACTUALLY ADDS IT'S REGULATION,
NOT MORE RIGHT NOW I CAN
REBUILD A FLOWER INTO A
HOUSEBOAT THAT IS REGULATED.
IF I CAN NOW BUILD A VESSEL
WITH NO REGULATION OR PERMIT
THIS ADDS LESS REGULATION
COMPLETELY.
IF YOU REDEFINE THESE PEOPLE
THAT LIVE ON -- THERE ARE ALSO
A TON OF QUESTIONS,
CONSEQUENCES OF REDEFINING A
VESSEL WHERE THE MARINAS HAVE
TO HAVE SOME 75% OF VESSELS TO
BE CALLED A MARINA.
HOW IS THE CITY GOING TO
ADDRESS THIS NOW THAT THESE ARE
NO LONGER VESSELS?
DO THEY HAVE TO KICK THEM OUT?
THE PERSON THAT MAY HAVE A
FLOWER AND HAVE REGULATIONS
THEY ARE NO LONGER HAS THIS,
BECAUSE THEY ARE TO FIND
SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT
THEY LIVED ON THEIR ENTIRE LIFE.
I ASK FOR DELAY OF THIS VOTE.
CONSIDER WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING
ON BY REDEFINING WHAT A VESSEL
IS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE WHO DID NOT SIGN
UP TO SPEAK THAT WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK?
SEEING NONE WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
FIRST, ITEM OF BUSINESS IS
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE VOTE ON
CLERK FILE 31443 WHICH IS A
COUNSEL LAND-USE ACTION TO
ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY
EXPANSION OF THE NORTH SEATTLE
POLICE PRECINCT.
PLEASE READ THIS ITEM INTO THE
RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM 1 CLERK FILE
31413 COUNSEL ANDY'S ACTION TO
APPROVE A TEMPORARY EXPANSION
OF NORTH SEATTLE PRECINCT
LOCATED AT 10049 COLLEGE WE
NORTH.
>> WELCOME BACK.
WILL THE FOLKS AT THE TABLE
PLEASE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
>> COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, KETO
FREEMAN,
>> SEATTLE THE PAYMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION.
>> PARTNERSHIP ART DETECT FOR
THE PROBLEM -- FOR THE PROJECT.
>> FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
CIRCUSES,
>> MARK BAIRD, CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER.
>> ERIC SANO, CAPTAIN AND NORTH
PRECINCT COMMANDER.
>> SO, UNFORTUNATELY THE LAST
TIME WE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE
TO CONCLUDE THIS ACTION ITEM.
WE ARE BACK HERE TODAY TO
ADDRESS THIS SO WE CAN SEND IT
TO THE FULL COUNCIL.
BEFORE WE DO THAT PLEASE
PROVIDE US WITH A BRIEF
REFRESHER OF THE DECISION
BEFORE US.
>> I WILL JUST RECAP WHERE WE
HAVE BEEN IN ORIENT YOU TO SOME
OF THE MATERIALS THAT ARE
ATTACHED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM.
WE HAVE FAS AND SPD HERE THAT
MAY BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT.
JUST BY WAY OF A REMINDER ON
THE FIFTH THE COMMITTEE WAS
BRIEFED ON THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION AND WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT HUNDREDS THERE WAS
A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.
THIS TYPE OF ACTION IS A
SOMEWHAT INFREQUENT ACTION THAT
THE COUNCIL TAKES, WHICH IS
COUNCIL APPROVAL, THEN USE
APPROVAL OF A PROJECT, A CITY
FACILITY PROJECT IN THIS CASE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS
OCCASIONALLY, BUT NOT TOO
OFTEN.
THERE IS A DECISION DOCUMENT
THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE MEMO
FROM LAST WEEK AND THAT
DOCUMENT WOULD CONDITIONALLY,
THAT DECISION DOCUMENT WILL
CONDITIONALLY GRANT APPROVAL OF
THE EXPANSION AND WAVE IN A
MOMENT STANDARD RELATED TO THE
RELOCATION OF PARKING.
THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY
SDC I. YOU ALL MAY HAVE
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS BASED ON THE
TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD TODAY
AND BRIEFING THAT OCCURRED LAST
WEEK.
FAS AND SPD ARE HERE TO RESPOND
TO SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
THIS WAS, I WAS ABLE TO ASK
THIS LAST TIME, BUT WE HAVE HER
CONCERNS ABOUT IRRIGATION.
JUST IN TERMS OF WHAT'S THE
PLAN FOR THE EXPANSION.
>> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ALONG
THE EXTENDED PARKING LOT, I
BELIEVE THE PLAN, CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG, DUNCAN, WE WOULD
HAVE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION
INSTALLED TO HELP ESTABLISH THE
PLANTS.
SO THAT THE NATIVE PLANTS THAT
ARE PLANTED THERE HAVE TIME TO
FULLY ESTABLISH THEMSELVES.
THERE IS A TIME IN WHICH THE
CONTRACTORS ALSO, UNDER
OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THOSE
PLANS ARE WELL-ESTABLISHED,
IT'S THE TYPICAL THAT THERE IS
A ONE-YEAR WARRANTY INCLUDED
WITH THE LANDSCAPE.
AFTER THAT IT WOULD BE UP TO
OUR FACILITY OPERATIONS,
MAINTENANCE GROUP THROUGH, I
BELIEVE, VENDORS TO MAINTAIN
THE LANDSCAPE.
AFTER THAT TIME.
>> WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THIS
PLAN WILL WE NOT BE ABLE TO ADD
NEW OFFICERS?
>> YES.
I'M LOOKING TO SPD HERE, BUT
THE PRECINCT IS AT ITS MAX.
THERE IS PHYSICALLY NO MORE
SPACE TO ADD PATROL OFFICERS.
IT'S PURELY A FUNCTION OF A
LOCKER ROOM.
IT REALLY DOES COME DOWN TO
THAT.
TO BUY LOCKERS FOR OFFICERS AND
THEREFORE THERE IS NO COMMUNITY
ROOM.
I THINK WE HAVE EXPLORED EVERY
NOOK AND CRANNY OF THE
PRECINCT.
AGAIN, THERE IS SIMPLY NO MORE
SPACE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBAL.
>> RATHER THAN JUST DO A BACK-
AND-FORTH Q&A THE FOLKS WHO
CAME AND SPOKE TO US LAST TIME
SUBMITTED A LETTER.
NINE QUESTIONS.
I THINK MISTER FREEMAN ASKED
FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
CAN YOU QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE
ANSWERS TO THE NINE QUESTIONS?
I THINK THE FIRST ONE WAS
RELATED TO THE NOT PAVING OVER
MORE THAN WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR
THE PARKING LOT AND A REQUEST
FOR A COMMITMENT TO RESTORE
GREEN SPACE AFTER THE NEED FOR
THE TEMPORARY USE IS UP.
I THINK THERE'S ONE ABOUT
SECURITY FENCING, ONE ABOUT
WHERE OFFICERS SHOULD BE ABLE
TO ACCESS, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD
QUICKLY GO THROUGH THEM.
>> OKAY.
I THINK THIS WILL BE A TEAM
EFFORT ON OUR PART.
I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY HAS
THE QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF THEM,
BUT I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION
RELATED TO PARKING, I WOULD
DEFER TO LINDSAY AS FAR AS THE
TRAFFIC REPORT AND THE STUDY
THAT WAS DONE REGARDING PARKING
AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PARKING.
MAYBE YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
>> UNFORTUNATE, I DON'T HAVE
THE QUESTION.
I CAN SPEAK TO THE STUDY THAT
WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION.
>> THE QUESTION IS OR THE
REQUEST IS DON'T PAVE ANY MORE
OF THE CURRENT GREEN SPACE THAT
IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE SECURE
PARKING FOR THE NEXT SIX OR
SEVEN YEARS.
AND AGREED TO REMOVE THE
TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL PARKING
AND RESTORE THE GREEN SPACE
WHEN THE NEW PRECINCT IS BUILT
ELSEWHERE.
>> WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE
PROJECT SUBMITTAL THAT WAS
AMENDED TO SDC I BET ESTABLISH
FLEET VEHICLE PARKING.
THOSE NEEDS WERE SALVAGED BY
SPD AND CEMENTED THROUGH FAS.
THE STUDY THEN WENT ON TO
ESTABLISH PATROL, THE FLEET
VEHICLE AND PATROL CARS AND
THEN THE PARKING FOR THE
OFFICERS AND THE PUBLIC.
WE STARTED THROUGH SDC I WITH
THE PARKING THAT WAS PROVIDED
ON THE SITE, WHAT ADDITIONAL
OVERFLOW WOULD OCCUR FROM THAT
ONTO THE STREETS.
I THINK THE BALANCE IS THEY
WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE ENOUGH
PARKING ON-SITE THAT THEY WERE
NOT GOING TO CREATE AN IMPACT
ON THE STREETS AROUND IT.
ULTIMATELY, WHAT THEY WERE ABLE
TO DEMONSTRATE IS THAT THE
PARKING PROVIDED ON-SITE DID
RESULT IN OVERFLOW ON THE
STREET.
IT KEPT IT AT A LEVEL THAT WAS
LESS THAN THE PARKING
UTILIZATION THAT IS A BALANCE
FOR US, THE 85% UTILIZATION
RATE.
AS FAR AS WHY THAT PARKING WAS
PROPOSED OR RETURNING IT TO
GREEN SPACE SDC I WOULD DEFER TO
FAS AND SPD.
>> I WILL OFFER ONE COMMENT I
WAS A POLICE PARKING IS
COMPLICATED.
ANALYZING THE POLICE NEEDS WE
DETERMINED THEY WOULD LIKELY
NEED 80 SPACES FOR THE FLEET
DURING THE TIME THAT WE HAVE.
THE FLEET PROJECTS TO BE LARGER
THAN THAT, BUT PART OF THE
REASON 80 BECAME THE CORRECT
NUMBER IS SOME OF THE FLEET IS
ALWAYS IN CIRCULATION FOR SOME
IS IN FOR REPAIRS AND SOME OUT
WITH OFFICERS ON TRAINING.
SDC I REQUIRED US TO HAVE 18
SPACES TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF
THE BUILDING AS PART OF THE
ZONING CODE REVIEW.
THAT TOTALS 98 SPACES WHICH IS
EXACTLY THE VOLUME WE HAVE IN
THE SECURE PARKING AREA.
IN ADDITION THIS FIVE SPACES
FOR PUBLIC IN FRONT OF THE
BUILDING.
I WILL COMMENTS THAT THROUGH
THE DESIGN WE TRIED TO BALANCE
THE NEED FOR PARKING AND I
BELIEVE WE PROVIDED THE MINIMUM
OF PARKING THAT WE COULD
MAINTAINING AS MUCH GREEN SPACE
AND LANDSCAPE IN THE SOUTHERN
AREA AS POSSIBLE.
>> I WAS HOPING TO GET THE
SECOND PART OF THAT QUESTION
RELATED TO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER
WE MOVE TOWARDS THE PERMANENT?
IS THERE A COMMITMENT TO RETURN
THAT AREA TO GREEN SPACE RESET
OFF THE TABLE?
>> I CAN'T COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
IT IS CITY OWNED PROPERLY.
-- PROPERTY.
THERE IS NOTHING WRITTEN AS FAR
AS ENCUMBERING THE SITE TO
REMOVE WHAT IS DEVELOPED.
AGAIN, I WILL HAVE TO, I THINK
PART OF THAT IS MAYBE HOPING
FAS A LITTLE BIT IS ONE THING,
THE PURPOSE FOR THE INTERIM
EXPANSION IS BECAUSE THE CITY
HAS ONGOING PLANNING RELATED TO
WHETHER OR NOT, HOW TO REPLACE
THE NORTH PRECINCT WHEN THERE
SHOULD BE ONE OR TWO LOCATIONS.
THIS IS I THINK THE PROPERTY IS
NOT IN PARKS JURISDICTION, IT'S
IN THE FAS JURISDICTION. I'M
NOT SURE THAT THE CITY AT THIS
POINT CAN COMMIT TO RETAINING
THAT AS OPEN SPACE UNTIL FUTURE
DECISIONS ARE MADE ABOUT THE
NUMBER AND --
>> WHAT ABOUT THE PROMISE THAT
WAS MADE THAT THE PROPERTY
WOULD BE MAINTAINED AS GREEN
SPACE?
IT'S A REFERENCE TO A
COMMITMENT THAT WAS MADE UNDER
THE EARLIER PLANS TO BUILD A
NEW NORTH PRECINCT.
>> I THINK MAAMOLOA WAS MADE
WHEN THE ORIGINAL PRECINCT WAS
DEVELOPED WAY BACK WHEN.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHEN IT
WAS DEVELOPED THIS IS OFTEN THE
CASE THAT, OF COURSE, A
COMMITMENT TO BYPASS COUNSEL
CAN'T FIND A FUTURE COUNSEL AND
WHILE IT MAY BE THE SPACE OF
THE OPEN SPACE CAN BE RETURNED
AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE
THAT WILL DEPEND ON CONTINGENT
DECISIONS ABOUT PLANNING FOR
THE NORTH PRECINCT.
>> JUST A QUESTION, DUNCAN, ON
THE PARKING.
THE 80 SPOTS PLUS THE 18 IS A
TIGHT, BUT PROJECTION NUMBER WE
WILL NEED.
THAT WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THIS
ADDITIONAL, WITH THESE CHANGES
PROPOSED.
IS NOT THAT THERE'S AN
ADDITIONAL 80 OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S
HERE.
THOSE ARE ALL INCLUDED INSECURE
SPOTS THERE PLUS THE 18
REQUIRED BY FAS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
DO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH ALL
NINE?
>> I SAW AN EXCHANGE WITH
CENTRAL STAFF ASKING FOLKS TO
RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS I
THOUGHT THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT
THINGS LAST COMMITTEE MEETING.
I CAN ALWAYS FOLLOW UP WITH MY
QUESTIONS AFTER
>> I CIRCULATED, NOT AN
EXHAUSTIVE RESPONSE FROM FAS A
MAN AND I THINK IT WAS THERE
TRANSMITTING OF INFORMATION
FROM SPD TO THEM. THEY
ADDRESSED SOME OF THE CONCERNS
WE CAN HEAR FROM THEM NOW ABOUT
THAT IF THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO
SOME OF THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FOR BOTH PARKING, WHICH I THINK
DUNCAN HAS JUST DESCRIBED A
LITTLE BIT, BUT ALSO FOR THE
HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, WHICH IS A
CONCERN OF SOME OF THE
NEIGHBORS TO THE PROJECT.
>> I'M SORRY.
IN MY LOOKING AT THE WRONG
PERSON?
ARE YOU FAS?
>> YES.
>> SORRY.
>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE
HEIGHT OF THE FENCE NOW?
>> YES BR.
>> I CAN COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
WE HAVE HAD SOME VANDALISM
ISSUES IN THE PAST WHERE
UTILIZING THE SAME HEIGHT SINCE
NOT A CHAIN-LINK FENCE, BUT A
DIFFERENT FENCE WHICH PROHIBITS
PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO SCALE
IT AND CLIMB OVER IT.
IT'S THE SAME FENCING WE USE AT
OTHER CITY OF SEATTLE
FACILITIES, WHETHER SEATTLE
CITY LIGHT, IS NOT SPECIFIC TO
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IS USED AT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT,
FAS. THEY USE A SIMILAR 8 - 10
FOOT FENCE WITH, I CAN'T
REMEMBER WHAT THEY CALL IT ON
TOP, I DON'T THINK WE WILL BE
PUTTING THAT ON TOP, IF I'M
CORRECT.
>> IT'S IN THE LINK.
YEAH.
>> THAT'S WHY WE ARE GOING WITH
THE 8 FOOT FENCE AT THIS POINT.
WE ARE LOOKING, IT'S PRIMARILY
FOR SECURITY AND OBSTRUCTING
VIEWS OF THE PRECINCT.
WE ALSO HAVE ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF THE PRECINCT AGAINST 103rd
ST. THE ROOF OF THE PRECINCT IS
ALMOST NEXT TO THE LEVEL
PARKING LOT SO IT WOULD BE A
WAY TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM
ACCESSING THE ROOF. AS FAR AS
NUMBER THREE, RESTRICTING
OFFICERS FROM USING WALLINGFORD
AVENUE, I GO OUT THERE QUITE A
BIT AND I DON'T SEE A WHOLE
BUNCH OF OFFICERS USING THAT
STREET.
WE PRIMARILY USE COLLEGE WAY
AND 103rd TO ACCESS THE
PRECINCT, BECAUSE THE GATE TO
ALLOW VEHICLES INTO THE
PRECINCT IS OFF OF COLLEGE WAY
IN 103rd.
YES.
WALLINGFORD IS A VERY NARROW
RESIDENTIAL STREET WITH CARS ON
EITHER SIDE, BUT THERE IS VERY
MINIMAL POLICE TRAFFIC ON
THEIR.
>> AND THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT
THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT
WILL INCREASE THOSE NUMBERS?
>> NO.
>> ON THAT ONE, YOU KNOW THIS
BETTER THAN I DO, I WOULDN'T
PROPOSE WE CHANGE ANYTHING,
LEGISLATIVELY, BUT JUST MAKING
SURE YOU GUYS KEEP AWARE AND
ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I THINK
YOU TRY PRETTY HARD ALWAYS.
>> I'M WILLING TO SIT DOWN WITH
TECH AND TALK TO HER ALSO ABOUT
PARKING ISSUES.
>> I THINK YOU HANDLED A LOT OF
THE SCREENING ISSUES ON THIS.
>> HEARING THAT THERE ARE NO
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS I MOVED TO
GRANT CLERK FILE 314413 AS
CONDITIONED.
THOSE IN FAVOR VOTE I.
>> THIS MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU.
THE ITEM WILL BE BACK BEFORE
THE FULL COUNCIL FOR A FINAL
DECISION ON MONDAY, JUNE 24.
THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS A DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON COUNSEL
BILL 119471, WHICH CLARIFIES
THE DEFINITION OF A VESSEL.
PLEASE READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119471.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND
USE AND ZONING CLARIFYING THE
DEFINITION OF A VESSEL AND
CONSISTENTLY USING THE TERM
VESSEL --
>> GOOD MORNING.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> MAGGIE GLOWACKI, SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION ANDÃ
>> COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>>
>> HE THREW ME OFF A LITTLE
BIT.
>> PLEASE GIVE US A REFRESHER
WE WOULD HAVE ON THIS BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE.
>> THIS WAS, COUNSEL HAD A
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SPILL,
COUNSEL BILL 119471 IN MAY.
THIS IS ON THE AGENDA LAST
FRIDAY, BUT DUE TO TIME
CONSTRAINTS THE COMMITTEE
DIDN'T GET TO IT.
I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHAT'S IN THE BILL AND OPTIONS
FOR TODAY AND OPEN IT UP TO
DISCUSSION.
SO, AS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS NO,
WOULD AMEND THE DEFINITION OF
VESSEL AND THE S&P TO RESPOND
TO A DECEMBER 2016 HEARING
EXAMINER DECISION THAT AN IN
OPERABLE TRAWLER WAS NOT A
VESSEL AND COULD SEEK
VERIFICATION AS AN APPLE WR. I
THINK YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH
THIS, BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THOSE FOLKS WATCHING AT HOME,
THE CITY REGULAR EXPLODING
RESIDENCE AS UNDER THE
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM.
THESE ARE HOUSE BARGES,
FLOWERS, AND OTHER VESSELS. I
CAN PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION
ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS
LEGISLATION AND WHAT THEY SEEK
TO ADDRESS.
HE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT THAT.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBAL HAS AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD AFFIRM THE
STATUS OF FLOWERS THAT HAVE
ALREADY RECEIVED VERIFICATION
FROM THE CITY.
>> HOW DOES THE CITY REGULATE?
MAGGIE IS GOING TO HELP ME OUT.
THERE'S A LOT OF LITTLE DETAILS
THAT SHE HAS MORE EXPERTISE ON
THAN I. THERE IS THIS TABLE
WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE
AGENDA.
I THINK YOU ARE ALL PRETTY
FAMILIAR WITH HIS.
THE CITY RECOGNIZES FOUR
DIFFERENT WAYS SOMEBODY CAN
HAVE A FLOATING RESIDENTIAL USE
, FLOATING HOMES, WHICH ARE NOT
ADDRESSED HERE.
HOUSE BARGES, FLOATING ON WATER
RESIDENCES, AND VESSELS
CONTAINING FLOATING UNIT.
HOUSE BARGES ARE A TYPE OF ON
WATER RESIDENTIAL USE THAT
DATES BACK TO THE 1990S.
THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED AS PART
OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
UPDATE.
AT THAT TIME A HARSH BARGE IS A
VESSEL THAT IS USED, THIS WOULD
BE CHANGED BY THE PROPOSAL, A
VESSEL THAT IS DESIGNED OR USED
AS A PLACE OF RESIDENCE WITHOUT
A MEANS OF SELF PROPORTION. TO
BE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AS A
HOUSE BARGES UNDER THE
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM THESE
MUST HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY
JULY 1990.
THIS IS A GRANDFATHERING FROM A
PRIOR S&P UPDATE.
AS WITH MANY OF THESE HOUSE
BARGES ARE REGULATED AS
CONFORMING USES AND OWNERS MAY
MAINTAIN REPAIR, REMODEL,
EXPAND, AND/OR REPLACE THEM
WITH A STRUCTURE WITHIN A
SIMILAR FOOTPRINT.
CITY VERIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED
FOR THESE.
VERIFICATIONS ARE THE TERM USED
IN THE CODE FOR LACK OF A
BETTER TERM, ESTABLISHING THE
USE.
IT IS THE PERMISSION THAT
ESTABLISHES SOMETHING IS A
RESIDENTIAL USE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE S&P.
IS A TRANSFERABLE PROPERTY
RIGHTS RELATED TO THE
RESIDENTIAL USE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS CITIES S&P.
WHEN THE CITY UPDATED THE S&P
SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE CITY
PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
HOUSE BARGES TO BE VERIFIED AS
A FLOWER IF THAT SOMETHING
GONNA WANTED TO DO.
>> AND I JUST PERCEIVE THAT
ONE LITTLE BIT.
>> THOUGH THE HOUSE BARGES THAT
WERE ESTABLISHED, THAT'S A
FINITE NUMBER OF
THIRTYSOMETHING --
>> 34.
>> HAVE AN OPTION OF REMAINING
UNDER THE HOUSE BARGE CODE OVER
CONVERTING TO THAT FLOATING ON
WATER RESIDENCE CODE.
>> YES.
>> AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THOSE TWO?
IS THERE ADVANTAGE ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER BEING REGULATED AS
ONE OR THE OTHER?
>> I THINK, I WILL LET MAGGIE
SPEAK TO THAT, I THINK ONE
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGE IS A FOWER
IS A NEW DEFINITION THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 2014.
UNDER STATE LAW.
PSALMODY ME PERCEIVE THERE IS
A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION
UNDER THE SMA BY BEING VERIFIED
AS A FOWER AS OPPOSED TO BEING
VERIFIED AS A HOUSE BARGE.
DOES THAT SEEM ACCURATE?
>> IN 2015 WHEN THE CITY
UPDATED THE SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM WHAT WE DID IS LEFT
BOTH CATEGORIES AND WE MADE THE
REGULATIONS IDENTICAL.
AS KATO SAID, IF SOMEONE WERE
HOUSE BARGE THAT WAS, IT CAME
INTO EXISTENCE PRIOR TO 1990 --
WITHIN OUR SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM THERE WASN'T A
DIFFERENCE, BUT I THINK KATO
STATED THAT AT THE STATE LEVEL
FO WR ARE ACKNOWLEDGED.
>> GOT IT.
SO THE CITY VERIFICATION FOR
HOUSE BARGES AND FLOATING ON
WATER RESIDENCE, IS THAT A ONE-
TIME DEAL? YOU GET A
VERIFICATION AND THAT'S
ESSENTIALLY YOUR PERMIT OR IS
IT SOMETHING DONE ON AN ONGOING
BASIS LIKE A VEHICLE
REGISTRATION?
>> IT'S A ONE-TIME
VERIFICATION.
>> OKAY.
NOW THE 30 FOR HOUSE BARGES
IDENTIFIED, THIS IS ON PAGE 2
OF THE MEMO, 24 HAVE BEEN
VERIFIED AS HOUSE BARGES AND
THEN THERE ARE 10 MORE WE
BELIEVE EXIST, BUT HAVEN'T --
>> THEY VERIFIED AS A FOWER.
>> SO OUT OF THE 3424 ARE
BARGES AND 10 FOWER'S.
>> CORRECT.
20 FOR HOUSE BARGES.
>> YES .
>> THEY ARE ALL LEFT -- UNDER
THE CATEGORY OF HOUSE BARGES
THERE WERE 24 LEFT AND 10 HAVE
MOVED TO FLOATING ON WATER
RESIDENCE IN ADDITION TO, A
TOTAL OF TO HUNDRED EIGHT AS OF
TODAY.
>> YES.
>> THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING I
THINK DOVETAILS INTO A LITTLE
BIT MORE GRANULARITY AROUND
FOWER'S.
THERE WAS A STUDY DONE, IS THAT
RIGHT? THEY CAME UP WITH THESE
ESTIMATED NUMBERS FOR 2015.
>> YEAH.
I WOULD AGREE WITH JOHN CHENEY.
I SENT AROUND THE REPORT
YESTERDAY TO YOU ALL AS WELL,
BUT THERE IS THE MEMO RELIES ON
A NUMBER THAT WAS PUT FORWARD BY
LOU LEE IN 2013.
IT WAS THE ESTIMATE AT THE TIME
OF THE NUMBER OF HOUSE BARGES,
WHICH IS A PRE-FOWER TERM.
IS MORE RECENT INFORMATION, THE
2015 STUDY WHICH INDICATES
THERE ARE PROBABLY ABOUT TO
HUNDRED 20 TO OF THESE AT THE
TIME.
NOT JUST FOWER'S, BUT FOWER'S,
HOUSE BARGES, AND THIS OTHER
CATEGORY OF OTHER VESSELS THAT
COULD BE VERIFIED AS DWELLING
UNITS.
>> SO, AGAIN, THIS ESTIMATED
NUMBER IN 2015 IS A NUMBER THAT
IS NOT AN STC I NUMBER, IT WAS
A STUDY, A LITTLE BIT NUMBER.
SO, THE REASON I THINK IT'S
RELEVANT IS THAT I THINK PART
OF THE NARRATIVE AROUND THE
NECESSITY ON MOVING THIS
FORWARD QUICKLY AND WITH
EXPEDIENCY HAS BEEN THAT THERE
HAS BEEN A LOT MORE FOWER'S
SEEKING VERIFICATION THAN
ANTICIPATED.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE HAS BEEN TO
HUNDRED EIGHT, BUT THE CITY
STUDY IN 2015 SHOW THAT THERE
WERE TO HUNDRED 20 TOO.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT
THERE ARE A LOT MORE THAN WERE
NECESSARILY ANTICIPATED.
>> SO, THE EARLIER NUMBER WAS
FROM AN EARLIER TIME.
THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE.
YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS AN
ESTIMATED OF 113 AND THEN THE
ESTIMATE WENT UP A COUPLE OF
YEARS LATERÃTHESE ARE JUST
ESTIMATES.
WE JUST HAVE THE NUMBERS THAT
HAVE BEEN VERIFIED.
THE NUMBER RIGHT NOW IS TO
HUNDRED EIGHT.
IF YOU ADD IN THE HOUSE BARGES
AND VESSELS --
>> IN 2015 STC I WAS ESTIMATING
TO HUNDRED 20 TOO.
>> IT'S NOT LIKE IN THE LAST,
IT HAS BEEN FOUR YEARS.
IS NOT A SURPRISE.
THAT THE NUMBERS DOUBLED THAN
WHAT WAS ESTIMATED IN THE LULA
STUDY.
>> I THINK WE WILL GET TO THIS
IN A MINUTE.
ONE QUESTION THAT REASONABLE
MINDS CAN DISAGREE ABOUT IS
WHETHER OR NOT, DESPITE THE %
FACT THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER IS
NOT THAT DIFFERENT THAN THE
2015 ESTIMATE, IS THERE
EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THERE ARE
MORE AND MORE INOPERABLE
VESSELS THAT ARE VERIFYING AS A
FOWER ? IS THAT A PROBLEM?
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE
ADDRESSING.
>> CAN YOU GETTING TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND
MORE ABOUT THE AMBIGUITY THAT
WAS LEFT?
>> I THINK WE CAN WRITE TO
MAYBE WHAT PROBLEM IS THIS
LEGISLATION SEEKING?
>> BEFORE WE GET THERE CAN WE
JUST FINISH THAT SPREADSHEET?
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
VESSELS DESCRIPTIONS.
>> OKAY.
>> SORRY.
>> YEAH.
IN 2014 THERE WAS A CHANGE IN
STATE LAW THROUGH SECOND
SUBSTITUTE BILL, SIR, ENGROSSED
SENATE SUBSTITUTE BILL 6450
WHICH IS NOW CODIFIED IN RCW
9058 TO 70, AND THAT
ESTABLISHED A NEW CATEGORY OF
FLOATING RESIDENCES CALLED
FOWER.
IT'S DIRECTLY FROM STATE LAW.
I WILL JUST GO AHEAD, IT'S ON
THERE ON THE SPREADSHEET OR THE
TABLE AND A FOWER IS A FLOATING
STRUCTURE OTHER THAN A
FLOATING HOME THAT IS DESIGNED
OR USED PRIMARILY AS A
RESIDENCE, HAS DETACHABLE
UTILITIES, AND IS THE SUBJECT
OF A LEASE OR SUBLEASE AT A
MARINA AND THE OWNER HAD AN
OWNERSHIP IN THE MARINA AS OF
JULY 1, 2014.
THAT SEDATE THE RESIDENTIAL USE
MUST HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.
IT SAYS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS DEFINITION OF STRUCTURAL
CONSIDERED DESIGNED PRIMARILY
AS A RESIDENCE IF IT CONTAINS A
DWELLING UNIT.
FOWER'S ARE REGULATED SIMILARLY
TO HOUSE BARGES.
THEY CAN BE MAINTAINED .
THEY'RE NOT NONCONFORMING USES.
THEY CAN BE MAINTAINED,
REPAIRED, REMODELED, REPLACED,
AND EXPANDED SUBJECT TO
DEVOLVEMENT STANDARDS ABOUT HOW
TALL THEY CAN GET.
THEY CAN EVEN BE MODIFIED WITH
ANY FOOTPRINT OF OVERWATER
COVERAGE.
>> AND A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY
HAVE NAVIGABLE, THAT THEY CAN
NAVIGATE, THAT THEY HAVE
PROPULSION STEERING AND ANY OF
THAT STUFF?
>> YEAH.
>> JUST RESIDENCE?
>> YEAH.
>> AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER
GRANDFATHERING DATE OF JULY
2014.
>> EXACTLY.
THAT IS THE NEXT GRANDFATHERING
DATE. FROM 1990 THERE WAS A
NEW GRANDFATHER DATE OF JULY
2014.
IN ORDER TO BE VERIFIED BY THE
CITY TO HAVE THAT TRANSFERABLE
PROPERTY RIGHT, THAT PERMISSION
THE FOWER MUST HAVE BEEN A
RESIDENTIAL USE.
PRIOR TO THAT DATE.
>> THAT IS A STATE LAW THAT I
ASSUME THE CITY ADOPTED. OR IS
ESSENTIALLY JUST A STATE LAW?
>> YEAH.
THE CITY ADOPTED THAT BECAUSE
OF THE CHANGE TO STATE LAW.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? COULD A
FLOATING ON WATER RESIDENCE
EXIST BEFORE JULY 2014 IN
BREMERTON AND THEN COME TO
SEATTLE AND MAINTAIN ITS FOWER
STATUS HERE OR DOES IT HAVE TO
EXISTED IN SEATTLE?
>> I'M GOING TO ASK MAGGIE TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I THINK THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S
UNCLEAR.
I THINK UNDER STATE LAW WHETHER
HE VERIFICATION PROVIDED BY ONE
JURISDICTION IS TRANSFERABLE TO
ANOTHER.
>> WE INTERPRET THAT THE FW
ARE NEEDED TO EXIST IN THE CITY
OF SEATTLE AT A MARINA MEETING
THE REQUIREMENT BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE.
>> SO, IN THEORY, AT LEAST,
THERE SHOULD BE A FINITE NUMBER
OF FOWER RESIDENCE AS OF JULY
2014.
>> YES.
>> AND WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE,
ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT
ESTIMATES TO MAKE DIFFERENT
TIMES.
ONE WAS 100 1301 WAS TO HUNDRED
20 TO.
RIGHT?
THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES OF HOW
MANY THERE WERE AND WHAT WE
HAVE SEEN IS JUST SHY OF THE TO
HUNDRED 20 TOO, TO HUNDRED
EIGHT HAVE REGISTERED.
WHAT ALSO SEEMS CLEAR IS THERE
ARE THINGS THAT WERE CLEARLY
NOT COUNTED AS FOWER'S BECAUSE
WE INTERPRETED THEM AS VESSELS.
THERE IS A COUPLE DOZEN OF
THOSE THAT HAVE NOW BEEN
CERTIFIED AS FOWER'S IN THE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
WE KNOW, THE POPULATION OF
FLOATING ON WATER RESIDENCE MAY
NOT GROW, BUT SOME THINGS IN
OUR MIND WERE NOT BEFORE HAND
CERTIFIED AS OF NOW.
MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT A
VESSEL IS FOR THIS CATEGORY.
>> THE FINAL CATEGORY OF WAYS
THAT RESIDENTIAL AND OVERWATER
RESIDENTIAL USE CAN BE
ESTABLISHED IS THROUGH, AS A
VESSEL.
THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY TWO
CATEGORIES, CONVENTIONAL
RECREATIONAL VESSELS USED AS
DWELLING UNITS.
THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE MOSTLY
THINK OF AS LIVE ABOARD.
IF YOU LIVING ON A SAILBOAT OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT IT'S AND
ALLOWED, THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER
THE S&P.
NO VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR
THAT.
THEN THERE IS THIS OTHER
CATEGORY, OTHER VESSELS USED AS
DWELLING UNITS.
THIS WAS INTENDED, MAGGIE, YOU
SHOULD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG
HERE, TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR STRUCTURES THAT MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN CONVENTIONAL VESSELS
AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FO WRS TO
GET A VERIFICATION FROM THE CITY
IN AN INTERIM TIME BEFORE THE
S&P BECAME EFFECTIVE IN JUNE
THE S&P BECAME EFFECTIVE IN
JUNE 2015.
THE WINDOW FOR THIS ONE, FOR
THIS CATEGORY, HAS,
ESSENTIALLY, CLOSED.
FOR THOSE USES TO HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED THEY WOULD HAVE
NEEDED TO HAVE BEEN, THE
RESIDENTIAL USE WOULD HAVE
NEEDED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY
JUNE 2015.
>> AND WHAT CAN YOU DESCRIBE A
COUPLE OF THE PDUS?
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE SEVEN
ESTABLISHED. IS IT JUST SEVEN
UNIQUE THINGS OR ARE THEY KIND
OF STRUCTURES THAT DON'T REALLY
FIT ANY CATEGORIES?
>> THEY DON'T FIT THE
CONVENTIONAL RECREATIONAL
VESSEL CATEGORY.
THEY WOULD FIT THE DESIGNED AND
USED FOR NAVIGATION CATEGORY.
THEY WOULD HAVE --
>> BACK TO THE VESSELS, WE
DON'T REGULATE THAT OR FOLKS
DON'T NEED A LICENSE TO LIVE
ABOARD A SAILBOAT, FOR INSTANCE.
AND PEOPLE CAN BUY NEW
SAILBOATS AND BRING THEM IN
HERE AND LIVE ON THEM.
THERE ARE OTHER CONSTRAINTS
THAT EXIST, AT LEAST IN SEATTLE.
THEY HAVE TO BE KEPT IN A
MARINA AND ONLY CERTAIN MARINAS
ALLOW IT PART OF THIS WHOLE
IDEA IS WHAT DO WE USE THE
WHOLE PART OF THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT, HOW DO WE MANAGE
THE SHORELINE AND HOW TO
PRIORITIZE CERTAIN USES AND
RESTRICT OR LIMIT THINGS.
I KNOW THAT'S A TOUCHY SUBJECT
FOR VARIOUS PIECES BECAUSE
PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON
WHAT SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED.
A RECREATIONAL VESSEL IS NOT
RESTRICTED AT ALL, BUT THERE
ARE JUST SOME SPACE CONSTRAINTS
OR MARINA CONSTRAINTS.
ARE THERE ANY LIMITS ON THE
NUMBER OF LIVE BOARDS CAN EXIST
IN SEATTLE?
OR IS THERE JUST THE NUMBER OF
PERMITS THEY GET?
>> THEY DO NOT REGULATE THE
NUMBER OF LIVE OF BOARDS ON
WHAT HE DESCRIBED AS SAILBOAS
OR OTHER CONVENTIONAL
RECREATIONAL BACK, VESSELS.
>> SO, MOVING ON TO A PROBLEM
DOES THIS LEGISLATION SEEK TO
ADDRESS THIS COMES FROM WHAT
PACHECO MENTIONED IN 2016.
THERE WAS A DECISION FROM THE
CITY HEARING EXAMINER THAT SAID
AND ON OPERABLE TRAWLER DID NOT
MEET THE DEFINITION OF A
VESSEL, BUT COULD THEREFORE
SEEK VERIFICATION AS A FOWER.
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
CODE WOULD CLARIFY THAT EVEN IF
THERE IS A VESSEL OUT THERE
THAT IS NOT USED FOR NAVIGATION
OR AS IN OPERABLE IT IS STILL A
VESSEL.
WHAT THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY
MEAN IS THAT THOSE, IF SOMEBODY
WERE TO LIVE ON THOSE VESSELS
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO.
NOT NECESSARILY AS A FOWER, BUT
AS A CONVENTIONAL RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE USED AS A DWELLING
UNIT.
IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO
ESTABLISH FOWER STATUS.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. WE HAVE
SOME EXAMPLES THAT ILLUSTRATE
BUSINESS MODEL THAT THIS
LEGISLATION SEEKS TO MAKE MORE
DIFFICULT.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION BY
JEREMY FULLER.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THESE.
HE APPLIED AND RECEIVED
VERIFICATION OF THIS SAILBOAT
AS A FOWER.
AND TO DO THAT THE BURDEN OF
PROOF IS RELATIVELY LOW.
A COUPLE OF AFFIDAVITS HERE.
ONE FROM THE OWNER OF THE
SAILBOAT AND ONE FROM THE ARENA
OPERATOR THAT VERIFY THAT
STRUCTURE HAS BEEN IN
RESIDENTIAL USE AND HAS NOT
BEEN USED FOR NAVIGATION.
THIS IS, WHAT THIS DOES IS
CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
SOMEBODY TO HAVE THIS SAILBOAT
VERIFIED AS A FOWER AND THAT
POTENTIALLY TO REPLACE IT WITH
SOMETHING ELSE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS LEGISLATION
SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM
IT SEEKS TO ADDRESS.
>> LET ME REPEAT THAT BACK TO
MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. IF
THIS WERE A NAVIGABLE SAILBOAT
THEY COULD JUST KEEP OPERATING
AS A VESSEL AND IS REALLY NO
RESTRICTIONS ON THAT AND NO
INSPECTIONS.
ONCE IT BECOMES NO LONGER
NAVIGABLE THERE IS THIS?
ABOUT WHAT IT IS.
>> EVEN IF IT'S NOT USED FOR
NAVIGATION.
IF IT JUST SITS AT THE DOCK
SINCE 2014 IT COULD POTENTIALLY
BE VERIFIED --
>> SO, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS
GOING TO BE WHY WOULD SOMEONE
WANT TO RECERTIFY AS A FLOATING
ON WATER RESIDENCE AS OPPOSED
TO JUST KEEP IT AS A VESSEL?
SINCE THE VESSELS ARE REGULATED
AND THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON
THAT?
ONE OF THE IDEAS IS IF IT WAS A
FLOATING ON WATER RESIDENCE AND
SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT, IT
WAS DESTROYED, THEY CAN REBUILD
IT IT WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE TO
LOOK LIKE THAT, YOU JUST HAVE
TO MEET SIMILAR CRITERIA BUT
MAY LOOK MORE LIKE A HOUSE BARGE
AND WOULD BE A WAY TO CONVERT A
SAILBOAT INTO A HOUSE BARGE OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> RIGHT.
AND NO LONGER NEED TO BE
DESIGNED AND USED FOR
NAVIGATION.
>> RIGHT.
>> THERE IS, AS COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD POINTED UP THE NUMBER
OF VERIFIED HOUSE BARGES, FOWER
AND ED USE SINCE 2015 IS MORE
OR LESS WITHIN THE RANGE OF
WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED THROUGH
THAT 2015 SURVEY. THERE HAS
BEEN AND UPTICK IN
VERIFICATIONS FOR WHAT APPEARS
TO BE IN OPERABLE VESSELS. IN
2019 THERE HAVE BEEN SEVEN OF
11 VERIFICATIONS THUS FAR FOR
SIMILAR VESSELS.
>> IT IS --
>> A TOTAL OF 12 SO FAR.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> ARE WE SEEING, LIKE,
EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A BUSINESS
MODEL?
FOR INSTANCE?
>> WE HAVE SEEN THE NUMBER
DRAMATICALLY INCREASE.
>> IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER
THAT.
I THINK THE PERSON AT DCI WHO
DOES THE VERIFICATION
UNDERSTANDS IT IS A BUSINESS
MODEL AND THAT THERE IS SOMEBODY
THAT IS BUYING THE IN OPERABLE
VESSELS AND REPLACING THEM WITH
>> A FLOATING ON WATER VESSEL.
>> A WAY TO ANSWER FROM YOUR
OWN EXPERIENCE.
>> WE HAVEN'T DONE AN
INVESTIGATION.
>> I'M NOT DURING THE
VERIFICATION, BUT THE PERSON
WHO IS FEELS THIS IS A
PRACTICE.
YES.
>> SO, COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD
HAS AN A MEMO TO THE PROPOSED
BILL.
THERE'S ALWAYS A DO-NOTHING
OPTION.
I THINK EáTRADE UP THERE CAN'T
REALLY BE QUANTIFIED,
NECESSARILY.
I THINK YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR
WITH WHAT THEY MAY BE BE.
IT COULD BE THE CASE THAT THAT
MORE UNUSED OR IN OPERABLE
VESSELS ARE CONVERTED TO
FOWER'S.
AS ONE TRADE-OFF IN THE
ESTIMATE AND THE S&P IMPLEMENTS
THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT,
COMPETITION FOR SPACE ON THE
SHORELINE FOR STRUCTURES THAT
NEED TO BE THERE THAT ARE WATER
DEPENDENT AND WATER RELATED AND
RESIDENTIAL USE ZONE THAT DON'T
NECESSARILY NEED TO BE THERE,
HENCE THE GRANDFATHER FORM
CERTAIN DATES.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE
PRACTICE.
THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE
PUBLIC THAT SUGGESTED THAT
REMOVING THE FOWER VERIFICATION
PROCESS WOULD BE LIMITING YOUR
ABILITY TO REGULATE THIS
ACTIVITY.
IS THERE STILL AN ABILITY TO
STOP OPERABLE FROM TAKING
INOPERABLE VEHICLES AND IN
OPERABLE VESSELS AND LIVING ON
THEM?
I'M ASSUMING THAT WITHOUT THE
FOWER VERIFICATION YOU WOULD
THEN HAVE SOME ENFORCEMENT
POWER TO SAY THIS IS NOT AN
ALLOWED USE.
>> SO, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED USE
AS A CONVENTIONAL RECREATIONAL
VESSEL.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT IN
OPERABLE.
>> IF IT'S IN OPERABLE THAT'S A
DIFFERENT ISSUE.
>> YOU STILL HAVE SOME
REGULATORY AUTHORITY ON PEOPLE
LIVING IN IN OPERABLE --
>> I THINK IT'S MORE THE IN
OPERABLE, I THINK IT'S THE
INOPERABLE PART OF THE VESEL
AND WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT WOULD
EITHER HAVE THE CAPACITY -- IS
A DIFFERENT ISSUE, ESSENTIALLY.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
LOOK AT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT HAS
BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION
IN A GREAT DEGREE.
I KNOW THAT MARINAS LOOK AND
MAY HAVE STANDARDS AS FAR AS
WHAT IS OPERATIONAL OR NOT I
HAVE HEARD THAT THE PORT OF
SEATTLE MAY LOOK AT THEIR
MARINAS AND REQUIRE STANDARDS
FOR OPERATION OF THE TENANTS IN
THEIR OWN MARINAS.
THAT'S WHAT I KNOW.
>> THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS NOT
REALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, VESSELS
ARE RECREATIONAL VESSELS THAT
ARE OPERATIONAL OR NOT.
THAT MAY BE REGULATED SOMEWHER
ELSE.
THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS CONVERTING A
RECREATIONAL BACK VESSEL INTO
FLOATING ON WATER RESIDENCE
THROUGH THIS, WHAT WE WOULD
CALL THE SEMI DISAGREEING IN
THE AUDIENCE, OF A LOOPHOLE
THAT WAS CREATED BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER WHERE WHEN THERE WERE
NO LONGER, IF THEY ARE
CERTIFIED AS NO LONGER NAVIGABLE
AS RESIDENTS THEY MEET THE
DEFINITION OF A FOWER, WHICH I
WOULD AGREE, AT LEAST MY MIND,
WAS NEVER THE INTENT. THAT
THESE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
WOULD ALSO BE TREATED AS HAVING
THE OPTION.
>> I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT
MAKES US A HERE TO THAT
COMMITMENT WE HAVE HAD WITH
PRIOR TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
DECISION.
>> SAY WHAT?
>> IT HAS AS WE COMMIT BACK TO
THAT DECISION.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE.
>> THERE IS, YOU ALL SHOULD
HAVE THE AGENDA, THERE'S AN
AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD AND IT IS
LABELED AND YOU MEANT NUMBER
ONE.
THIS IS WHAT THE AMENDMENT
WOULD DO.
IT WOULD ADD SECTION 4 TO THE
BILL PROTECTION FORMAT WOULD
SAY THIS, THIS ORDINANCE --
RECEIVED VERIFICATION 2368 TO A
3B AND THE DEFINITION OF
FLOATING ON WATER RESIDENCE
INTO SECTION 2368 91 TO 2368 TO
A 3B IS A PROCESS AND DEVELOP A
STANDARD.
THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND
SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR A
FOWER.
>> OKAY.
THIS LANGUAGE HELPS.
IN MY MIND I'M NOT SURE THIS
WAS THE INTENT EVEN BEFORE THE
LANGUAGE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THIS IS CLARIFYING.
I KNOW PART OF WHAT WE ARE
GOING BACK AND FORTH ON IS
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT INTENT.
WITH THIS BASICALLY SING ANYONE
WHO IS CERTIFIED AS FLOATING ON
WATER RESIDENCE PRIOR TO THIS
DATE CAN RETAIN THAT REGARDLESS
OF --
>> THE LEGISLATION ITSELF DOES
NOT ALTER ANY DEVOLVEMENT
STANDARD OR THE DEFINITION OF
FLOATING ON WATER RESIDENCE.
I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAVE HEARD
FROM WATER ASSOCIATION AND
OTHER ADVOCATES THAT THEY WOULD
LIKE SOME SORT OF CLARIFICATION
ABOUT THE STATUS OF FO WR AS
POTENTIALLY BEING VESSELS AS
WELL.
THIS LEGISLATION DOESN'T
PURPORT TO DO THAT.
THAT IS MAYBE A SOMEWHAT, A
RELATED, BUT SEPARATE ISSUE
THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED AT SOME
FUTURE POINT.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SEEK TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN
CREATED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER
2016 DECISION.
AT POINT OF REFERENCE I THINK
YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF THIS, BUT
THERE'S A PERIODIC UPDATE TO
THE S&P THAT WILL BE COMING AT
SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
PROBABLY A COUPLE OF YEARS FROM
NOW.
THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
LOOK AT THAT ISSUE, POTENTIALLY
THEN.
>> YES.
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING TOGETHER
THE AMENDMENT. THE INTENT, AS
YOU SAY, IS TO AFFIRM THE
STATUS OF FOWER'S THAT HAVE
ALREADY RECEIVED VERIFICATION.
AND CLARIFY THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE ORDINANCE THAT ALTERS THE
STATUS . I ALSO APPRECIATE
THAT YOU MET WITH AS DCI AND
MEMBERS OF LULA A COUPLE OF
WEEKS AGO.
AND MY STAFF.
I WAS NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT IS
STILL, FOR ME, A QUESTION AND
MAYBE IT CAME UP IN THAT
MEETING, IS THE CONCERN THAT
FOWER MIGHT BE COUNTED TOWARDS
OVERWATER COVERAGE WHEN MARINA
OWNERS APPLY FOR EXPANSIONS.
DID WE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS
GET AN ANSWER ON THAT FROM AS
DCI?
>> THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US, TO
OUR ATTENTION AS AN ISSUE.
DURING THE PERIODIC REVIEW WE
WILL REVIEW THAT.
THIS LEGISLATION DOESN'T CHANGE
ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE CURRENT
REGULATIONS REGARDING THAT.
>> SO, WE WILL REVIEW THAT ISSUE
DURING OUR PERIODIC REVIEW AND
UPDATE OF THE SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM.
>> I'M JUST ASKING FOR A
QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT,
REGARDLESS OF IF THE
LEGISLATION CHANGES IT, DO
FOWER'S COUNT TOWARDS OVERWATER
COVERAGE WHEN MARINA OWNERS --
THE QUESTION IS IF WE ARE USING
THE WORD STRUCTURE YOU ARE
SAYING THAT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE
ANYTHING?
>> STRUCTURES CURRENTLY IN THE
DEFINITION FOR FOWER'S, THAT
DOES NOT CHANGE.
WHAT DOES CHANGE IS THIS IS
LARGELY JUST FOR CONSISTENCY,
CHANGES REMOVES THE WORDS
VESSEL AND CHANGES IT TO
STRUCTURE FOR HOUSE BARGES SO
THE 1990 CATEGORY OF FLOATING
RESIDENTS COULD CONVERT TO A
FOWER.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THAT HELPS.
THANKS.
>> IF PASSED THIS LEGISLATION
WE BELIEVE IT WOULD PREVENT
FORMER RECREATIONAL BAY VESSELS
THAT ARE NO LONGER OPERATIONAL
FROM OBTAINING FLOATING ON
WATER RESIDENCE STATUS.
ANYONE THAT ALREADY HAS
VERIFICATION AS A FLOATING ON
WATER RESIDENCE WOULD RETAIN
IT.
THERE IS STILL A PATH FOR OTHER
RESIDENTS TO BE CERTIFIED AS
FLOATING ON WATER RESIDENCE.
WE ARE NOT CLOSING THAT PATH.
WE BELIEVE, BASED ON OUR SURVEY
DATA AND CLOSING THE FORMER
RECREATIONAL VESSEL LOOPHOLE
THAT THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL
MORE OUT THERE THAT WOULD
LIKELY DO THAT.
THERE ARE 24 HOUSE BARGES THAT
ARE CERTIFIED AS HOUSE BARGES
AS OPPOSED TO FLOATING ON WATER
RESIDENCE.
IF THOSE 24 DECIDED FOR
WHATEVER REASON THEY WOULD
RATHER BE A FLOATING ON WATER
RESIDENCE DOES ANYTHING IN HERE
PREVENT THAT CONVERSION FROM
HAPPENING?
>> NO.
DCI COULD DO THAT THROUGH JUST
SWITCHING THE VERIFICATION TO A
FOWER, IF THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE
BARGE OWNER WANTED TO DO.
>> AND IN CITY CODE ONE IS IN
STATE LEGISLATION AND ONE IS IN
CITY.
THE MAYOR BE A REASON WHY FOLKS
MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT OR NOT.
I DON'T KNOW.
>> BECAUSE THIS IS A JOINT
PROCESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY WHAT HAPPENS WITH
TODAY'S VOTE WITH THE
LEGISLATION?
>> IT DOESN'T GO TO FULL
COUNCIL ON MONDAY.
>> WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE
LEGISLATION TAKES EFFECT?
>> IS A JOINT DECISION.
ASSUMING THE COMMITTEE MADE A
RECOMMENDATION TODAY IT COULD
GO TO FULL COUNCIL ON MONDAY.
THAT'S BECAUSE WE, THIS
LEGISLATION IS USING A JOINT
REVIEW PROCESS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.
AFTER COMMITTEE ACTION THE CITY
WOULD SEEK A CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATION FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. ONE
SECOND SYSTEM THE NATION IS IN
HAND IT WOULD BE THOUGHT FOR A
FULL COUNCIL VOTE.
I HAVE NOT TALKED TO MISTY FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, BUT
I'M CALLING THAT SHE WAS
IMAGINING IT WOULD PROBABLY BE
ABOUT A MONTH OR SO.
FOR A CONSISTENCY INTERIM
ACCOUNT FROM DOE.
THAT CORRECT.
>> ARE THERE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS?
>> NO.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR WORK.
I APPRECIATE THE FOLKS THAT
HAVE PUSHED ON US HERE.
THIS IS A COMPLICATED TECHNICAL
ISSUE FOR ME.
THIS IS YOUR HOMES.
I REALIZE THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
I'M ALSO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO DO OUR BEST TO MANAGE
AND PRIORITIZE THE USE OF OUR
WATER SPACE.
AIDOO, THE SIGNIFICANT UPTICK,
WHILE THE NUMBERS ARE STILL
RELATIVELY SMALL THE PACE AT
WHICH FOLKS ARE CONVERTING
THESE FORMER RECREATIONAL
VESSELS DOES CAUSE ME SOME
CONCERN.
I WOULD MUCH RATHER MOVE TO
PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING AS
OPPOSED TO GETTING DOZENS MORE
DONE IF WE WAIT ANOTHER YEAR OR
TWO.
AND THEN HAVING TO BE IN A
PLACE WHERE WE CAN'T UNDO THAT
IF IT TURNS OUT THAT IT WASN'T
BUSINESS MODEL AND THERE WERE
OTHER COMPELLING REASONS AND WE
WANTED TO LOOSEN UP THOSE AGAIN
WE COULD DO THAT IN THE FUTURE.
OBVIOUSLY, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
STATE LAW AND THE BOUNDS OF
ECOLOGY'S REVIEW OF THINGS.
MY INCLINATION, I APPRECIATE
THE AMENDMENT.
I WOULD SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT
AND SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS ON INANIMATE I WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT.
>> I WILL MOVE AMENDMENT WANT
TO COUNSEL BILL 1194 71
>> SECOND.
>> THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDMENT PLEASE VOTE I.
>> THE MOMENT PASSES.
I MOVED TO ADOPT COUNSEL BILL
119471 AS AMENDED.
A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE VOTE
I.
>> I.
>> MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> FINAL ITEM ON BUSINESS
TODAY IS A BRIEFING DISCUSSION
POSSIBLE VOTE ON COUNSEL BILL
119546, WHICH MAKES UPDATES TO
THE RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
INSPECTION ORDINANCE TO CONFORM
WITH STATE LAWS.
PLEASE READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM 3 COUNTS WILL
ONE WHEN I FIVE OR SIX.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO
CONFORMING CITY CODE TO MATCH
PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW FOR
RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTIONS AND
AMENDING SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> WELCOME, ALLIE.
>> 20, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> COTTAGES OTHER THAN BACKYARD
COTTAGES?
>> ONLY ON WEDNESDAYS.
>> CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH WHAT
THE BILL DOES?
>> HAPPY TO.
TODAY THE COMMITTEE WILL
DISCUSS AND VOTE ON COUNSEL
BILL 119546.
THIS BILL AMIDST THE RENTAL
REGULATION AND -- REAL MOVING
FORWARD PREDICT TO MATCH
PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW BY
PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL OPTION
FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THEY
ARE COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIRED
INSPECTION OF THEIR RENTAL
PROPERTY.
I WILL PROVIDE A BRIEF
BACKGROUND ON THE REAL PROGRAM
AND THEN QUICKLY DESCRIBE THE
LEGISLATION.
THE REAL PROGRAM HELPS ENSURE
THAT ALL RENTAL HOUSING IN
SEATTLE IS A SAFE AND MEETS
BASIC HOUSING MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENTS BY REQUIRING ALL
PROPERTIES REGISTER WITH THE
CITY AND HAVE PERIODIC
INSPECTIONS.
THE CITY ADOPTED RIO IN 2012 .
REGISTERING PROPERTIES IN 2014
AND INSPECTIONS AGAIN IN 2015.
ALL REGISTERED RENTAL
PROPERTIES MUST BE INSPECTED AT
LEAST ONCE EVERY 10 YEARS.
WHEN COMPLETING THE REQUIRED
INSPECTION THE OWNER MUST HIRE
A QUALIFIED RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTOR TO CONDUCT THAT
INSPECTION THIS CAN EITHER BE A
CITY INSPECTOR FOR THEY CAN
HIRE A PRIVATE INSPECTOR THAT
HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY.
MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS ONLY
SAMPLING OF THE UNITS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE INSPECTED IF ONE
OF THE UNITS SELECTED FOR
INSPECTION FAILS AND INSPECTION
DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE THAT UP
TO 100% OF THE UNITS IN THE
BUILDING ARE INSPECTED.
IF AN INSPECTOR FINDS THAT
THERE ARE CHECK RIO FAILURES,
HOUSING MAINTENANCE CODE
VIOLATIONS, WHEN CONDUCTING
THE INSPECTION UNITS ARE
INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT THERE
ARE NOT PROBLEMS THAT ARE
PERSISTING IN MULTIPLE UNITS IN
THE BUILDING. PRIOR TO 2017 IF
A PROPERTY OWNER CHOSE TO HIRE
A PRIVATE INSPECTOR TO COMPLETE
THIS REQUIRED INSPECTION THE
CITY ONLY RECEIVED A
CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE
ISSUED BY THE PRIVATE INSPECTOR
AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY
INFORMATION ABOUT ASPECTS OF
THE RIO REQUIREMENTS HUMAN MAY
HAVE FAILED.
HOW THIS WORKS PRACTICALLY IS A
PRIVATE INSPECTOR WOULD GO OUT
AND CONDUCT THE FIRST
INSPECTION.
IF THEY FOUND FAILURES THAT
MEANT THE WOULD NOT PASS THE
RIO INSPECTION THAT WOULD
NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND
THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE
TO CORRECT THOSE FAILURES.
INSPECTOR WOULD COME BACK OUT
IF THEY WERE CORRECTED THEN
THEY WOULD ISSUE A CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLIANCE THE CITY WOULD BE
UNAWARE OF ANY FAILURES THAT
WERE FOUND.
IF THEY WERE AGAIN ISSUES THAT
COULD INDICATE LARGER ISSUES IN
THE BUILDING THE CITY WASN'T
AWARE OF THAT AND COULD REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS AND
OTHER UNITS COULD ALONG WITH
THOSE SAME FAILURES.
IN 2017 THE COUNCIL ADOPTED
CHANGES TO THE RIO PROGRAM THAT
ADDED A REQUIREMENT THAT IF ANY
FAILURES FOUND BY A PRIVATE
INSPECTOR DURING THOSE
INITIAL INSPECTIONS AND THE HE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE MUST
BE SUBMITTED TO AS DCI.
WITH THAT INFORMATION AS DCI
CAN DETERMINE IF INSPECTION OF
ADDITIONAL UNITS IS NEEDED.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN COUNSEL
BILL 119 IN COUNSEL BILL 119546
AS AN OPTION FOR PROPERTY
OWNERS WHO DO NOT WANT TO
PROVIDE THE RESULTS OF THOSE
INITIAL INSPECTIONS.
PROPERTY OWNERS WHO SELECT THIS
OPTION WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED
TO SUBMIT A CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE AND NO ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION, BUT THEY WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO HAVE ALL UNITS AND
THEIR BUILDINGS INSPECTED.
TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE INSPECTOR
12 IDENTIFY ANY BROADER ISSUES
AND ENSURE THOSE ISSUES ARE
CORRECTED PRIOR TO ISSUING THE
CITY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.
IT STILL MEETS THE INTENT OF
WHAT COUNSEL INITIALLY ADOPTED
IN 2017 TO ENSURE THAT WE
WEREN'T ISSUING A CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLIANCE IN BUILDINGS
WHERE PROBLEMS WERE STILL
PERSISTING. IT PROVIDES
PROPERTY OWNERS ADDITIONAL
OPTIONS WHEN CONSIDERING HOW TO
COMPLETE THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
>> THE LEGISLATION, SO, THE
AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION IN
STATE LAW WAS PASSED IN 2010.
THAT IS THE LEGISLATION THAT
CREATED THIS FRAMEWORK THAT
REQUIRED THE CITY IN ENACTING A
LOCAL INSPECTION PROGRAM TO
OFFER CHOICE.
>> CORRECT.
>> IN 2012 THE COUNCIL PASSED
THE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION
PROGRAM AND ALLOWED FOR THAT
CHOICE.
CONSISTENT WITH THE 2010 STATE
LAW.
IT IS THE ACTIONS IN 2017 THAT
WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS TODAY.
WE TOOK THOSE ACTIONS IN 2017
BECAUSE WE WANTED GREATER
TRANSPARENCY AROUND UNITS THAT
WERE NOT INITIALLY, THEY
INITIALLY PASS.
THEIR INITIAL INSPECTIONS
WEREN'T COMING BACK CLEAN.
WE WANTED TO GET MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT SO WE
MADE THESE CHANGES IN 2017.
IN DOING SO THERE IS THIS
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
WE ARE STILL PROVIDING THE
LANDLORD THE CHOICE CONSISTENT
WITH THE 2010 MALL.
>> RIGHT.
THAT IS CORRECT.
THE CHANGES IN 2017 WERE,
FRANKLY, IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO
SOME CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED.
>> WHERE PROBLEMS.
>> BUILDINGS THAT HAD PASSED A
REAL INSPECTION AND IT TURNS
OUT THERE WERE SOME SERIOUS
HOUSING MAINTENANCE ISSUES IN
THOSE BUILDINGS IN OTHER UNITS.
THE COUNCIL WORKED WITH THE
DEPARTMENT TO MODIFY THE
LEGISLATION AND ESTATE
AUTHORIZING STATUTES DOES ALLOW
FOR WHEN THERE ARE FAILURES FOR
THAT INFORMATION TO BE
SUBMITTED, BUT IT DIDN'T
PROVIDE THE OPTION OF IF A
PROPERTY OWNER PREFERS NOT TO
SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE
CITY TO GIVE THEM THE CHOICE OF
JUST HAVING ALL UNITS
INSPECTED.
THIS ADDS ANOTHER OPTION.
IT DOESN'T TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF
WHAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2017.
>> AND STILL CONTINUES TO
FULFILL THE POLICY OBJECTIVE IN
2017.
>> CORRECT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I APPRECIATE THE SMART
THINKING ON THIS ONE.
>> SEEING THERE IS NO DISCUSSION
I MOVED TO ADOPT COUNSEL BILL
119546.
IS HER SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE VOTE I.
>> I.
>> MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU, ALLIE.
THIS WILL BE BACK BEFORE THE
FULL COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION
ON MONDAY, JUNE 24.
IT IS 10:50 AND THIS CONCLUDES.
THANK YOU ALL.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.