Good morning.
The June 19th, 2019 meeting of the Seattle Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee will come to order.
It is 9.34 AM.
I'm Abel Pacheco, Chair of the committee.
We have three items on the agenda today.
Discussion and possible vote on Clerk File 314413, an application for a temporary expansion in North Seattle Precinct.
A discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119471, clarifying the definition of a vessel.
And a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119546, which updates the rental registration inspection ordinance to conform with state law.
The next regularly scheduled PLEZ meeting is on Wednesday, July 3, starting at 9.30 a.m.
here 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 the speaker's comment exceeds the one minute, the microphone will be turned off.
Speakers are asked to begin their comments by identifying themselves and the agenda item that they wish to address.
As a reminder, public comment is limited to the items that are on the agenda or within the purview of the committee.
So first, we have Sarah Weber.
And then we will be followed by Dan Obert.
Hi.
Is the backyard cottages not on this agenda today?
No.
I'm assuming you mean the...
Rezoning?
The ADU bill.
That was yesterday.
Oh, it was yesterday.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
Dan Obert.
That is currently, it was voted out of committee in the sustainability and transportation.
Council Member O'Brien, who's chairing the committee, has the intention to bring that before the full council on July 1st.
Thank you.
Irene...
Is it Hatchet?
It's Hecht.
Hecht, sorry.
That's okay.
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 that I asked them to review.
I trust that you have reviewed it.
Given that the other members of the committee that are not here, I don't know if you've 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 because this is a temporary project and the neighborhood was promised that green space as green space when the police station was originally built.
I do believe that a letter was responded to, so I did have follow up.
Elise Bowman, followed by Judy Carroll.
Good morning.
I'm Elsa Bowman.
I'm a resident who lives exactly behind the police precinct station.
My concern actually is not the plan.
I think that we have agreed that that will go forward.
My concern is the increased traffic and parking problems that are not addressed.
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 100th, 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 the light rail station opens and the projected bridge on North 100th over I-5 is built.
Now is the time to address these safety issues.
I'm asking you, council members, at least Mr. Pacheco, to direct me to the proper department so our community can be involved in finding a solution for this traffic and safety problem.
I'd like to give you my letter.
Thank you.
Next is Cheryl Felmer.
My apologies.
I'm a homeowner across the street from the police station.
I've been there 26 years and we as a community of 16 homes have spent a lot of our budget on landscaping our area.
And we would hope that the police precinct would address their landscaping with the inclusion of irrigation.
We have seen plants die over the years.
They put them in, they die because there's no irrigation.
So 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 to its natural state.
We have been good neighbors to the police break sink and they have been to us.
But we'd 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 Feldman, followed by Jess Walsh.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Cheryl Feldman.
I'm with 350 Seattle, which is a grassroots climate action organization.
And as I listened this morning, I can see that the committee has issues of detail that consume its interest.
And I'd just like to make a more general comment that asks the committee to keep in mind that urban density is one of the major solutions to climate change in Seattle.
And I urge you to look toward solutions which are more intense.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Councilmember Pacheco.
Good morning, staff.
My name is Jess Wallach.
I'm also here with 350 Seattle.
And yesterday I was a part of about 150 folks who came here to the City Council to deliver a mayor to letter Durkin calling for a Green New Deal that eliminates the city of Seattle's climate pollution by 2030, addresses historic injustices, creates thousands of good green union jobs.
And this committee has a key part to play in the realization of that transformative Green New Deal.
We see urban 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 on climate.
So in 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 community organizations and businesses, council members O'Brien, Sawant, and Mosqueda have signed on.
I invite the rest of council to join us.
And I want to thank this committee for passing yesterday's ED legislation and continuing to help the city lead on climate.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, we have Scott McClay.
Good morning.
Thank you.
I'm Scott McClay.
I'm also with 350 Seattle and I'm here because climate chaos is impacting us now and it's getting worse.
Two days ago, paper said permafrost is melting 70 years ahead of schedule, the prediction.
So we're in deep trouble and 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 fracked gas because most of it is coming from fracking.
All gas use must be phased out by 2030. We also need increased densities.
So the ADU and DADUs are a great first step.
But single family zoning is a relic of racism and must be abolished.
Today's New York Times has an article that Oregon has a bill in process, the state legislature, to abolish single family zoning.
You're aware Minneapolis has already done that.
We have to also jump on board.
Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes will increase density and increase energy efficiency and material use efficiency.
So the real goal is net zero building codes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I have been joined by Councilmembers O'Brien and Councilmembers Harrell.
Next on our list is Maury Moore-Schuller.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Councilmembers, for having us here today.
And thank you for your recent attention to our issue over the vessel definition.
We are, I'm the president of the Lake Union Liveaboard Association, Maury Moore Shuler, and we are here to ask for delay in this until you can include this as part of the overall rewrite and update of the shoreline management plan because there are places in the code that this particular measure might conflict with in the future.
I do want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her amendment.
It's a real step in the right direction.
Thank you very, very much.
We really appreciate it.
But I would like you to reconsider voting on this today because I think it needs to be scrubbed with the rest of parts of the code.
And also I would like you to think about if you do postpone this today, if you do nothing and you put it off, you may get more applications from boats that 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 still on the water as unworking boats that you have no regulatory power over.
So to me it seems to make sense that you go ahead and let them apply and become flowers.
Thank you.
Next is John Chaney.
Good morning.
My name is John Chaney.
I want to thank you for past opportunity to speak to you about this.
I would like to introduce two records and two pieces of information into the record, and I have copies for all of you.
The first one is a vessel survey that was done by the city itself in 2015. It identified that there were potentially 222 potential flower opportunities for verification.
We're at 230 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.
And it's 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'd like to introduce are the other vessel definitions from across the federal government, the 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 outlier with this change.
Thank you.
Next is Steve Rustello.
Followed by Glenn Bollinger.
Well, I didn't throw you to the wolves, so you're not here alone again.
But you should take a look at how selectively green this console seems to be.
You talk about carbon, but you also don't want to save legacy and heritage trees, because anything 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.
So what we seem to be is in a cycle where we're going to make development mandatory and very, very profitable.
If you were 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're destroying more family units.
What we're building are not family units.
So if we keep going this way, we're 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?
Thank you.
Glenn.
Next we have Rosa Marie Bollinger.
Suzanne Whitehead.
Hi, I'm speaking about the redefinition of a vessel.
I've never done this before.
I'm nervous.
And quite frankly, I don't really, I'm really puzzled even after trying to read about all of this about what the implications of redefining vessel is.
But I do think that some flawed data has been given to you guys and I think that maybe you're trying to make decisions based on information that's not correct.
And I do also agree with Lula that I would urge that this vote be postponed until the SSMP is reviewed.
But I do thank Council Member Herbold for the amendment that is giving an exemption for existing flowers to not be affected by this.
So I'm thankful for that.
Okay, that's about it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Barbara Ingram.
Hi, I'm also speaking to the issue about the definition of a vessel.
And what I would really like to do, first of all, I would like to thank Councilmember Herbold for the amendment, which I think is helpful and I agree is 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.
And that is that one small piece has been plucked out of a very large set of regulations, and we're focusing on that.
And that's a very poor process, because when you do that, you run the risk of creating a patchwork set of rules.
And 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 worse that process is going to get.
So I really urge you to step back and think about the process that's going on, and to consider that the wisest course might really and truly be to look at this in the context of review of the entire shoreline management plan so that you can try to write regulations that have consistency.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Michelle Whetland.
Thank you.
I'm speaking also for the vessel definition and 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 Herbal for being here today and council member Herbal for her amendment that would safeguard my home.
So that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone who did not sign up to speak that would like to speak?
Yes.
Can you please be sure to sign in?
Good morning.
I'm glad to see at least three of you there.
I'd like to see all of you here.
I'd like to thank Lisa for her help and perhaps getting this delayed.
I think it's very important that we get it delayed.
And that's what I'm asking you for today is to delay this decision on the vessel definition.
I work in the industry.
I live on a houseboat.
I live on a flower.
And I'm on the water every day.
working on other people's boats.
In the definition and the statement that John Chaney issued based on that study, a lot of misnomers are in there.
One of the things I noticed is that they describe boats, houseboats, as having bedrooms and bathrooms and kitchens just like shoreside homes, and that's why they should be considered like that.
But our boats that are big enough for people to live on, our yachts, our super yachts, all have those things.
They simply call them different things.
Their living rooms, their salon, their kitchens, their galley, their bathrooms ahead, and their bedrooms, their staterooms, but they serve the same function.
Houseboats have been a definition for many, many years.
They're, as Donna said, all over the United States, all over the world.
There are houses that were, there are boats that were built for people to live on specifically, but people live on other boats.
And the big difference is this, and it's an environmental issue.
The boats that we live on, the houseboats, contain their sewage, and they contain their water, and they reduce the water we put overboard by using less water.
We use environmentally friendly soaps.
So I'd like you to defer this decision, please.
Thank you.
Hello, thank you for having me, my name is Dan law firm I'm a professional engineer houseboat builder and this greatly affects me as well as everyone in the Community.
By redefining a vessel this actually adds less regulation, not more where right now, I can rebuild a flower into a houseboat that's regulated if I.
You can now build a vessel with no regulation, no permits, this adds less regulation completely.
If you're to find these people that live on these boats as vessels, there's nothing stopping me from just building a houseboat on it because it's now a vessel.
There are also unintended consequences of redefining a vessel where the marinas have to have 75% vessels in them.
We call it marina.
How is the city going to address this now that these are no longer vessels?
Do they have to kick them out now?
Or are they going to address them when they are vessels?
Person that may have a flower and have certain regulations there No longer has this Because they are defined something different the one they lived on their entire life.
So I asked I agree with Lula and I asked them to delay this vote and Consider what is actually going on by redefining what a vessel is.
Thank you.
Thank you Is there anyone else who did not sign up to speak they would like to speak?
Seeing none.
We will now move on to the next agenda item and Our first item of business today is discussion and possible vote on clerk file 314413 which is a council land use to action to allow for the temporary expansion of the North Seattle police precinct.
Noah, would you please read this item into the record?
Agenda item one, clerk file 314413, council land use action to approve a temporary expansion of the North Seattle precinct located at 10049 College Way North.
Welcome back.
Will the folks at the table please introduce themselves.
Ketel Freeman, Council of Central Staff.
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.
I'm Duncan Thiem with SRG Partnership, architect for the project.
Andy Ishizaki, Finance and Administrative Services.
Mark Baird, Chief Operating Officer, SPD.
Eric Sano, Captain, North Precinct Commander.
So unfortunately last time we did not have the chance to conclude this action item.
And so we're back here today to address this and include this so we can send this to the full council.
Before we do that, could you please provide us with a brief refresher of the decision before us?
Sure.
So I'll just recap where we've been and orient you to some of the materials that are attached to this agenda item.
And we have FAS and SPD here that may be able to respond to some questions that you have about the project.
So just by way of a reminder, on the 5th, the committee was briefed on the proposed expansion and waiver of development standards.
There was a public hearing as well.
This type of action is a somewhat infrequent action that the council takes, which is council approval, land use approval of a project, a city facility project in this case.
So it's something that happens occasionally, but not too often.
There is a decision document that is attached to This is attached to the memo from last week and that Decision document would conditionally grant approval of the expansion and waive a development standard related to the location of parking.
The conditions are conditions recommended by SDCI.
So you all may have specific questions based on the testimony that you heard today and the briefing that occurred last week and FAS and SPD are here to respond to some of those questions.
Well, I have one question, and I was able to ask this last time, but we've heard concerns about irrigation, just in terms of what's the plan for the expansion.
So I can speak to that.
So the proposed landscape along the extended parking lot, I believe the plan is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Duncan, is that we would have temporary irrigation installed to help establish the plants so that the, I guess, native plants that are planted there have time to fully establish themselves.
There is a period in which the contractor is also under obligation to ensure that those plants are well established.
It's pretty typical that there's a one-year warranty included with the landscape.
So after that, it'll be up to our facility operations group, maintenance group, through, I believe, vendors, to help maintain the landscape after that period.
And without approval of this plan, will we not be able to add new officers?
Yes, so I'm looking to SPD here.
The precinct is at its max.
There's physically no more space to add patrol officers.
It's purely a function of locker room.
It really does come down to that.
As mentioned previously, the community room was already converted into to provide lockers for officers, and therefore there's no community room.
I think we've we've explored every nook and cranny of the precinct and again, there's simply no more space Councilmember herbal.
Thank you.
So rather than just do a kind of back-and-forth Q&A the folks who came and spoke to us last time they Submitted a letter.
I think there are nine questions and I think Mr. Freeman asked for your response.
Could you just quickly go through the answers to the nine questions?
I think the first one was related to the not paving over more than 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.
And then I think there's one about security fencing, one about where officers should be able to access.
But maybe you could just quickly go through them.
Okay, so I think this will be a team effort on our part.
I don't know if everybody has the questions and comments in front of them, but I think the first question relating to parking, I would defer to Lindsey as far as the traffic report and the study that was done regarding parking and the requirements for parking.
Lindsey, maybe you can speak to that.
Unfortunately, I don't have the question.
I can speak to the study that was submitted as a 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 to seven years and agree to remove the temporary additional parking and restore the green space when the new precinct is built elsewhere.
So what I will say is that the project submittal that was submitted to STCI established fleet vehicle parking, that those needs were established by SPD and submitted through FAS.
The study then went on to establish patrol The fleet vehicle, the patrol cars, and then the parking for the officers and the public.
What we started through SDCI is with the parking that was provided on the site, what additional overflow would occur from that on to the streets.
I think the balance is that 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, but kept it at a level that was less than the parking utilization that is the balance for us, the 85% utilization rate.
So as far as why that parking was proposed or returning it to green space, SDCI would defer to FAS and SPD.
I'll say police parking is complicated, but analyzing the police fleet's needs, we determined that they would likely need 80 spaces for their fleet during the time that we have.
Now, their fleet projects to be larger than that, but part of the reason 80 became the correct number is some of that fleet is always in circulation, some of it's for repairs, and some of it is out with officers on training.
SDCI 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 secured parking area.
In addition to that, there are five spaces for public in front of the building.
So I will comment that through the design, we tried to balance the need for parking, and I believe we provided the minimum parking that we could while maintaining as much green space and landscape in that southern area as possible.
Yeah, I was just 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 or is that off the table?
comment definitively about that.
I mean, it is city-owned property.
There is nothing written as far as encumbering the site to remove what is developed.
And again, I'll have to...
I think part of that, just maybe helping FAS out here a little bit, is that one thing, the purpose for the interim expansion here is because the city has ongoing planning related to whether or not how to replace the north precinct, whether there should be one or two locations.
I think the property is not in parks jurisdiction, it's in FAS's 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 layout of the precinct or precincts in North Seattle.
So the reference to the promise that was made that the property would be maintained as green space is a reference to a commitment that was made under the earlier plans to build a new North Precinct.
I think the commitment was made when the original precinct was developed, way back when.
I'm not exactly sure when it was developed, but this is often the case that, of course, a commitment, a past council can't bind a future council, and while it may be the case that the open space can be returned at some point in the future, that'll depend on contingent decisions about planning for the north precinct.
Just a question Duncan on the parking so the the 80 spots plus the 18 is a Tight but projection of what we'll need and that will be provided with this additional With these changes proposed it's not that there's an additional 80 outside of what's here though Those are all included secure spots there plus the 18 they were acquired by FS.
That's correct Okay Any other questions?
Do we want to go through all nine?
Well, I mean, I saw an exchange with central staff asking folks to respond to the the questions and I thought that's sort of where we left things last committee meeting.
I can always follow up with my questions afterwards.
I circulated a not an exhaustive response from FAS and I think it was they were transmitting information from SPD to them and they addressed some of the concerns and we can hear from them now about that if the committee wants to some of the operational needs for both for the 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 near neighbors to the project.
I'm sorry.
Am I looking at the wrong person?
Are you FAS?
Yes.
Sorry.
Are we talking about the height of the fence?
Yes, we are.
So I can comment a little bit about that.
We've had some vandalism issues in the past, and we are utilizing the same height fence.
It's not a chain link fence, but a different type of fence, which prohibits people from being able to scale it, climb over it.
It's the same type of fencing that we use at other City of Seattle facilities, whether it's Seattle City Light.
It's not specific to the police department.
It's used at Seattle City Light, SPU, SDOT, and FAS.
And it's, they use a similar eight to 10 foot fence with some, I can't wait to call it on top, but I don't think we're gonna be putting that on top, if I'm correct.
No, it's what's in the link.
Oh, okay, it's in the link, yeah.
So that's why we're going with the eight foot fence at this point.
We are looking, it's primarily for security and for obstructing views of the precinct.
We also have on the north side of the precinct against The roof of the precinct is almost next to the level parking lot so it would be a way to prevent people from accessing our roof.
And 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 and 103rd.
Yes, Wallingford is a very narrow residential street with cars on either side, but there's very minimal traffic, police traffic on there.
And there's nothing about this particular project that's going to increase those number of officers?
No.
On that one, you know this better than I do.
I wouldn't propose we change anything legislatively, but just making sure that you guys keep aware and are good neighbors.
And I think you guys try that pretty hard always anyway.
And I'm willing to sit down with Ms. Heck and talk to her also about parking issues.
Great.
And I think you handled a lot of the screening issues that are in this letter.
So hearing that there are no additional questions, I move to grant clerk file 314413 as conditioned.
Those in favor, vote aye.
Oh, is there a second?
Sorry.
Those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
This motion passes.
Thank you.
The item will be back before the full council before a final decision on Monday, June 24th.
Thank you.
Our next item is a discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119471, which clarifies the definition of a vessel.
Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda item two, Council Bill 119471, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, clarifying the definition of vessel and consistently using the term vessel in the Shoreline Master Program and amending sections of the Seattle Municipal Code.
All right.
Morning.
Will you please introduce yourself?
Maggie Glocki, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.
And would you please...
Still Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.
One of these days it's going to change.
Ketel moved a seat over and it threw me off a little bit.
Would you please give us a refresher?
We've been having this before our committee now.
This was, the Council had a public hearing on this bill, Council Bill 119471. in May and this was on the agenda last Friday, but due to time constraints the committee didn't get to it.
I'll talk a little bit about sort of what's in the bill and options for today and then open it up to discussion, I suppose.
So as the council members know, Council Bill 119471 would amend the definition of vessel in the SMP to respond to a December 2016 hearing examiner decision that an inoperable trawler Was not a vessel and could seek verification as an FOWR, a FOWR.
I think you all are familiar with this, but for the benefit of those folks who may be watching at home, the city regulates floating residences under the Shoreline Master Program.
I'll walk through sort of how the city does that, at least for house barges, FOWRs, and vessels, other vessels used as dwelling units.
I can provide some information about the problem that this legislation seeks to address and you may have some questions about that and then Councilmember Herbold has an amendment that would Affirm the status of powers that have already received verification from the city.
Did you speak to that?
Does that sound okay?
All right So, how does the city regulate?
Maggie is going to help me out here because there's a level of detail that she has more expertise on than I but There's this table which is attached to the agenda and I think you all are pretty familiar with this but the The city recognizes four different ways that somebody can have a floating residential use.
Floating homes, which are not addressed here, house barges, floating on-water residences, and vessels containing dwelling units.
House barges are a type of on-water residential use that dates back to the 1990s.
They were a grandfather as part of the Shoreline Master Program update.
at that time.
And a house barge is a vessel that is designed or used, this is the current definition, it would be changed by the code, changed by the proposed bill, the vessel that is designed or used as a place of residence without a means of self-propulsion and steering equipment or capacity.
In order to be legally established as a house barge under the Shoreline Master Program, the use must have been established by July of 1990. So again, this is a grandfathering from a prior SMP update.
So, as with many of these, house barges are regulated as conforming uses, and owners may maintain, repair, remodel, expand, and replace them if they, with a structure within a similar footprint.
And city verifications are required for these, and verifications are sort of the term that's used in the code for, for lack of a better term, establishing the use.
It is the permission that establishes that something is a residential use for the purposes of the SMP, and it's essentially a transferable property right related to the residential use for the purposes of the shorelines of the city's SMP.
And when the city updated the SMP several years ago, the city provided the opportunity for house barges to be verified as fowers, if that was something that an owner wanted to do.
There are...
Sorry, Kilo, can I just pursue that one a little bit?
I should remember it, but I apologize, I don't.
So house barges, the handful of house barges that were established, and that's a finite number of 30 something...
Yeah, 34. I have an option of remaining under the house barge code or converting to the floating on water residence code.
Yes.
And the distinction between those two, I don't need to get too far into the details, but is there.
Is there an advantage one way or the other to being regulated as one or the other?
I'll let Maggie speak to that.
I think one potential advantage is that a FOWR is a new definition that was established in 2014 under state law.
And so somebody may perceive that there is a greater level of protection under the SMA by by being verified as a FOWR as opposed to being verified as a house barge.
Does that seem accurate to you, Maggie?
Well, to all add to, in 2015 when the city updated the Shoreline Master Program, what we did is we left both categories and we made the regulations identical.
And as Ketel said, if someone were a house barge that was verified or, you know, that was came into existence prior to 1990, they had the choice to either become an FOWR or remain a house bard.
So within our Shoreline Master Program, there wasn't a difference.
But I think Ketel stated that at the state level, FOWRs are acknowledged.
Got it.
And so, and then the city verification for house barges and floating on water residents, is that a one-time deal?
You get a verification and that's your, you know, essentially your permit, or is it something that is done on an ongoing basis, like a vehicle registration?
So it's a one-time verification.
One-time deal.
Okay.
And so, and of the 34 house barges identified, this is on page two of the memo, 24 have been verified as house barges.
And then there's 10 more that we believe exist but haven't.
No, so they verified as FOWRs.
Got it.
So of the 34, 24 are now barges and 10 have moved over to FOWRs.
Right.
OK.
So 24 house barges.
Left.
Left.
Yes.
I mean, as far as I know.
They're all left in extractors.
But under the category of house barges, there's 24 left.
And 10 have moved to floating automotive residents in addition to, well, a total of 208 as of today or a month ago.
And this line of questioning I think dovetails into a little bit more granularity around flowers.
So, there was a study done, is that right, that came up with these estimated numbers for 2015?
Yeah, and I would agree with John Chaney, would he?
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 Lula actually in 2013, and it's was the estimate at the time of the number of house barges, which is sort of a pre-FOWR term.
There is more recent information.
There's the 2015 study, which indicates that there are probably about 222, at least at the time, not just fowers, but fowers, house barges, and then 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 SDCI number.
It was a study that...
A LULA number.
A LULA number, okay.
So the reason why 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's been a lot more FOWERS seeking verification than anticipated.
And it looks like there's been 208, but the city study in 2015 showed that there was 222. So it doesn't seem to me that there are a lot more than were necessarily anticipated.
The earlier number was from an earlier time.
So there has been any increase.
So if there was an estimate of 113 and then that estimate went up a couple of years later.
Because these are just estimates.
We just have the numbers that have been verified.
So the number right now is 208, you know, if you add in the house barge and vessel.
But in 2015, STCI was estimating 222. So it's not like in the last, I mean, it's been four years.
So it's not a surprise.
that the numbers double than what was estimated in the Lula study.
Sure.
I think we'll be getting to this in a minute.
But one sort of question I guess 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 that suggests that there are more and more inoperable vessels that are verifying as fowlers and is that a problem?
So that's one of the questions that you all are addressing.
Kato, can you get into the hearing examiner decision, and specifically more about the ambiguity that was left?
Yeah, I think we can skip sort of right to maybe what problem is this legislation seeking to address?
Council Member O'Brien, before we get there, can we just finish that spreadsheet?
Because I want to understand the vessel's descriptions too.
OK.
Sorry, is that all right?
So in 2014, there was a change in state law through engrossed second substitute bill, or engrossed Senate substitute bill 6450, which is now codified in RCW 90-58-270.
And that established a new category of floating residences called FOWERS.
And the definition that the city uses for FOWERS comes almost directly from from state law and I'll just go ahead and it's it's on the it's up there on the spreadsheet or on the table and it 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 a sublease at a marina or whose owner or predecessor in interest had an ownership interest in a marina as of July 1st, 2014. So that's the date by which that residential use must have been established.
And then it says for the purposes of this definition, a structure will be considered designed primarily as a residence if it contains a dwelling unit.
So fowers are regulated similarly to house barges, as Maggie mentioned.
They can be maintained.
They're not non-conforming uses.
They can be maintained, repaired, remodeled, replaced, and expanded subject to development standards about how tall they can get.
And they can even be modified within a footprint of overwater coverage.
And no requirement that they have navigable that they can navigate, that they have propulsion, steering, any of that stuff.
These are just residents.
Okay.
But again, they have, this is another grandfathering date, July 2014.
Yeah, exactly.
So that is the next grandfathering date from 1990. There's this new grandfathering date of July 2014. In order to be verified by the city to have that transferable property right and that permission, the FOWR must have been in residential use prior to that date.
And so that's a state law that I assume, did the city adopt it too or is it essentially just a state law?
It's yeah the city adopted that because of the change to state law.
And so what does that mean for kind of floating on water residents exist before July 2014 in Bremerton.
and then come to Seattle and maintain its flower status here, or does it have to have existed in Seattle?
I'm going to ask Maggie to answer that question.
I think that this is an area that is sort of unclear, I think, under state law, whether or not a verification provided by one jurisdiction is transferable to another.
So we interpret that the FOWR needed to exist in the city of Seattle at a marina meeting the requirement by the state legislature.
In theory, at least, there should be a finite number of floating on water residents as of July of 2014. And we have an estimate, actually two different estimates from two different times, but one was 113, one's 222, right?
So, and those are just estimates of how many there were, and what we've seen is just shy of the 222. 208 have registered.
But what also seems clear is there are things that, and we'll get to the vessels next, that were clearly not counted as flowers because we interpreted them as vessels.
And there's a couple dozen of those that have now been certified as flowers in the last couple years.
So we know, so the population of floating island reservoirs may not grow.
Some things that, at least in our mind, were not beforehand have been certified as now.
So maybe we can talk about what a vessel is in this category.
And so the final category of ways that a residential and over water residential use can be established is as a vessel.
There are essentially two categories, conventional recreational vessels used as dwelling units.
And this is, I think, what people mostly think of as live aboard.
So if you're living on a sailboat or something like that, that's allowed under the SNP.
And no verification is required for that.
And then there's this other category, other vessels used as dwelling units.
And this, I think, was intended, and Maggie, you should correct me if I'm wrong here, to create kind of an opportunity for structures that may not have been conventional vessels and may not have been FOWRs to get a verification from the city in an interim period before the SMP became effective in June of 2015. And so the window for this one, for this category has essentially closed.
But for those uses to have been established, they would have needed to have been, the residential use would have needed to have been established by June of 2015.
And what, can you describe a couple of the VDUs or is it, it looks like there's seven that have been established and is it seven just unique things?
Are they just kind of structures that don't fit really any categories?
Well, they don't fit the conventional recreational vessel category, but they would fit the designed and used for navigation category.
So they would have a means of self-propulsion as well as steering equipment.
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.
But there are other constraints that exist, at least in Seattle.
I mean, you kept to be in a marina and only certain marinas allow it.
I mean part of this whole idea is what do we use our, I mean the whole part of the, the, Shoreline management is how do we manage a shoreline, and how do we prioritize certain uses over other uses, and how do we restrict or limit things?
And I know that's a touchy subject for various uses, because people have different views on what should be prioritized.
But recreational vessels are not restricted at all, but there are just some space constraints or marina constraints.
Are there any limits on the number of liveaboards that can exist in Seattle, or is it really just up to how many marinas build out and the permits they get?
Yeah, so the city shoreline master program does not regulate the number of liver boards on the you know What you described as sailboats or other conventional recreational vessels?
So moving on to what problem does this legislation seek to address as councilmember Pacheco mentioned in?
2016 there was a decision from the city hearing examiner that essentially said that An inoperable trawler did not meet the definition of a vessel and could therefore seek verification as a FOWR.
And so that's essentially the, and so the proposed changes to the code would clarify that even if there is a vessel out there that is not used for navigation or is inoperable, it still is a vessel.
And what essentially that would mean is that those, if somebody were to live on those vessels, they would, you know, they would be able to do so, not necessarily as an FOWR, but as a conventional recreational vessel used as a dwelling unit.
So it would make it harder to establish FOWR status.
And so here's an example.
We have some permitting examples that sort of illustrate a business model that this legislation seeks to make more difficult.
This is an application by Jeremy Fuller.
And we have a couple of these.
But he applied and received verification of this.
sailboat as an FOWR.
And to do that, the burden of proof is relatively low.
There are a couple of affidavits here, one from the owner of the sailboat and one from the marina operator that verify that that structure has been in residential use and has not been used for navigation.
So what this does is it creates an opportunity for somebody to have this have the sailboat verified as a fowler and then potentially to replace it with something else and that's what this legislation seeks to address the problem that it seeks to address.
Okay, so 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 there's really no restrictions on that, and really no inspections.
But once it becomes no longer navigable, then there's this question mark of what it is.
Well, even if it's not used for navigation.
Oh, even if it's not used for navigation.
Yeah, so if it just sits, and it sits at the dock since 2014, then it could potentially be verified as a vessel.
And so one of my questions was 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 aren't regulated and there's no restriction on that, but one of the ideas is they could, If it was a floating on water residence and something happened to it or it was destroyed, they could rebuild it.
And it wouldn't necessarily have to look like that, it would just have to meet similar criteria, but it may look a lot more like a house barge.
And would basically be a way to convert a sailboat into a house barge or something like that.
Right.
And it would no longer need to be designed and used for navigation.
So there is, you know, as Councilmember Herbold pointed out, you know, there's not been, you know, the number of verified house barges, fowers, and VDUs is, since 2015, is more or less within the range of what was anticipated through that 2015 survey.
There has been, according to STCI, an uptick in verifications for what appears to be inoperable vessels.
So in 2019, there have been 7 of 11 verifications thus far for similar vessels.
That 12 verifications for inoperable vehicles includes the 7 in 2019?
Yes, it does.
So it's a total of 12 so far.
Are we seeing evidence that it is a business model, for instance?
So it's hard for me to answer that.
I think that the person at DCI who does the verification understands that it is a business model and that there is, you know, somebody that is buying the inoperable vessels and replacing them with
I'm not doing the verification.
But the person who feels that this is a practice.
Yes.
Okay.
Thanks.
So there are, Council Member Herbold has an amendment to the proposed bill.
There is of course always a do-nothing option, and I think the trade-offs there can't really be quantified necessarily, but I think you all are familiar with what they may be.
It could be the case that more unused or inoperable vessels are converted to FOWRs.
And as one sort of trade-off in the SMA and RSMP that implements the Shoreline Management Act is competition for space in the shoreline for structures that need to be there, that are water-dependent and water-related, and residential uses that don't necessarily need to be there, hence the grandfathering from certain dates.
One more question about the practice.
There was a comment from the public that suggested that removing the FOWR verification process would be limiting your ability to regulate this activity.
So is there still an ability to stop people from taking inoperable vehicles and inoperable vessels and and living on them.
I'm assuming that without the power verification you would then have some enforcement power to say this is not an allowed use in
So it would be allowed use as a conventional recreational vessel.
Talking about inoperable.
So if it's inoperable, then that's a different issue.
But you still have some regulatory authority on people living in inoperable vessels.
Well, I think it's more the inoperable part of the vessel and whether the department would either has the capacity, it's a different issue essentially.
So that's something that we can look at as we move forward because it isn't something that's 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.
And 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.
So that's what I know.
really trying to address the question of whether a recreational vehicle, vessel, now you've got me going.
A recreational vessel is operational or not.
That may be regulated somewhere else.
That's not the issue.
The issue is converting of recreational vessels into floating on water residents through this, what we would call, though some might disagree in the audience, a loophole that was created by the hearing examiner where when they were no longer If they're certified as no longer navigable and as residents, then they meet the definition of a floating automotive residence, which I would agree that that, at least in my mind, was never the intent that these recreational vessels would also be treated as, have an option of that.
I believe Council Member Herbal has an amendment that really, it makes us adhere to that commitment that we've had with, prior to the hearing examiner's decision.
Say what?
Oh, it just has us recommit back to that decision.
I think that's a good segue.
All right, so there is attached to the agenda, and you all should have it.
There's an amendment proposed by Councilmember Herbold.
It's labeled Amendment Number 1. And this is what the amendment would do, it would add a section four to the bill, and section four would say this, nothing in this ordinance alters the status of floating on water residences that received verifications from the city prior to the effective date of this ordinance pursuant to the requirements of subsection 2368-203B and the definition of floating on water residence in section 2368-912.
So 2368203B is the process and development standard, the procedural requirements and substantive requirements for verification of an FOWR.
Okay, so this language helps.
In my mind, I'm not sure that this was the intent even before the language.
That's right, yeah.
But it's just clarifying because I know part of what we're going back and forth here on with community members is question about what's intended, what it says.
So what this basically says is anyone who's certified as floating on water residents prior to this date can
or retain that regardless of What they yeah, so this the legislation itself does not alter any development standards or the definition or the definition of floating on water residents I think you probably have heard from the Lake Union Liveable Association and other advocates that they would like some sort of clarification about the status of FOWRs as potentially being vessels as well.
This legislation doesn't purport to do that.
That's maybe a, that's a somewhat, it's a related but separate issue that could be addressed at some future point.
But it doesn't necessarily seek, wouldn't solve the problem that has been created by the hearing examiners 2016 decision.
A point of reference, just a, I think you're all aware of this, but there is a periodic update to the S&P that'll be coming at some point in the future, probably a couple of years from now.
And so there'll be an opportunity to look at that issue potentially then.
I'm for that one.
So, yes, thank you for putting together the amendment, Ketel.
The intent, as you say, is to affirm the status of hours that have already received verification and to clarify that there's nothing in the ordinance that alters the status.
And I also appreciate that you met with SDCI and members of LULA a couple weeks ago and my staff.
I was not able to participate.
And one of the issues that is still, for me, a question, and maybe it came up in that meeting, is the concern that fowers might be counted towards over water coverage when marina owners apply for expansions.
Did we, in the last two weeks, get an answer on that from SDCI?
I'll turn to Maggie.
So this was brought to our attention as an issue, and during the periodic review, we'll review that.
But again, this legislation doesn't change anything that's in the current regulations regarding that.
So we'll review that issue during our periodic review and update of the Shoreline Master Program.
I'm just, I'm asking for a question of whether or not, regardless of if the legislation changes it, do fowers count towards over water coverage when marina owners, because the question is if we're using the word structure really.
And so you're saying that this doesn't change anything.
It doesn't.
So structure is currently in the definition for fowers.
That does not change.
What it does change is And this is largely just for consistency, it removes the term vessel and changes it to structure for house barges, so that 1990 category of floating residences that could convert to an FOWR.
Okay, all right, that helps, thanks.
So if passed this legislation, we believe would prevent former recreational vessels that are no longer operational from obtaining floating on water resident status.
anyone that already has verification as floating on water residents retain it.
And there's still a path for other residents to be certified as floating on water residents.
I mean, we're not closing that path.
But 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 residents, if those 24 decided for whatever reason that they would rather be a floating on water residence, does anything in here prevent that conversion from happening?
No.
So DCI could do that through a you know, just switching the verification to an FOWR if that's what the house barge owner wanted to do.
And in city code, they're, I don't want to say they're identical, but it sounds like they're very similar.
But one does have, one is in state legislation and one's only in cities.
So there may be a reason why folks would want to do that or not, I don't know.
So because this is a joint process with the Department of Ecology, what happens after today's vote with the legislation?
Well, it doesn't go to full council on Mondays.
I'm sorry, I meant what happened after the legislation takes into effect, sorry.
Sure, sure.
So assuming that the committee made a recommendation today, It couldn't go to full council on Monday and that's because we're at the this is legislation is where the city's using a joint review process with the Department of Ecology and so After committee action the city would seek a consistency determination from the Department of Ecology Once that consistency determination is in hand then it would be ripe for a full council vote and I think I have not talked to our misty from the Department of Ecology, but I'm recalling that she was imagining that it would probably be about a month or so for a consistency determination to come from DOE.
Got it.
Correct.
Colleagues, 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, and I realize that that's very important.
Also trying to figure out how to do our best to manage and prioritize the use of on-water space.
You know, 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, and 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 and if it turns out that it wasn't a business model and there are 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 within the bounds of Ecology's review of things So my inclination I appreciate councilmember Herbold's amendment would be to support your amendment and support the legislation, right?
Yeah, thank you Council Member Herbold for re-informing our intent.
So if there are no further questions on the amendment, I would like to take a vote on the amendment.
Council Member Herbold.
Thank you.
I'll move Amendment 1 to Council Bill 119471. Second.
Those in favor of the amendment, please vote aye.
Aye.
The amendment passes.
I move to adopt Council Bill 119471 as amended.
Is there a second?
Second.
All those in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.
Thank you.
Our final item of the business today is a briefing discussion possible vote on Council Bill 119546, which makes updates to the rental registration and inspection ordinance to conform with state laws.
Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda Item 3, Council Bill 119546, an ordinance relating to conforming city code to match provisions of state law for rental housing inspections and amending the Seattle Municipal Code.
Welcome, Allie.
Good morning, Council Members.
You've got issues other than backyard cottages.
Only on Wednesdays.
Ali, can you walk us through what the bill does?
Happy to.
Today the committee will discuss and may vote on Council Bill 119546. This bill amends the Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance, which I'll refer to as RIO moving forward, 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'll provide a brief background on the Rio program and then quickly describe the legislation.
The Rio program helps ensure that all rental housing in Seattle is safe and meets basic housing maintenance requirements by requiring that all properties register with the city and have periodic inspections.
The city adopted Rio in 2012, began registering properties in 2014, and inspections began 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 or they can hire a private inspector that has been approved by the city.
For multifamily buildings, only a sampling of the units are required to be inspected.
If one of the units selected for inspection fails that inspection, the department may require that up to 100% of the units in the building are inspected.
So if an inspector finds that there are Check Rio failure, so housing maintenance code violations when conducting the inspection that might indicate more systemic issues in the building.
They may select additional or that all units are inspected to ensure that there are not problems that are sort of 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 certificate of compliance issued by the private inspector and did not receive any information about aspects of the Rio requirements that the unit may have failed.
So how this works practically is the private inspector would go out, conduct the first inspection.
If they found failures that meant they wouldn't pass the Rio inspection, They would notify the property owner, and the property owner would have to correct those failures.
The inspector would come back out.
If they were corrected, then they would issue a certificate of compliance.
And the city would be unaware of any failures that were found.
And so if they, again, were issues that could indicate larger issues in the building, the city wasn't aware of that, couldn't require additional inspections, and other units could go on with those same failures.
In 2017, the council adopted changes to the Rio program that added a requirement that if any failure is found by a private inspector during those inspections, both the results of the initial inspections and the certificate of compliance must be submitted to SDCI.
With that information, SDCI can determine if inspection of additional units is needed.
The proposed changes in Council Bill 119546 adds 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 in their building inspected.
This will allow the private inspector to identify any broader issues, ensure that those issues are corrected prior to issuing the Certificate of Compliance.
So it still meets the intent of what Council initially adopted in 2017 to ensure that we weren't issuing a Certificate of Compliance in buildings where their problems were still persisting, but provides property owners additional options when considering how to complete their requirements.
So the authorizing legislation in state law was passed back in 2010. And 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, allowed for that choice, consistent with the 2010 state law.
It is the actions in 2017 that we are trying to address today.
And we took those actions in 2017 because we wanted greater transparency around that were not initially, they eventually passed, their initial inspections weren't coming back clean.
And so we wanted to get more information about that, so we made these changes in 2017. But in doing so, there's this question about whether or not we're still providing the landlord the choice consistent with the 2010 law.
Right, that's correct.
So the changes in 2017 were, frankly, in direct response to some concerns that were raised.
Real problems.
Real problems.
Buildings that had passed a Rio inspection, and it turns out that there were some serious housing maintenance issues in those buildings in other units.
And so the council worked with the department to modify the legislation, and the state authorizing Statutes does allow for when there are failures to for that information to be submitted But it didn't provide the option of if a if a property owner prefers not to share that information with the city To give them the choice of just having all units inspected.
So this just adds another option It doesn't take anything out of what was adopted in 2017 and still continues to follow Fulfill the policy objective in 2017 as well
Because we're o'brien I appreciate the smart thinking on this one So seeing that there's no discussion a further discussion.
I move to adopt council bill one one nine five four six is there a second second All those in vote favor, please vote aye aye Motion passes.
Thank you, Allie This will be back before the full council for a final decision on Monday, June 24th.
It is 10.50 and this concludes the June 19, 2019 meeting of the PLEZ committee.
As a reminder, our next regular committee, it will be on July 3rd, 2019 at 9.30 here in council chambers.
Thank you all and we are adjourned.
Bye!