Interpretation of the Director
Under Seattle Municipal Code Title 23

Regarding the Usc of the
DPD Interpretation No. 15-001
Property at                          (DPD Project No. 3020324)
2701- 261h Avenue SW (TerminalS)

Background
This interpretation was generated by the Department ofPlanning and Development (DPD) in
response to general questions it has received regarding a proposal to moor an exploratory drilling
rig and two accompanying tugboats at the Port of Seattle's(Port's)Terminal 5 faci lity for
periods ofapproximately six months per year when the drilling rig is not in use in the Arctic. The
central issue is whether this proposed moorage is consistent with the legally established use of
the property as a cargo terminal or whether a permit must be obtained to establish a different or
additional use. The Port and its lessee, Foss Maritime (Foss), have been cooperative in providing
information about proposed activities at Terminal 5.
Media reports indicate that two drilling rigs are destined fo r Seattle: the Polar Pioneer and the
Noble Discoverer. The information provided by the Port indicates that only one ofthese, Polar
Pioneer, would moor at Terminal 5. This interpretation is based on the Port'srepresentations.
Findings of Fact
I.  The Port'sTerminal 5 facility is at the north end ofthe Duwamish River, near Harbor
Island, and located in an 101 U/85 (General Industrial- I) zone and a UI (Urban
Industrial) shoreline environment.
2.  Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 23.40.002 requires a permit in order to establish
or change the use of a property. The recognized existing use of the Terminal 5 facility, as
reflected in decisions including Projects 9404118 and 9404124, is as a cargo terminal.
3. Foss entered into a two-year lease ofTerminal5 with the Port on February 9, 2015. By
the terms ofthe lease, Foss is to use the facility as a marine cargo terminal. In an Apri l 8
letter to DPD, Foss expressed its intent to load and unload its own vessels as well as those

Interpretation No. 15-001
Page 2
ofother customers at Terminal 5 during the lease. The Foss representative said Foss
intended to receive and move goods, cargo, equipment, supplies, stores, provisions and
other materials into the vessels associated with the drilling rig, for transportation to other
locations. The letter indicates that the services they intend to provide for Shell Offshore
would be a fraction ofthe activity they hope to conduct at Terminal 5.
4.  As reported in the Seattle P-1, the Polar Pioneer is a 400-foot tall, 292-foot drilling rig.
The Peninsula Daily News describes it as a 400-foot-long, 355-foot-tall rig. Based on the
media reports, the Polar Pioneer was delivered to Port Angeles aboard a heavy-lift ship,
to be unloaded and towed to Seattle. Based on information provided by the Port and Foss,
the drilling rig and two tugboats would be moored at Terminal 5 for several months out
ofthe year.
5.  The Port has indicated that a variety oftypes ofvessels use its facilities. The Port
documented that its fee schedules include specific fees for "lay berthing" ofvessels that
are not actively being loaded or unloaded. The Port has asserted that this is common and
necessary , as much cargo activity is seasonal, and some vessels used to transport cargo sit
idle during the off-season.                     
6.  Seattle'scurrent Shoreline Master Program is codified at SMC Chapter 23.60, which is a
part of Subtitle III, Division 3 ofTitle 23. An updated shoreline master program has been
approved by the City and is awaiting final approval by the Washington State Department
of Ecology. DPD anticipates that the new provisions will take effect later in May.
7.  "Cargo terminal" is defined at SMC 23.60.906 as:
[A) transportation facility in which quantities ofgoods or container cargo
are stored without undergoing any manufacturing processes, transferred to
other carriers or stored outdoors in order to transfer them to other
locations. Cargo terminals may include accessory warehouses, railroad
yards, storage yards, and offices.
8.  The definition of"cargo terminal" under the new provisions, to be codified at SMC
23.60A.906, remains the same as the current definition, apart from minor punctuation
changes, such as addition ofa comma after "carriers."
9.  SMC 23.42.010 provides in part:
Principal uses not listed in the respective zones ofSubtitle III, Division 2
ofSMC Title 23, Land Use Code shall be prohibited in those zones. If a
use is not listed, the Director may determine that a proposed use is
substantially similar to other uses permitted or prohibited in the respective
zones, therefore, and should also be permitted or prohibited.

Interpretation No. 15-001
Page 3
10. SMC 23.42.020.A provides in part:
Any accessory use not permitted by Title 23, either expressly or by the
Director, shall be prohibited. The Director shall determine whether any
accessory use on the lot is incidental to the principal use on the same lot,
and shall also determine whether uses not listed as accessory uses are
customarily incidental to a principal use.
11. For purposes ofthe Land Use Code generally, "accessory use" is defined at SMC
23.84A.040 as "a use that is incidental to a principal use." A more specific and limiting
definition of"accessory use" is provided for purposes ofthe current shoreline code at
SMC 23.60.940: "a use which is incidental and intrinsic to the function of a principal use
and is not a separate business establishment unless a home occupation." This definition
remains the same under the new shoreline provisions, at SMC 23.60A.940.
12. "Good" is defined, in relevant part, by Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (based on
Webster's third new international dictionary) as:
3 . .. b pl: personal property having intrinsic value but usu. excluding money,
securities and negotiable instruments . . . d pl: WARES, COMMODITIES,
MERCHANDISE 
Conclusions
1.  The activity that is the subject ofthis interpretation is the proposed moorage ofan oil-
drilling rig and two accompanying tugboats that would be located at the Port'sTerminal
5 facility during winter months when this equipment is not being used for exploratory
drilling in the Arctic. In rec~nt years permits for this property have characterized the use
as a "cargo terminal."
2.  The question raised is whether the proposed activity requires a permit to legally establish
a use that allows this moorage. The analysis may be broken down into two sub-questions:
Is the proposed activity properly characterized as a "cargo terminal" use based on the
definitions in the current code, and in the updated shoreline master program the City
is in the process ofadopting; and
Ifthe proposed activity does not specifically match the activities described in the
cargo terminal definition, may the proposed activity nevertheless be allowed as an
accessory use, without obtaining a separate use permit?
Consistency with current and future use definitions
3.  Under the current and the proposed new shoreline standards, a cargo terminal is a
transportation facility in which quantities of goods or container cargo are stored
without undergoing any manufacturing processes, transferred to other carriers or

Interpretation No. 15-001
Page 4
stored outdoors in order to transfer them to other locations. (The proposed new
definition adds a comma after "carriers.")
4.  Is Terminal 5, if used for the proposed activity, a "transportation facility"? This
term is not defined within the shoreline code, but is generally defined in the Land Use
Code, at Section 23.84A.038 as "a use that supports or provides the means oftransporting
people and/or goods from one location to another." One ofthe subcategories in the
general definition is parking and moorage. The proposed activity would support the
transportation ofthe equipment to and from the Arctic, and falls within the range ofuses
listed under the broad category of"transportation facility."
5.  Does the proposed activity involve "quantities of goods or container cargo"? Neither
the drilling rig nor the tugboats would carry container cargo. The definition ofcargo
terminal is broad enough to include transportation of many different types ofgoods, in
greatly differing quantities. The exploratory drilling equipment affixed to the drilling rig,
however, would not fall under the definition of"goods" as it is used under the code, nor
could the drilling rig itself be considered "quantities ofgoods or container cargo."
6.  Ifthe equipment on the drilling rig could be considered goods, would they be
"stored without undergoing any manufacturing processes, transferred to other
carriers, or stored outdoors in order to transfer them to other locations"? This
provides three options for activities that might occur at a cargo terminal: storage without
manufacturing, transfer to other carriers, or outdoor storage. The unifying theme is that
the goods are at the cargo terminal in order to be transferred to other locations. The
drilling rig would be at Terminal 5 only for purposes ofseasonal storage. Terminal 5
would not serve as stop where the rig or the equipment on it would be stored or
transferred in the course oftransit from a starting location to an ultimate destination.
7.  The two tugboats that would accompany the drilling rig with the equipment likewise
would not bear quantities ofgoods in the process ofbeing transferred to other locations,
apart from provisioning that might be anticipated for vessels at moorages generally.
8.  It has been argued that even ifthe proposed use does not meet the definition ofcargo
terminal, it should be regulated as a cargo terminal use, as this is the most similar use
category regulated under the code. In general, under SMC 23.42.010, ifa principal use
does not fit in any ofthe regulated use categories, as defined, there is authority to regulate
that use according to the standards for the most similar defined use. That provision,
however, specifically extends to the standards in Subtitle III, Division 2 ofthe Land Use
Code. Seattles Shoreline Master Program, which includes the use regulations specific to
the Shoreline Overlay District, is in Subtitle III, Division 3 ofthe code, and is outside of
the scope ofSection 23.42.010. The authority to regulate an undefined use according to
the standards for the most similar defined use does not extend to the use provisions in the
shoreline code.

Interpretation No. 15-001
Page 5
Moorage as an accessory use
9.  Even ifwe were to determine that the proposed seasonal moorage ofthe drilling rig and
tugboats did not meet the definition ofcargo terminal, it might be permissible ifthat sort
ofmoorage activity is accessory to a cargo terminal. The definition ofcargo terminal says
that cargo terminals may include accessory warehouses, railroad yards, storage yards, and
offices. It does not state that other accessory uses are not allowed. We do not conclude
that other accessory uses are precluded merely because they are not specifically listed.
10. Based on information received from the Port, "lay berthing," or moorage ofvessels that
are not actively loading or unloading materials, is a normal, customary and essential
practice at marine cargo terminals. The Port has specific dockage fees for lay berthing in
the fee schedule for its facilities. According to the Port, lay berthing occurs at marine
cargo terminals throughout the coastal and inland waterways ofthe country and the
world, specificall y at marine cargo terminals in Seattle, Bellingham, Everett, Port
Angeles, Tacoma, Olympia, San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Sacramento, San
Francisco, Oakland and Portland. According to the Port, temporary, seasonal and
sometimes indefinite berthing ofvessels must be provided by ports until duty calts those
vessels back to the sea. The Port indicates that cargo, emergency response, military, and
research vessels, as well as barges and tugboats, commonly lay berth at the Port of
Seattle'scargo terminals.
11. For purposes of the shoreline code, "accessory use" is defined as "a use which is
incidental and intrinsic to the function of a principal use, and is not a separate business
establishment unless a home occupation." SMC 23.60.940. This differs, and is more
stringent than, the definition that generally applies under the Land Use Code: "a use that
is incidental to a principal use." SMC 23.84A.040. We accept that Jay berthing ofvessels
otherwise used for transporting goods in the stream ofcommerce may be regarded as
incidental and intrinsic to the function ofa cargo terminal. This recognizes that shipment
of some sorts ofgoods is seasonal, and that vessels involved in that sort oftrade are
necessarily idle fo r periods during the year. We do not, however, find that provision of
moorage to other vessels and equipment, not used for transfer ofgoods to other locations,
is intrinsic to the function ofa cargo terminal. Such moorage would be regarded as a
separate principal use, defined as "any use, whether a separate business establishment or
not, which has a separate and distinct purpose and function from other uses on the Jot."
SMC 23.60.940.
12. Even ifwe were to agree that moorage ofthe drilling rig and tugboats could be allowed
as an accessory use at a cargo terminal, some question also is raised as to whether
sufficient levels ofactivity relating to the principal cargo terminal use, transfer of
quantities of goods or container cargo, would continue while the drilling rig and tugboats
are moored there. The factual component of that question is unresolved. On the one hand,
the drilling rig and tugboats would occupy much ofthe site'sfrontage available for
moorage along the Duwamish, and upgrades and repairs to that frontage are also
contemplated which would possibly limit its use for loading and unloading ofcargo

Interpretation No. 15-001
Page 6
during the same period. On the other hand, both the Port and Foss have advised us that it
is their intent that other cargo terminal use ofthe property will continue.
13. The legal component of that question obviates the factual question because, even ifcargo
terminal activity is the predominant use, moorage ofvessels not used for transport of
cargo in the process of being transferred to other locations is not intrinsic to the function
as a cargo terminal, and thus would not qualify as a legitimate accessory use.
Conclusion
An additional use permit is required for the proposed seasonal moorage at the Port ofSeattle's
Terminal 5 facility of a drilling rig and accompanying tugboats.

Entered May 7, 2015
~~u
AndrewS. McKim
Land Use Planner - Supervisor

City ofSeattle
Edward B. Murray, Mayor


May 8, 2015

The Honorable Stephanie Bowman and Courtney Gregoire
Port ofSeattle Co-Presidents
Port ofSeattle
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA 981 II
Dear Co-Presidents Stephanie Bowman and Courtney Gregoire;
As I have indicated to you in the past, I stand behind our maritime industry and support continued success for the Port of
Seattl~ and maritime businesses in our community. The Port and its tenants provide thousands of fam ily-wage j obs,
adding needed diversity to our region'seconomy.
I a lso understand that you have been very concerned about the potential reach ofthe Department of Planning and
Development's(DPD's) interpretation regarding Terminal 5 and the proposed presence ofa drilling rig and related
vessels. In a separate letter, DPD indicated to Port staffthat the interpretation is very narrowly focused to the specific site
and specific proposed use. The interpretation would not extend to other Port facilities.
In addition to that declaration, in a meeting with Port staffon May 7, 2015, DPD suggested working with Port staffto
review and update the Shoreline ordinance'sdefinition of"cargo terminal." Ifthere is concern that the definition does not
accurately describe the activities typically taking place at a cargo terminal, we should make a revision. I have asked DPD
to conduct this work in the coming months, so that the definition accurately reflects the historic, current and future uses at
marine cargo terminals in Seattle.

Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you to make sure we address this issue.


Mayor Edward B. Murrax
cc:    Commissioner Tom Albro
Commissioner Bill Bryant
Commissioner John Creighton

Office ofthe Mayor
Seattle City Hall, 7'h Floor                                                                        Tel (206) 684-4000
600 Fourth Avenue                                                                 Fax: (206) 684-5360
PO Box 94749                                 Hearing Impaired use the Washington Relay Service (7-1-1 )
Seattle, Washington 98 124-
4749                                                                 www.seattle.gov/mayor

City of Seattle
Edward B. Murray, Mayor
Seattle Department of Planning and Development
Diane M. Sugimura, Director

May 8, 2015


Mike Merritt
Local Government Relations Manager
Port of Seattle
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, Washington 98111-1209

Thank you very much for meeting with us yesterday. It was a helpful discussion for moving forward. Per
our conversation, we would like to clarify the interpretation.
Based on the code provisions governing Land Use Code interpretations (SMC 23.88.020), iinterpretations
are site specific. DPD's interpretation is based on the specific facts relating to the permit history for
Terminal 5, and facts relating to the presence of a drilling rig and related vessels proposed at that site.
The conclusions in the interpretation cannot be directly applied to activities that may be occurring at
other Port facilities.
Thank you very much. I hope this is helpful.

Sine
~y, }I;~/ '
Diane M. Sugimura
Director
Uf~

--------------------------------------~~------------------------------------
,..~
City ofSeattle, Department ofPlanning and Development
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
P.O. Box 34019, Seattle, WA 98124-4019
An equal employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request.

Foss Maritime to appeal city determination on Terminal 5 permit 

May 8, 2015 
CONTACT: Paul Queary, (206) 334-1483, paulq@strategies360.com 

Foss Maritime plans to appeal the city of Seattle's determination that Foss's
use of the Port of Seattle's Terminal 5 is not allowed under the Port's
existing use permit. 
The appeal process will take months to complete. In the meantime, Foss
intends to provide its customer, Royal Dutch Shell, the services for which it
contracted over the next few weeks as it prepares for the summer oil
exploration season in Alaska. 
The city's position is not supported by the plain language of the permit at
issue, and will cause long-term harm to the maritime industry as a whole.
The permit for Terminal 5 allows Port customers to tie up vessels so that
goods and cargo can be stored, loaded and unloaded, which is precisely
what Foss is doing at Terminal 5. 
By taking this action so late in the day, Mayor Ed Murray is trying to stop a
lawful project that has already put 417 people to work full-time and will soon
employ hundreds more, many of them citizens of Seattle. Worse, he has
openly solicited the Port of Seattle to use the city's action as a pretext to
break a valid lease at Terminal 5, despite the separately elected Port
Commission's recent unanimous vote to uphold the lease. 
These actions are an attempt to prevent one of the city's oldest and most
prominent companies from performing marine services that it has provided
and the Port has welcomed for generations. This action is akin to the mayor
ordering Seattle City Light to cut off all electricity to Amazon on the Friday
after Thanksgiving.
If his actions simply impacted Foss, that would be bad enough. But it
jeopardizes many other business activities across the waterfront, and calls

into question the sincerity of the mayor's previous statements in support of
the maritime sector.
For example, under the city's initial determination, Alaska fishing trawlers
would not be allowed to winter over at the cruise ship docks at Terminals 90
and 91; the Seattle Fire Department's fire boats could not dock at Terminals
90 and 91 as they are currently doing; and the vessels of the U.S. Navy and
other navies that visit during Seafair would not be allowed to tie up at Port
facilities. Maritime businesses from Ballard to South Park are doubtless
nervously checking their permits and wondering whether the mayor will
deem them worthy. 
Foss believes that the permitting at Terminal 5 is appropriate for our use,
and that the city's determination is a statement of politics rather than policy.
Accordingly, we will challenge it through the appropriate channels. The
process looks like this: 
Foss will appeal the determination to the Seattle Hearing Examiner
within 14 days. Other interested parties, such as the Port, may join in
the appeal. 
The Hearing Examiner will then set a hearing date on the matter. 
The hearings officer would typically produce a ruling on the matter
within 15 days after the hearing. 
Under normal circumstances, the city would not issue a violation to
Foss or the Port of Seattle until and unless it prevailed in the hearing. 

### 

ABOUT FOSS MARITIME 
Founded in 1889, Seattle-based Foss Maritime offers a complete range of maritime services
and project management to customers across the Pacific Rim, Europe, South America and
around the globe. Foss has one of the largest fleets of tugs and barges on the American
West Coast. The company has harbor services and transportation operations in all major

U.S. West Coast ports, including the Columbia and Snake River system, Hawaii and Alaska.
Foss operates two shipyards and offers worldwide marine transportation, emphasizing
safety, environmental responsibility and high-quality service. See www.foss.com for more
information.