Seattle City Council Transportation Committee 4/15/2025

All right.

Good morning.

The April 15th, 2025 meeting of the transportation committee will come to order.

It is 933 AM.

I am Rob Saka, chair of the transportation committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll.

Council member Kettle.

Here.

Council member Rink.

Present.

Council member Strauss.

Vice chair Hollingsworth.

Present.

Chair Saka.

Here.

Chair, there are four members present.

Thank you.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is hereby adopted.

Welcome colleagues, members of the public.

Thank you for being and joining us at today's meeting.

I note that council member Strauss is excused from today's meeting.

Lot of exciting stuff on the agenda today, three important topics in fact.

And our first topic will be a brief presentation by central staff and a more fulsome conversation and discussion presentation by SDOT regarding the deployment of automated traffic safety cameras in our city.

Recall colleagues that funding and deployment of this technology has been a huge priority for me and this council Indeed, during the council's 2024 budget deliberations, I led the charge for funding $1.18 million to support the expansion of school zones or cameras outside of school zones to address the needs of communities that are clamoring for this kind of technology and clamoring from relief from problem racing, unsafe driving conditions on a road.

I wanna thank budget chair Strauss for his partnership on this important budget investment item.

Technology, when responsibly deployed, is a crucial tool to addressing unlawful behavior in our city.

I have been a strong proponent of Washington state authorizing municipalities, including Seattle, to deploy automated noise enforcement technology.

That's why I sponsored a statement of legislative intent for SPD to study with deployment of automated noise enforcement technology could potentially look like in our city should the state decide to act and authorize.

I testified before the state legislature to support state authorization of this kind of technology.

And I also led efforts to get this whole council to support that same state authorizing legislation.

So we know that technology is an important tool.

It's a vital tool.

but it's not the end all be all.

We provided a funding path and if this legislation passes, we can't just pat ourselves on the back, watch the deployment of these and say attaboys and think everything's gonna be okay.

It's not the silver bullet, no such thing.

But we do know it is an effective tool in the toolkit.

We do know that it is one of 40 plus federally proven, engineering countermeasures to improve road safety on our roads.

So really important item look for on our as part of our broader roadshow to consider and deliberate on this important legislation.

Colleagues recall that last council meeting we considered we had a a briefing from SDOT at a slightly higher level on what the technology program currently looks like today.

Now that we have formal proposed legislation before us, we're gonna get a more implementation specific view and presentation, allowing for discussion by us of what that could potentially look like here in Seattle.

So that, along with an important proviso lift to allow the department to spend and start deploying this technology.

And of course, an important item, pertaining to a, what is it?

It's not a sky bridge, it's a permit and council member Strauss's district.

So those three items on today's agenda, very important stuff, really looking forward to a lively discussion colleagues.

And I know it's these items collectively and individually are important to you all as well.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers have signed up today?

Currently we have two in-person speakers signed up and three remote.

All right.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Will you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

Speakers will alternate between sets of in-person and remote speakers until the comment period has ended.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open.

It will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Gordon Padelford.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Gordon Padelford.

I'm the executive director of Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

Thank you for taking up this important topic today on automated enforcement.

As the committee chair said, it's really important that we do this thoughtfully, and we're excited to see it scale in a thoughtful way.

It's important that we maintain the public trust while we do this.

And to do that, we need to do it transparently, we need to do it in a fair way, and we need to do it effectively.

And transparency is a value I know you all hold.

It's important in the best of times.

And these are not the best of times, right?

With the federal government snatching people off of our streets, it's understandable that the public has concerns that we're managing this technology in the most fair and transparent way possible so that we're keeping everyone safe.

And it's also important that we have written policies so that folks can see how these cameras are being managed.

And in terms of fairness, we've heard from communities of color that they both feel like they have been over-enforced and under-invested in when it comes to transportation safety.

I think the department is starting to change that, which we're very grateful for, and that really needs to continue as a strong commitment from this body and from the city.

One of the good things about this program is that there's a low recidivism rate.

When people tend to get these tickets, they don't tend to get them again, and we should make sure that we are giving out warnings as the first time, because we're about changing behavior.

That's the point of this.

We're about keeping everyone safe on these streets.

Let's make sure we're giving out warnings for the first time, and the fines are set at a level that we're changing behavior.

We're not just generating revenue.

And lastly, and I think most importantly, is we need to be doing this in an effective way as possible.

These programs can be highly controversial around the country, and that tight nexus between revenue and investment is really critical.

One of the reasons the school traffic safety program has worked so well is that those revenues are being reinvested back into school safety.

Even better would be site-specific plans for where those cameras are located.

If we're generating revenue year after year in a location, that means there's an ongoing safety problem, and we should be trying to find other proven technologies like investments and simple things like speed humps to keep people safe on our streets as a preventative measure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gordon.

Last in-person speaker, Clara Cantor.

Can you hear me?

Hello, there we go.

Hi, my name is Clara Cantor.

I am speaking today as an organizer with Whose Streets Are Streets.

And I'd like to reiterate some of the points that Gordon made already.

We have a lot of streets in Seattle, particularly through our BIPOC and low-income neighborhoods, but all across the city, really, that are designed for speed.

They're designed to get cars as fast as possible from point A to point B.

And the stated goal of this program is to decrease that dangerous speeding, to improve safety on our streets.

And yet many of the policies that are included in this new legislation are pointing more in the direction of turning this program into a way for the city to generate revenue, oftentimes on the backs of those BIPOC and low-income neighborhoods.

We are setting the fine levels at three to five times the level of other cities across the country that have data showing that those lower fine levels do in fact decrease speeding and dangerous behavior on our streets at about the same levels.

We're repealing warnings for first-time offenders that SDOT has been issuing for years already.

that SDOT data shows are 95% effective at preventing second violations.

And we're narrowing the number of people who will get warnings for the first 30 days of a new camera sighting by explicitly carving out school's own speed cameras from that warning policy.

And that's a policy that SDOT has stated helps them administratively to work out the kinks of a new camera sighting, as well as giving the public notice of a new location in their neighborhood.

And we're also pooling the revenue together into a single bucket and allowing it to be spent on a pretty wide range of transportation projects instead of keeping the scope narrow and funding the speed humps and stop signs and projects that are specific to the streets that we're seeing the dangerous behavior on.

Thank you for your consideration about this legislation.

Thank you.

Okay, we will now move on to remote speakers.

First up will be Ethan Campbell.

Ethan, remember to hit star six.

Hi, I'm Ethan Campbell and I'm a cyclist in Seattle who cares about traffic safety.

I was also a contributor to the National Vision Zero Network's recent report on best practices for fair and effective automated enforcement programs titled Fair Warnings.

Estos legislation before you deviates from those best practices in four ways that I urge you to correct.

For one, Estat wants to repeal first violation warnings, instead relying on a 30 day warning period or new cameras that exclude school zones.

Estat's own data shows that warnings are 95% effective at preventing second violations.

The focus should be on changing behavior, not punishment, so first violation warnings should be reinstated and the 30 day warning period should apply to all locations.

Second, Hammer revenue should go towards street safety improvements.

This is a universal best practice.

I was surprised to see the incredibly broad category of operational and maintenance investments in the list of revenue uses.

This category should be struck from the bill.

Third, the equity and safety sighting analysis for new cameras leaves it fully optional for SDOT to consider whether non-punitive strategies could be more effective than ticketing.

Safety improvements like speed cushions can often be built cheaply and more quickly than the 14 months it takes to permit, order, and install cameras in Seattle.

Unlike cameras, pouring concrete does not require staff time for reviewing violations in perpetuity.

Considering alternatives and deciding analyses is fiscally responsible and should not be optional.

Lastly, the city has set fines for new speed cameras at $139, nearly the highest amount allowed by state law.

This is higher than needed for deterrence and out of line with successful programs in New York City and DC, as well as new programs in California and Minnesota where tickets start as low as $40 or $50.

In the long run, excessive fines will jeopardize community support for this important program.

I urge SDOT and Council to reconsider these aspects and amend this bill before passage.

Thank you.

Okay, next speaker is Rick Grossman.

Rick, remember to hit star six.

Hello, my name is Rick Grossman.

I'm a resident of Pride Place on between Pike and Pine.

And the seniors here certainly do have issues with transportation that need to be addressed.

The first is relevant to the topic specifically because it involves noise cameras.

I realize that work needs to be done with state legislation and that's underway.

But I hope that you will consider what's going on there and considering what's happened in New York City and other locations with those noise cameras, which are designed to address people with modified mufflers who create incredibly loud sounds.

Also, I hope that we're looking at sidewalk safety, which is dealing with bicycles and scooters knocking seniors over right now.

And that needs to be something that we find a way to address.

There are some ways that can be done without cost or incident to the city, specifically in asking bicycle rental companies to create an audible beep on the buttons on the bicycle.

So one knows when there is a vehicle approaching from behind on the sidewalk.

We know that's not necessarily more of an individual responsibility, but this would be something that would help us achieve that.

Thank you.

Okay, our last speaker is David Haynes.

David hit star six.

All right, thank you, David Haynes.

We need to start issuing tickets for a multitude of violations, starting with custom exhaust pipes that are designed to backfire like gunshots that bother the community.

And even cigarette smoking and vaporizing and marijuana smoking, you know, they deserve like a $25 ticket.

But the road rage that continues does not deserve any more warnings.

And quite frankly, I think we need at least one automatic the electric street light enforcement zone, like the video at the stadium intersection where the port authority thinks that they're supposed to speed and run through the red light and honk their horns from the port all the way to the highway.

Like they need to get a running start.

We need to enforce a type of like calming of the road and ticket these individuals who are road raging, but obviously the schools need it as well.

But you know, giving a warning and then jumping up to $139 is kind of ridiculous.

You know, why can't you crank out some $50, $75, $100 tickets?

But, you know, the custom exhaust pipes, I don't understand why you haven't made a wall to say you can't do this anymore.

And separately, just to point out, we have a link light rail that costs billions of dollars, and we have buses that cost millions of dollars.

We're supposed to have an efficient transfer system from say 148 at the new Linklake rail stop up by shoreline, when you get off that train and there's six buses on break because of an abusive union, one of those buses is supposed to step up and provide service, like for the number 65. But when you take the 65 and go like four stops, there's so much potholes that it hurts your back, messes up the bus, and we need like a skin pack But we need efficiencies for our transportation instead of constantly missing the transfers.

We need to keep the union off.

Thank you, David.

That is all the testimony we have.

All right.

Since there are no additional registered speakers, we will now proceed to our items of business.

Let us move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item number one into the record?

Agenda item one, automated traffic safety camera legislation.

All right.

Thank you.

And while our presenters are joining us at the table, please in a moment, share your presentations and in a moment, introduce yourselves and begin your presentations.

But before we do that, I just want to take a, take a moment to frame this specific conversation a little more.

So we know that automated traffic safety cameras are important to support the fundamentals of basic traffic safety in our city.

And I was reading the Seattle Times rant and rave section a few days ago, earlier this week, where a Seattle Times reader wrote over this weekend that rave to the city of Seattle for speed bumps and other traffic calming on arterials.

Anything to get us all to slow down and be less dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists who have as much right to exist and move safely as cars do.

I couldn't agree more.

So thank you to the Seattle Times reader for that very kind rave about the city's traffic calming measures and arterials.

I'll speak highly of the impact of Traffic cushions in Elkai, the department undertook a Herculean effort last year, last summer, to install a number of speed cushions and humps, and I don't know what the proper engineering term for those things are called, but I see it all the time.

It does slow cars down.

It works.

It doesn't do much for the problem noise activity in the area, but it does slow cars down.

And it's not the only thing either.

We also need, in that area in particular, I do believe we need non-school speed cameras, and that's what this legislation would authorize.

So to that reader, Raver, I guess, from the Seattle Times, automated traffic safety cameras are an essential part of the broader solution to keep everyone safe, whether they drive, bike, walk, take transit.

For me, I personally do all the above, proud of it.

Today's presentation by SDOT will highlight proposed city legislation that is needed in light of changes to state law late last year to deploy automated traffic safety cameras.

Colleagues recall that last year's changes to state law consolidated several components of Washington code, including red light and school speed zone cameras.

The new state law also repealed authority for enforcing designated racing zone cameras and modified certain provisions governing the use of revenues collected through camera violations.

So 22, 2022 or 2023, whenever it was, it was on a central.

a top 10 list of racing zones in the city with the 24 state changes to law to state law that repealed that authority.

So hence why we're here today in part.

Ultimately this legislation aligned city code with new state law.

So wanna thank SDOT and the mayor's office for the work on this important matter and their partnership on this important matter.

So this is the next step in our collective journey and unless and until We start to deploy these cameras.

The work continues, but I appreciate the partnership so far.

All right, please go ahead and introduce yourselves and start your presentation.

Good morning, Chair Saka.

My name is Rindan Imani.

I'm the Chief Transportation Safety Officer and City Traffic Engineer with Estat.

Pitlo Bort, Seattle Department of Transportation.

And Calvin Chow with Council Central Staff.

Again, good morning Chair Saka, Councilmember Kettle and Councilmember Rink.

Thank you for hosting us again today on this important topic of safety camera legislation.

Today I'm going to give you a brief overview of the proposed local legislation as it relates to our safety camera program.

Before I get started, we recently updated our vision, values, and goals here in the start.

And let me start by reading them verbatim to center ourselves in this conversation.

Seattle, our vision is that Seattle is an equitable, vibrant, and diverse city.

We're moving around a safe, fair, and sustainable.

and businesses can access their daily needs and feel connected to their community.

Our values include safety, equity, sustainability, mobility, and economic vitality, livability, maintenance, and modernization, and excellence.

In today's presentation, I'll provide a brief background on the safety camera program.

I'll highlight the key changes in the 2024 state law.

I'll talk about the allowable camera types, and then go into the details of what Seattle municipal court provisions that need to be changed to align with the changes in the state law, and some other provisions that we are recommending.

and talk a little bit about the programs that we have to reduce the impact of these fines, and touch upon the privacy protection and data retention policies that we have adopted, and finally give a brief overview into the implementation guidance, which will be forthcoming after this legislation.

So just to give you a background, safer speeds is a key element of the safe systems approach.

And safety cameras are identified as a prone safety countermeasure with a number of engineering improvements that are identified as prone safety countermeasures by the Federal Highway Administration.

We here in Seattle have used safety cameras since 2006. We currently operate red light cameras at 23 different locations, block the box and bus lane cameras at six different locations each, and school zone speed cameras at 19 different school zones across the city, with 19 more coming online later this year.

Now, in 2024, the state changed several provisions with respect to how safety cameras can be operated and managed within the state, and it gave us the opportunity to rethink our own Seattle's safety camera program.

One note I'd like to make is that the administration of the safety camera program here in the city is shared by three different departments, a start along with Seattle Police Department and the Mooney Court.

So just to highlight the various changes that the state law has made last year, it now allows for a review of citations by civilian employees, both in the police department and in the Department of Transportation.

It explicitly requires us completing safety and equity analyses before we locate any new cameras or relocate existing cameras.

It increases our annual reporting requirements to the state And it permanently authorizes the pilot safety cameras, block the box, bus lane, district lane cameras permanently, and repeals the racing zone cameras, as you have just stated, and simplifies the allowable types of full-time speed enforcement cameras that we could use within this program.

The state law also allows local jurisdictions to explore an ability to pay calculator to process and grant reduced penalties.

And it requires that jurisdictions grant 50% penalty reductions for first violation to recipients of government assistance.

So here is a quick list of the allowable camera types.

And those camera types identified in the gray font are types that we have already used, are currently in use, and with the new types of cameras that are unused types of cameras shown in black.

So let's dive into the specific provisions within the Seattle municipal code that need to be updated.

The first one is in title 11. Chapter 50 and Section 570. This entire section is related to automated safety cameras.

And we need to update this part of the code to align with the changes in the state law.

We need to adopt the allowable types of cameras that are listed in the new state law.

remove any references to the Racing Zone cameras that are included in the municipal code right now, and add equity and safety siting analyses for locating or require those kinds of analyses for locating any new or relocated cameras.

And it also kind of like need to update our annual report per state law requirements so that we provide and publish that information in a timely manner.

And we are also looking to update and clarify the provision within the state law that requires us to install street signage 30 days before we activate a camera at any specific location.

Now, continuing in the same provision, in the same part of the code, we are taking this opportunity to update our code language around camera activation and warning periods.

And I want to stress that these changes are not required by the state law.

We are not required to give any warnings once we have activated a safety camera.

But we are updating the code to establish a 30-day warnings only period after activation of any camera type except for school zones.

We're also repealing language related to first violation warnings that are provided for speed cameras, including school zone cameras, block the box restricted lane, and public transportation only lane cameras.

So moving on to a different part of the Seattle Municipal Code in the same title, but chapter 31, that relates to the disposition of traffic offenses.

Here is kind of like where we need to update our code to include and align with the state law about who can review and issue citations.

This now includes civilian employees, both in the police department and in the Department of Transportation, who are now eligible above and beyond the peace officers who have traditionally reviewed and issued citations from safety cameras.

These civilian employees will of course have to be trained before they are allowed to undertake such responsibilities.

In the same section, we are also updating the monetary penalties by updating the fine schedule for the new camera types that are included.

Now, the state law explicitly states that the fines issued by a safety camera may not exceed $145.

We are, but it does kind of carve out a provision where schools on violations or infractions shall be doubled within the state law.

And there is kind of a different provision within the state law that says that works on speed infractions must be doubled within the state law.

So given these changes, here is a quick table that summarizes the various safety camera types and the fine amounts that are proposed.

The table on the left side indicates all the existing fines and fine amounts that are currently in place, and the table on the right side includes the fine amounts for the new types of cameras that are authorized.

As you can see, all the fine amounts are less than the state required $145, except for the school zone and work zone camera types.

So we are also taking this opportunity to update another portion of our Seattle Municipal Code in Title V, Section 82. These relate to financial policies on the use of revenues from safety cameras.

Now today, as it is written, we have some restrictions or limitations on what we can do with revenue generated by a certain type of camera.

is to be specific that the revenue for a certain type of camera cannot be used to administer another type of camera.

And this is a self-imposed financial policy within our municipal code.

So we are definitely working to remove those kinds of limitations in order to establish and run a more holistic safety camera program irrespective of the camera type.

We're also creating what we call as an automated traffic camera safety fund to replace the existing school safety traffic and pedestrian improvement fund where most of the camera revenues are going into.

Now, this new camera fund will host all the camera revenues that are generated by safety cameras, except for the red light camera, 80% of the red light camera revenues that are going that are currently deposited into the general fund and will continue to do so.

So again, we are not changing how the revenues are going to be used that are generated by the safety cameras.

The net revenues that are proposed to be used in pretty much the same way wherein we are using after paying for installation, program administration, expansion or removal of any camera types, the net revenues that are remaining are going to be used primarily to develop and implement safety infrastructure projects.

And these infrastructure projects are aimed to provide more equitable access to people who use our infrastructure, and those projects that are aimed at reducing our speeds.

And also, this allows us to use cameras on doing a more holistic educational campaign to talk about safety cameras and safer behaviors on our streets.

So a quick note about the fine programs that are designed to reduce the impact of fines.

Now, any citation that is issued under the safety camera is treated like a parking citation.

It does not go on the driving record of an individual.

And there are existing programs within the city that are aimed at reducing these impacts, especially on those of us who are more financially disadvantaged than others.

Now these include requesting any ticket debt reduction hearings, implementing kind of like a payment plan to pay these fines, asking for community service programs in lieu, and looking at a unified payment plan if you have a number of types of outstanding fines that are due to the city.

So these are available, and we also, in addition to this, we are also implementing the 50% fine reduction requirement for first violations for any individuals who are on government assistance.

So this gives kind of like our constituents a few more ways to look at how they can mitigate the impact of these fines, which we know may sometimes be financially burdensome.

Now, both the state law and the city take privacy and data protection very seriously.

I can't emphasize enough that any data, images, videos that are collected to issue a traffic infraction by a safety camera cannot be used for any other purpose other than enforcing traffic violations under the state law.

Now, this is very important, and we have protected this privacy protection all these years that we have been using safety cameras.

And this camera, the way we capture these images, we are only capturing the image of the vehicle and the license plate purely for the purpose of the citation.

There's an explicit language in our code that says that you cannot look into a car.

You cannot capture the faces of the driver or passengers in the car.

And there are specific provisions and specific actions that are taken to protect that privacy and use this tool for what it is intended.

Going beyond that, the city has also adopted some practices related to the data retention policies.

Now, any citation that is that results in issuing only a warning or an infraction that is captured and was ultimately rejected by the person who's issuing the citation, for now is the peace officer.

Those kinds of events are deleted 31 days after such determination is made.

Now, those infractions that actually become citations, that data is held for a period of three years, after which they are again permanently deleted.

So we know that privacy and protection and data retention is very important in this program.

And we have adhered to and will continue to adhere to the state law and continue to practice our data retention policies as we have envisioned them.

So here's kind of a quick image of what kind of information that is captured by these cameras.

So up top, you have an image from the red light camera capture.

Then you have a restricted lane camera that we used on the low bridge not so long ago, and an image from the school zone cameras.

And as you can see, images are always captured from behind looking at the vehicle and more focused on trying to pick up the license number during the infraction if and when it happens.

So a quick note about our draft safety camera implementation guidance.

Now the update that you see in the state legislation and the current proposed local legislation captures some important provisions that need to be reflected in the local laws that are already in the state laws.

But we are concurrently developing an implementation guidance, guidance that will help us implement this program more holistically, guidance that will help us administer this program, give us a little bit more detail about how we can use a data-driven approach to siting potentially new cameras, and also develop details about what kind of safety and equity analysis we need to do and how to do them, and provide a framework for community engagement so that we publicize this and we educate our communities on these safety cameras and what they're intended to do and continue to educate about safer behaviors on our infrastructure.

Now, this draft implementation guidance will be forthcoming after this local legislation is passed and takes effect, and we need to make sure that this doubtails with both the local legislation and the state laws that are currently in place.

So once this is done, probably kind of like in the next couple of months after the local legislation is approved and passed through, we'd be publishing an implementation guidance that goes into more detail about how we are looking to or envisioning administering this safety camera program more holistically.

So with that said, in closing, I want to say that we view the safety camera program as a tool among many tools that we have to improve safety on our streets.

We look at this as a behavioral change tool, and we have seen evidence of that behavior change within our own data here in the city, and we'll continue to look at it that way and move forward to deploying a more safe and equitable safety camera program going forward.

Thank you.

Happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Appreciate this presentation.

And before I take questions from my colleagues, I will allow our central staff expert, Cal.

Cal Chow.

Mr. Chow, do you have anything to add?

Any comments from your perspective?

Council members, I'm still reviewing the legislation and I will have a memo for you for your consideration when the legislation is in front of a committee.

A few items that just jump to the top of my thinking.

One is that The existing city law really does represent the evolution of camera authorization from the state over time.

So a lot of the reasons why you see the financial plans, the financial policies, the way they look is because of how state authority was rolled out and we had to keep some of those things separate.

So one of the things in front of you is this proposal to lump all the new camera revenues together in one financial policy.

You could still spend that money in the same way that we spend it now.

It just changes it from a financial policy of keeping those distinct to becoming a budget decision that will be proposed in terms of how we spend those resources, still for safety, but the amount of money that could go to school programs or could go to other programs, that would be more of a budget decision about that money as opposed to a financial policy as it had been previously.

One of the key issues that I think was raised was the issue of first-time warnings.

And that's largely, in my opinion, an administrative barrier.

The proposal, as I understand it, is to really focus on a warning for the first month of camera location, which is very easy to administer because you just don't issue tickets for the first month of violations.

Whereas if it's a first-time violator for the individual, you have to track that.

You have to keep a database of that vehicle to know whether they've been violated before it becomes more of an accounting issue.

So that is one of the considerations there.

And lastly, I just note that the city's surveillance ordinance does exempt this type of technology.

This is a state-authorized technology specific for traffic safety, and that is exempted in the surveillance ordinance.

Thank you, Mr. Chow, and I was going to ask a question about, because I understand your analysis is forthcoming and you're so reviewing, totally understand.

I was gonna ask you a question about what are some of the high-level policy considerations for us to consider, and thank you for preempting me, and we'll learn more in more fulsome detail when we're able to see your memo.

So, but thank you for that initial insight.

Colleagues, at this time, I welcome any comments, questions from you all, starting with the distinguished gentlemen from Queen Anne, Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Asaka of the great District 1. Estat, really appreciate you coming today and also, of course, our central staff colleagues as well to present on this.

And, you know, I just wanted to ask a few questions related to basically to echo the public comment starting with Mr. Petalford from Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

There's a question regarding the penalty amounts.

Can you speak to how those numbers were derived in terms of the calculus that went behind them in terms of I mean, state law talks about equity and so forth, but effectiveness and all the various pieces that go into those numbers and understanding the two that can be, well, the two that can be increased, the school and then the work zone.

But can you speak to the calculus behind ascertaining those numbers?

It's my understanding that the- By 10. So thank you for the question, council member.

It's my understanding that the fine amounts are set by the court system.

The one provision in the state law is that the fine amount shall not exceed the $145 for a safety camera, which most of these cameras do not exceed that amount.

except for the two provisions that are carved out in state law for school zones and work zones.

Beyond that, I'm not exactly sure, kind of like, how the court system decides what these penalties amount should be.

I don't think that is done, that calculus is performed within S-TOT.

Well, council member, My perspective is that this really represents how the evolution of cameras have been delivered over the years.

So when this was a new technology, we're putting out a traffic violation, even though it is coming under a violation on the vehicle as opposed to a driver.

The intent was to capture speeding.

The intent was to capture red light crossing.

So it was viewed as a ticket.

And so if you look on the left-hand side, those generally follow our ticketing schedule, fee schedule for what we charge people when a police officer stops a vehicle for doing that violation.

so that is why our camera uh fee schedule really looks like our traffic schedule the items on the right the new ones are our camera uh proposals that are not we don't currently have in our code they are newly authorized by 2024 and so they are largely in line with what we've existed but um for us it really comes from essentially treating it the same as a speeding ticket yeah and

The one exception I would say to that is the restricted lane and bus lane block the box.

Tickets were set at 75 originally in the pilot by state legislation, and that's just carried through to this new policy.

All right.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chow and Mr. Laborde for that, because it points to the genesis of the fine amounts.

So thank you for that.

Kind of answers the question in terms of how we got from A to B.

Along those lines, we also had the question regarding placing back the money gained from these fines into the system, the safety system, the Vision Zero, and the like.

And so the Automatic Traffic Safety Fund, I think, is good and As Mr. Chow noted, it can be moved within that, but if it's kept within the intent, I think that's great.

But can you similarly, kind of historical background, maybe Mr. Armani, you don't know, but regarding the 80% for the red light cameras, why is that separated and pulled out for the general fund?

When the red light cameras were first introduced, they were general fund eligible, and so the money just went directly to the general fund as authorized.

When we initiated the school zone cameras, we created a new separate fund, and that was the School Safety Traffic Improvement and I forget exactly the name of it, but the SSTPI fund, and it was meant to cover all the funding that came from traffic cameras.

At the time, the council also authorized financial policies to direct, I believe it was 10% of red light camera revenue into that fund, and then later on doubled that to 20% of the red light cameras.

That was when we had two types of cameras that we could implement.

Now that we have seen the pilot project for other types of cameras and there is anticipation that we will do more of these other types of cameras, the idea here is to kind of expand that pool of funding, still have it for Vision Zero types of projects, still have it for traffic safety.

but kind of remove that specific restriction about it all being used just for school safety projects.

I think it is a policy decision about how that money gets spent.

It could still be spent sort of to be consistent with where the revenues are raised.

Under the proposal, that would be essentially an executive proposal in the budget that comes to you for council deliberations.

You could consider other changes to financial policies as this goes as well.

The one piece I would add to that is that when the pilot was passed by the state legislature, authorizing Seattle to do a pilot for restricted lane, block the box, transit lane, the requirement was that the net revenues that could stay with the city went to improving ADA access, and so we want to retain that ability with this new fund.

So those funds that were used for the pilot went into separate separate funds, and we're dedicated from those funds to, I think, adopting pedestrian signals for ADA access, and so we want to retain that ability with this new revision.

So that's another way that the scope of permissible spending has expanded.

I think the point is that prior to the 2024 law, state law had different requirements for different camera resources, and that's changed.

And so now we have the opportunity to make the administration of that a little bit easier.

Okay.

And more transparent as well, because people can see where the money is going.

Well, ADA is, I mean, that's another important area to this in terms of a, you know, Sending that money to ADA is very important.

So, well, thank you.

See, this is why we need to have long-tenured individuals here at the city level, both in central staff and on the executive side.

Arguably something the federal level can learn something about chair of special committee.

But my...

You mentioned budget procedures for the Seattle Municipal Court.

Can you speak to that in terms of the calculations?

Because one of the things I want to make sure is that the Seattle Municipal Court is resourced in order to carry out its duties.

It doesn't have the flexibility that other departments have.

Can you speak to the Seattle Municipal Court piece of this?

Yeah.

So as I was saying, go on to the last slide.

So we're still kind of like drafting our implementation guidance, and in there we have a section to talk about budget procedures.

One of the things that we are going to be doing, and it's kind of like comes from the state law, is to do kind of like an annual evaluation of all camera locations and make decisions about which cameras to keep, which cameras to, you know, potentially relocate or remove, or how many new types of cameras to add.

So we are writing some procedures to complete that evaluation and line up that evaluation and needs process with the budget deliberations for the year so that we can be clear about what resources are needed.

And thank you so much for pointing it out that Any resources that are provided to administer any new cameras or administer existing cameras, those resources need to be provided for all three departments, for SPD, for Mooney Court, and for a start, because we all have different roles in how we administer these programs.

SPD starts and initiates any potential new camera or camera relocations by working with the vendor.

contract with the vendor.

SDOT provides the engineering support and the programmatic support to oversee the overall program.

And Mooney Code on the back end supports with any citation reviews, appeals processes, and so on.

So that is kind of like what we are intending to write in the budget procedures to explain that resources need to be allocated to all three departments when we are considering changes or modifications to the program.

Thank you, and I appreciate that.

And as you can imagine, as the public safety chair, I'm well connected to the Seattle Municipal Court.

So if you need any assistance, my chief of staff works closely with their chief of staff.

I have regular meetings with presiding Judge Crawford Willis, and we can assist.

Because of those meetings, I'm well aware and sensitive to the Seattle Municipal Court's ability to carry out its duties because the margins are razor thin.

And so I want to make sure that this doesn't create a challenge for the Seattle Municipal Court.

And Chair, just one last thing.

And I say this because I recently got interviewed last week, I think it was, on surveillance.

And I understand this is exempted from the surveillance ordinance.

But to be clear to the public comment piece, when we design these pieces, we do the Seattle values way, and very much different from jurisdictions across the country.

And these are the things that will be guiding us as we look at even things outside of the public safety realm here and in the transportation world as well.

Because I think it's important to, in terms of surveillance, having those little pieces that separate us, not little actually, those policy choices that we make in terms of how we do things, how we collect things, what's kept, what's not.

facial recognition, for example, all these different pieces, these different parameters, we are at a different level than other jurisdictions around the country.

And I think it's important to be raised in public comment, but I also think it's important for us to say that, and we're being mindful of that as we look to put in place any piece of legislation to ensure that we, to the best of our abilities, nothing could be perfect, but to really ensure that we're mindful and take positions that help in those situations.

So thank you, Chair, thank you, Mr. Namani, thank you, Mr. Laborde, and Mr. Chow.

Thank you.

Couldn't agree more and I'll have some more fulsome comments on some of the privacy pieces in a moment.

But for clarity, there's no facial recognition going on associated with this technology.

No facial recognition, just for crystal clarity.

None of that.

Anyways, Council Member Rain, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm gonna start a couple of my questions off with central staff, Calvin.

Do you prefer to go by Cal, by the way?

Okay.

Thank you, all of you, for today's presentation.

Just given some of the discussion on the revenues, it sounds like to me that we have a policy decision ahead of us as council whether to allow for the use of those funds to be prescribed in the budget process or being able to prescribe within this legislation how those funds can be expended.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Yeah, ultimately, these are restrictions that we would be putting on ourselves.

If you put it in the financial policies, then it's guidance to the executive of what they should propose and where that money should go.

And that would be what we would expect to see in the budget.

I think they largely intend to do that.

under either scenario, so it becomes a question of how much flexibility do you want to provide.

I think it does make sense to change the financial policies because the state law has fundamentally changed and we do have more revenues to consider.

Having one fund to capture all that revenue makes it much easier for you and the public to see where the money is going, to see what the money is being spent on.

So that is a good transparency issue.

But in terms of the issue of do you want to preserve funding for specific, you know, cameras generally going to a specific thing?

How tightly do you want that to be?

Do you want to be that prescriptive?

Or do you want to allow some flexibility for, you know, unknown circumstances?

Understood, and I know community has requested that these revenues go directly back into community, safe streets projects and so on, so ways that we can be able to address that in this process.

Thank you for laying that out.

And going back to the surveillance ordinance piece, understanding that there is an exemption here for these cameras, can you lay out what kind of risks that may present to residents?

I'm not sure I'm qualified to do that part of it.

I would note that, you know, a lot of the privacy restrictions here are in the state code.

So they are items that are part of what the state authorized from the inception.

So things like not being able to take pictures of the driver or passengers, not being able to use for any other enforcement, those are all written into the state code.

The one piece that we are talking about that's more discretionary is on the retention policies that we have.

But as far as risks go, I'm not sure I'm the most qualified to speak to that.

I appreciate that and would voice as we proceed with this legislation, Mr. Chair, would like to get some clarification since this technology is particularly exempt from a Seattle ordinance.

Just wanting to get that clarification.

What does that mean for residents?

And so I'll be requesting some follow-up information on that point.

Councilmember Kettle asked a great question around Seattle Municipal Court.

My interest with Seattle Municipal Court is also around how we're ensuring that when a person gets a ticket or a fine, that folks who may be English language learners understand all of these different programs designed to reduce the impact of these fines.

Bill, can you speak to that at all?

Yeah, I mean, I can't really speak to it in the sense of I know that Seattle Munic Court has some practices to make this information more accessible, but I can't say whether it's accessible enough.

And I think those are probably questions more for Seattle Munic Court.

And that's probably something that I can also do some looking at.

We can certainly see what the portal looks like and see what people are experiencing as they're trying to navigate our systems.

One more thing that I'd add is that we are looking to administer this program more holistically by creating an interdepartmental team and these kinds of things that we can talk to our partners in MooneyCore and trying to see how we can make those options more available to people who absolutely need them.

And we are also trying to develop a public engagement campaign, a framework for how we talk about these cameras, how we educate our communities, and what do we want to do before we turn on any potential new cameras.

So all those kind of liquid play towards helping build that awareness and kind of make some of these programs that are available for fine reduction be more easily accessible.

Thank you.

And going to some of the set fine amounts, thank you for providing the table of current fines and what the new fine amounts would be.

I just want to note that these fines, even in their existing fine amounts, seem high when compared across the US.

New York City's automated speed tickets start at $50, same with Connecticut, same with California.

How do we land on this fine amount just by way of a little bit of history?

And have we looked at things like tiered fine structures?

I don't think we have.

I think we have historically viewed them as speeding tickets.

And I don't know that there's been work to...

I don't know that that's been...

In my time here, that has not come up as an issue.

Yeah, I would say the first time that they've really come up is with the pilot for the new camera types.

I don't know that those $75 fines actually reflect, maybe they do, but I don't know if they reflect the fine amounts if a police officer was to issue a violation for block the box, for example, or using a transit lane.

I do know that the other ones pretty much reflect the same.

They're pretty much the same, whether it's an automated ticket or not.

And that's, as Cal was saying earlier, that's kind of how the system evolved.

And this legislation is removing that 30-day warning for new school zone cameras.

I've come to understand this has been a practice.

This wouldn't be a change.

This is something S.D.A.T. has historically done, and apologies if I missed this point, but...

current state law?

That's a great question, Council Member Rink.

Thank you so much for asking that.

Let me reiterate that issuing a warning is not a state law requirement.

It's something that we in the city are going beyond the state law.

Yes, we have practice of issuing warnings within the first 30 days for schools on cameras.

But schools on cameras, unlike all the other camera types, are slightly different in how we approach them.

Before we consider installing a camera within a school zone, we always do studies to monitor the speeds of vehicles in the school zones.

We implement all the required signing to designate that as a school zone.

And on top of that, we always lead with installing flashing beacons that raise the awareness of motorists who are coming, kind of like approaching a school zone.

So these engineering measures are taken even before we consider placing a potential camera.

And then we evaluate what the speeds are and have those measures had any impact.

And then we consider a particular location for a camera.

In our deliberations, we felt that it is important for us to improve and continue to improve our safety in school zones, where some of our most vulnerable users of our infrastructure use these to walk to or bike to and from our schools.

So given that practice and also kind of like there's a provision within the state law that says that fines within the school zone shall not be reduced or mitigated, we looked at the whole circumstances in totality and we, as a city, decided to not issue warnings because we have already have implemented proper signage.

We have implemented flashing beacons to raise awareness.

We have, as required by the state law, we would be implementing additional signs to say that there are photo enforcement cameras that are going to be operational at least 30 days before we activate them.

So considering kind of like the totality of the situation, the various measures that we have taken, we chose to exempt schools on cameras from that 30-day warning period.

The one thing I would add to that is that school zone cameras are only in operation on days when school is in session and only 45-50 minutes before the morning bell time and 45-50 minutes after the afternoon bell time.

So their operation is much more limited than these other camera types like red light or restricted lane that are 24-7 and the new speed camera types would be 24-7 as well.

Certainly appreciate that response.

And as a final question, this is to SDOT team.

It's been said that SDOT would consider, all cameras should be considered temporary.

What would trigger a camera being removed?

Excellent question again.

Thank you so much.

And this is something that the detail that we are trying to write into our implementation guidance, we haven't quite finalized, right?

But I can kind of give you a preview of what we would consider.

We are committed to looking at these cameras as temporary measures before a more capital-intensive project can address the safety needs.

We are committed to doing an annual evaluation of all the camera types.

We are going to look at a variety of factors.

If it is a speed camera or a school zone camera, we're going to look at speeds after we have implemented.

We're going to look at the history of warnings and citations that are issued at a particular location.

We are going to look at what engineering improvements have we implemented at that particular camera location and have those measures taken hold in changing behaviors, both in terms of the citations that are issued and also in terms of the actual data points that we are seeing, the traffic data points that we are seeing.

We want to use that set of information to make that decision whether we want to continue operating the camera or say that, hey, we have done engineering improvements that we can try kind of like either removing the camera or relocating the camera to a different location, make that decision on an annual basis to continue moving forward.

Again, I can't emphasize that we look at this as a temporary behavioral change tool to enhance safety in areas where we absolutely need them.

It's one of many tools that we have that we will have in our toolbox going forward to improve safety on our streets.

Councilmember, I think there is a point in there of...

that the engineering solutions, the other changes that make it more permanent because if you move it, if you're just relying on cameras and you move that away, then what do we expect behavior to change over time?

So I think it really is tied down to that broader analysis of how that corridor, how that location is functioning and what other changes have happened there that give us certainty that we have durable traffic benefit.

Amazing.

Thank you all.

And just to wrap this up, I would state and thank you for answering all of my questions in this and certainly have some pieces to follow up on as we dive in more into this legislation.

The spirit of why I'm asking all of these questions is just really to read into the moment that there are a lot of concerns about surveillance technology and I want to be able to deliver correct and accurate information about the status of that to our community at this time when there is a lot of heightened fear.

And paired with that, it's becoming an increasingly challenging local economy as we navigate into whatever seems to be happening and so mindful about imposition of fines and folks being hit with a higher fine that could be destabilizing for them.

We all can agree we want safer streets.

We need it.

And the ways in which we can implement this technology to curb behaviors that create safer streets certainly support that in many ways.

But that's a bit of the root of my line of questions for today and what I hope to continue working on with you all.

And council member, one thing that occurred to me, um, about the surveillance ordinance, uh, I do believe that license plate readers went through the surveillance ordinance and, and largely what we have here is a license plate reader.

Uh, we're not allowed to take a look at individuals.

I mean, that is really how we track what these things look like.

So, um, that may be a proxy for some of the risks.

I haven't read those, so I'll have to take a look and see, but that might be, that might help answer some of your questions.

Amazing.

Thank you.

And thank you all.

And thank you, chair.

Thank you, great questions from my colleagues.

Appreciate the comments and questions and feedback here.

With respect to, I think it is accurate, based off of my understanding, I think it is an accurate assessment that this is essentially license plate, a form of license plate reader technology.

Can we clarify the sharing if any of this data and information with other agencies or externally outside of the city or internally within the city?

So for example, would any of this data be shared with SPD for example?

Well, SPD receives, so SPD runs the program, so they do receive the, if there's a violation triggered, a camera violation is triggered, they receive an image and determine whether it's a citable violation and issue a ticket or not.

But they still have to subscribe to the city and it's actually state guidance for the data retention policies that we talked about earlier.

And they're not allowed to share with other agencies, both by city law and state law.

And municipal court also receives information that they need to process these citations.

But beyond that, I don't think even SDOT has access to the actual images or videos that are collected.

We just use them for presentation purposes, or we look at the macro trends of, OK, how many warnings, how many citations that are issued at a particular location.

Thank you.

So further to council member Kettle's earlier line of questioning, I would be curious to better understand the anticipated volume of new volume of enforcement violations that need to be adjudicated through SMC.

I imagine there's going to be, you know, once any new site there's deployment at any new site, you're going to see a ramp up initially over a certain period, you know, a couple months, a year, potentially.

And then over time, likely see that those fine and violations decrease, but would be curious to see what the anticipated new volume of these fines are going to be.

And because we authorized last year and provided a funding mechanism for the executive to deploy school zone speed cameras, I think 38 to be exact and 38 new locations, two or three in my district.

including Elki Elementary School.

And so what we talked a moment ago earlier about is, you know, how council has authorized and we're going to talk a little bit about, and then second item of business is council appropriations and authorizations for non-school speed cameras, whatever $1.18 million can buy the city in terms of bang for the buck.

We'd be curious to better understand you know, when that information in those assessments become available, the anticipated new volume of enforcement violations that will need to be adjudicated.

I'll pause there if you have any comments or questions.

Just to kind of like talk about, for these full-time speed camera deployments, right, in non-school zone areas, This is a completely new type of camera that we have not used before.

So to project what would be the volume of citations or warnings that are issued at a camera involves a lot of assumptions.

And one of the reasons why we are deliberating about an initial deployment to understand those kinds of things.

make sure that all of our three departments are appropriately resourced to handle what is coming.

But we do have some insight into the number of citations that we have with existing cameras.

I can't recall those numbers right off the top of my head, but we can share that with you on seeing what we are seeing for a typical school zone camera or a red light camera or a bus lane camera.

Yeah, thank you.

No, definitely understand the the new deployment and therefore new assumptions and it's complicated.

And by the way, no one's expecting the department to, to raise its right hand and swear on the Bible, these are the numbers, this is what we can expect.

It's a best guess based off the information, making reasonable assumptions.

So at our next presentation, we'd love to see at least some initial assessments in terms of what that volume can be expected to look like.

I think that is a fair and appropriate transparency enhancing measure and piece of data that we can all benefit from.

Let's see here, going on to slide six, the allowable camera types under state law.

So we know, mentioned earlier in my chair's remarks that the state is currently considering adding something to this enumerated list of allowable camera types with respect to noise, automated noise enforcement technology.

So should that change happen this year based off of, how the rollout of new technologies has gone in the state over time.

Should that change to state law happen this year in essentially adding noise enforcement to the enumerated lists, Would that require further incorporation into city code or requires to make additional alignment and conformity tweaks to city code in order to conform with state law?

Or would this proposed legislation capture all future additions?

I mean, noise enforcement is not a traffic violation.

So it is a different, probably necessitate different sections of code that would have to be resolved.

I don't think that our code currently contemplates that at all, so there would be other legislation that would be required.

I'm not sure that SDOT would be the department to enforce.

It would seem to me to be more of a police department, solely a police department function, but I think that needs to be determined when we see what the state allows and we have the people who are responsible for doing noise enforcement address that issue as well.

Anything else I have?

Okay.

All right.

So I've made clear that this technology is a vital tool among a broader set of tools in the toolkit that when responsibly deployed can help address unlawful behavior in and around our roads.

So it's not the end all be all.

It's not the silver bullet.

panacea here, but it is needed now more than ever.

And when responsibly deployed by that, I mean going after two key considerations, equity considerations and making sure we address as best as possible the various privacy and security concerns valid underlying this deployment of this kind of technology.

So equity concerns, we heard earlier from public comment that communities, black and brown communities historically have bore the brunt, so to speak, of deployment and of these kind of punitive automated enforcement technologies, and that's true.

Absolutely true, which is why I approached this deployment of this technology with a cautious skepticism and optimism, mindful of those facts.

And I think the department has done a good job of trying to address and remediate some of those valid equity concerns.

And actually later in the next few months, we'll hear from the department's equity team to learn more about some of its work broadly at a higher level.

And I think informed by that important work group and a new program within department.

The department has made great strides.

And I think those are reflected in this proposal.

Not the end all be all, plenty more work to do.

Equity in particular is one area where the work continues.

Milestones happen, but the work It's a journey, the work is a journey, not a destination.

So the second thing we need to be mindful of is Council Member Rink's line of question illuminated earlier is the valid privacy concerns.

We need to make sure we deploy this in a privacy conscious way.

We need to make sure that we have appropriate guardrails that govern the collection, use, and sharing of this information.

That includes making sure we adhere to sound data minimization principles.

We only collect the bare amount of minimum data that we need to effectively carry out this intended goal and purpose.

We store that information for the bare minimum amount of time.

We have tight guardrails around sharing it.

And so those are some of the things that I'm gonna be looking for as we review this.

I know my colleagues are gonna be looking for, and I think to council member Kettle's point earlier, aligned with the city's values.

So making sure we approach this from an equity focused and privacy conscious manner, very important, I think to this body.

The other thing that I'll note is that We're all sort of, or as the department indicated, these deployments of these kind of technologies are intended to be temporary only.

And we talked about the triggers or potential triggers and basically adhering to a database approach for determining when it would be appropriate at some point to remove a specific deployment location.

I'll say that is absolutely, I mean, that's a goal that I share.

These should ideally be temporary only.

I think some of the broader policy considerations teed up as part of this proposal will help us be mindful of that as well, depending on how we act.

So for example, I heard Mr. Paddleford in public comment earlier mentioned that we need to make sure that our deployment, we're not just collecting revenue, we're changing behavior.

Couldn't agree more.

And I will be honest, I don't know under the proposed financial policies and allocations of what should go towards the general fund versus proven road safety improvements or whatever the new program is called.

I don't know if that helps get us there.

I also don't know how, I don't know, I'm not convinced yet that the proposed revenue allocation structure helps address the public And there's a perception among some that these kind of automated enforcement technologies are a mere revenue collection mechanism only for municipalities and governments.

If a certain amount is allocated towards the general fund and next month during council member Rink's federal select committee, we're gonna learn more about the transportation impacts of the current administration.

Spoiler alert, that's one of the biggest areas that our city is being impacted by under the new Trump administration.

And so if we use X amount or X proportion or percentage of the new revenues as a backstop for our budget, woes, and allocate it towards the general fund I don't know if that helps us get us to having safe streets for all.

I don't know if that helps get us to making sure that these are temporary only solutions.

There's nothing better and more effective in my mind than I can think of than making sure that as much of the revenue as possible is not invested in a general fund backstop for libraries, I love our libraries, or whatever it is, but these are specifically road safety improvements.

That's the intent, that's the goal.

I don't know any better mechanism to ensure that these are ultimately temporary only deployments and then to change behavior and to reinvest that money to design solutions that work.

Yes, it has a good recidivism rate.

It's not zero either.

And so that's why I think as much of the revenue as possible should be directed specifically towards traffic, road, safety improvements, schools, new sidewalks.

I'm an unapologetic champion of new sidewalks.

ADA accessibility standards.

I think those kind of road designs and investments can better obviate the need over time for these kind of automated enforcement technologies.

So that's why I don't know if the proposed allocation helps get us there, but we'll continue those conversations.

And finally, I'll note that we are all marching towards the mutually agreed upon executive and legislative mutually agreed upon timeline of starting to deploy the school speed zone cameras this year, starting to initially deploy the non-school speed cameras towards the end of this year and sort of turning those on, if you will, at least that first wave early next year and continuing the rollout and deployment in 26 and beyond.

In any event, thank you all.

Really important policy discussion we just had and we'll continue to have as we consider this on a going forward basis.

So if there are no other comments or questions, we'll now move on to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record.

Agenda item two, non-school zone automated traffic safety camera proviso lift.

Thank you.

And it looks like at least one of our presenters is here.

Please join us at this table.

You're already here.

Welcome.

Uh, reintroduce yourselves and begin.

Council member, it's still the same, the same crew here.

Um, this is draft legislation that I prepared at your direction to, uh, uh, lift a budget off or to provide budget authorization for, uh, the spending of 1.18 million of general fund for non-school, um, uh, traffic safety cameras.

This was a budget action that the council put in place last year.

The mayor's proposed budget identified the doubling of the school zone camera program, and the council wished to provide some resources to fund expansion of other camera programs, copacetic with the 2024 state legislature.

So really, this is pure budget legislation.

If you could go to the next slide, please.

It makes some language changes.

It still restricts the money for this purpose of deploying automated traffic enforcement outside of school zones, lifts the restriction that halted spending.

So that is the legislation that I prepared at your request.

Thank you.

At this time, I welcome any comments or questions from any of my colleagues on this proposed budget proviso lift.

Okay, hearing and seeing none.

Just to reiterate that we're all working towards the mutually agreed upon timeline that I mentioned a moment ago, and I think this, Provisal lift will help get us there and remove some barriers and help expedite this work stream, the strategic work stream for our city.

One question I have for our executive department partners here, SDOT, Mr. Namani, Mr. Laborde from SDOT.

How can the council partner with SDOT to help facilitate the procurement and deployment of these vital technologies in as expeditious as possible manner.

Yeah, I think...

You know, as we've stated at the last meeting, the Vision Zero team that Venue leads is working on the, you know, the policies for doing the safety and equity analysis.

And that'll lead to, you know, where cameras should be sighted, starting with a few non-school speed cameras so we can start to get that data and information.

There are dependencies on other departments.

As Vinay mentioned, the SPD owns the contract with the vendor.

They have to issue the work orders.

And then on the tail end of implementation, There also may be sites where, there are frequently sites where we need power hookups, so that could be a factor in the timing of camera deployments and cameras going into operation.

And then once the cameras are in place, And taking pictures of potential violations, they do have to be reviewed within 14, and a citation issued within 14 days for it to be valid.

And so that requires, again, that's a piece that's owned by SPD.

They can request both within their department, non-police officers to review citations and can request with Estad to see what resources we could add to those citation reviews.

But, you know, those pieces all need to be put into place in a timely way for new camera types to be deployed.

Thank you.

Appreciate the comments there, the insights.

And knowing that there are very, there's always dependencies, can't launch a strategic initiative in Seattle without, any department can't launch a strategic initiative without working, collaborating in some manner with other city departments, but agree there are very tight and integral dependencies here in particular with respect to SPD.

And so, you know, I might, consider inviting them to join us at our next committee meeting to talk about their implementation approach as well, because they're an important partner and governing partner and piece of the puzzle here.

So in any event, all good.

Anyone else have any final questions, comments?

Oh, Council Member Rink, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, and appreciate the questions just about implementation.

That's kind of my point of curiosity as well.

And Mr. Chair, I think I heard you correctly.

Is the transportation equity work group coming to come before committee soon?

Yeah, I've invited the program manager, Anya.

Anya, right?

Yep, yep, yep.

So they'll be coming within the next few months.

Yep.

Fabulous, I'm so excited to hear that and thinking specifically about the implementation of this, just my primary questions have to do with timeline, how that group is being consulted as well as other community partners.

Yeah, so they, I believe even Today they're having, there's a social justice work group within the transportation equity work group and I believe today they're actually gonna be reviewing, I think the previous transportation committee presentation, maybe getting into this one as well and looking at the, they have looked at the outline of the legislation before it was even completed and are gonna be reviewing I think the legislation as well as the policies that the Vision Zero team will be working on in terms of where cameras will be sighted.

I just want to add that we have a really strong working relationship with our transportation equity work group.

And when the proposal was put forward to double the number of school zone cameras, the thinking that we have developed was in collaboration with the transportation equity work group that ended up with siting and deploying a more equitable deployment of school zone cameras that we are looking to expand.

Great.

Thank you for your continued engagement with them and excited to hear that they'll be coming before committee.

Thank you, Chair.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And for clarity, I've extended the invite to Anya, the program manager who oversees the transportation equity work group.

So looking forward to learning more from Anya about the important work, that cross-cutting work that that program touches.

Okay, hearing, seeing no further questions, we will now move on to our third item of business.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Agenda item three, CB120945, an ordinance vacating the alley in block 52 AA Denny's extension to the Terry's first edition in the First Hill neighborhood and accepting a property use and development agreement and acknowledging the Seattle City Light easement on the petition of North Block Spring Street Development LLC, clerk file 314364.

All right, welcome.

Big group here today.

Excited for you all to join us.

So thank you for joining us in at the table.

Please share your presentation and when it's ready, please introduce yourselves and start your presentations.

All right.

Lishwitsen, Council Central Staff.

Beverly Barnett, Seattle Department of Transportation.

Peter Van Overbeck with Corterra.

I'm Michael Jenkins.

I'm the director of the Seattle Design Commission.

And I'm Katie Kendall, land use counsel with court chair.

So the legislation in front of you today is a council bill to finalize a alley vacation for a project on First Hill.

You probably know it.

It's the block that includes town hall and two apartment towers.

The vacation was approved in 2017 with a number of conditions.

Petitioners have met all of those conditions, and so the legislation for my view is basically the final step.

If you agree that the conditions have been met, you should approve the ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for having us up today.

It really is a lot of fun for us to bring projects for the very last step, and it's an opportunity for all of us to see how our work turned out.

So I'm gonna talk just for a minute about the steps in the review process, then Michael is gonna talk a little bit about the design commission role, and then Peter's gonna go through the PowerPoint, but we wanted to set the stage a little bit with Lisha's background Michael and I doing something, but we want to focus on the project itself.

So the City Council, through the Transportation Committee, sees each vacation three times.

And the first review is the early committee review when we have a brand new petition.

And this project actually started before that.

that obligation was imposed.

But now you see it very early on, which I think is really helpful.

The second review is when we hold a public hearing and the city council looks at the project and the SDOT recommendation and hears from all the city staff that play a role, the design commission, Lisch, everyone, and the city council is required under state law to hold a public hearing.

And at that stage, with after the hearing and the recommendation and the committee's discussion and analysis, the city council will make a decision to grant the vacation and what conditions should be imposed.

And that actually is the substantive decision that the committee makes.

So once that substantive, conceptual, conditional, we call it different things, once that approval is granted, the developer can actually begin physical work on the site and will work on building their project and meeting all the conditions imposed by the city council and also just the normal regulatory requirements.

The third step is where we are today, when all of the conditions have been met and we're back saying, here, OK, we did it, they did it, it's ready to go.

And this is really an administrative final review.

The substantive decision is the action on the clerk file.

And this is holding the vacation ordinance out till the end is a very powerful accountability tool for the city council and the committee because it's a way for you to ensure that you don't finish the work until all the obligations have been met.

So that's where we're at today is the vacation fee has been paid.

That was paid in 2020. And we have completed all of the other site conditions that are easier to see when we look at Peter's presentation.

And they're open, ready to go.

In fact, I was telling Ian I'm going to town hall tonight.

So it's ready for your action.

It is one that I think we do want to be neutral in our presentations.

But I think one of the value of our coming back at the end for the council to see the product, the result of their work, this, I think, is a very engaging and high-quality public benefit package.

So I think in looking at how we might replicate this on other projects, it really is good for us to see it.

But I think I think there was a lot of thought put in by the developer on being a part of a community and not just let's get our project and we're done.

So I think this one worked really well and we'll see what you think and we're looking to try to replicate some of the best elements of this in future projects.

So then I think Michael, I was gonna talk a little bit about the design commission role and then we'll look at all the cool pictures of the project.

Thanks.

I'm happy to speak on behalf of the design commission on this really unique and really important project that has been resulted in the creation of something that's very difficult to do in our densest neighborhoods, creating public spaces and places that serve not only the people who live there, but the community.

First Hill is a very difficult place to find new open space.

Clearly, we have a significant resource with Freeway Park, but finding and having a developer who's willing to commit to providing high-quality, high-designed, high-functioning public spaces and places, not only for them, but for their neighbors.

Virginia, we have two significant hospitals in the area.

Clearly, we have Town Hall that abuts it.

They went beyond and above in creating this resource for the community.

You'll see it if you have an opportunity to go up and walk the site, I'd really encourage you.

You'll see not only a public place that defines itself, but also...

really creates a new front door for town hall.

Previously, prior to this development, that facade that you'll see in the presentation was kind of the back of the house.

what they've been able to do is to create a new welcoming entrance as part of their public benefit proposal for the community to use and for the people who were attending to use those spaces.

They created significant right-of-way improvements around the site that not only work for the people who live in the building but people who live in the immediate area.

They have direct access to the spaces from the right-of-way to the public spaces.

And finally, They actually pulled off a really difficult challenge that was part of this proposal, turning an alley into an access easement, maintaining access that needed to be maintained for town hall, but doing it in a way that doesn't feel like an access easement.

It feels like a place that people use before the access easement.

So they have this function retained.

but you wouldn't necessarily know it if you were out there.

You wouldn't necessarily see it was something for where automobiles were prioritized.

You see it's a place for people and pedestrians and their priority over the automobile.

They did a very good job of balancing both issues and did it in a way that made a stronger public space.

So with that, I think I'll send it over to Peter.

Great.

Well, appreciate your kind comments there, and we certainly agree as the the owner and manager of Ovation.

So Ovation itself is a twin tower apartment community with 548 apartment homes and approximately 7,000 square feet of retail located at 702 and 704 Spring Street.

There's a good look of it there.

Built between 2018 and 2022, Ovation received its temporary certificate of occupancy in June of 2022. and ultimately final certificate of occupancy in February of 2023. This is a look at the prior condition here, as we've mentioned, share the block with the town hall association in the upper right there.

But yeah, previous condition, a surface parking lot with a north south alley.

The new look is here.

So yeah, the ovation west and east towers there on the southern portion of the site, town hall in the upper right, and then the public plaza in the upper left, and the alley transecting the site, generally bounded by Spring, 8th, Seneca, and Hubble.

So starting off with the benefits, kick it off with the plaza here.

So this is a public access plaza, approximately 5,500 square feet, has a number of places for pedestrian seating and lighting.

We've posted public access and free speech signage in accordance with SDOT standards.

There's a water feature, special paving, a number of landscaping elements, including bioretention planners.

And then there are bollards protecting the alley from, or protecting the plaza from the alley, but a number of them are removable actually, so you can get food trucks and other types of programming in there, which in coordination with Town Hall, we've already done on a handful of times.

So really great activation of the space.

Speaking of town hall, so back in 2019, I believe they did a renovation.

We provided some financial contributions to them for improvements of their sidewalk, as well as for some shoring.

We've also provided them a number of landscaping enhancements and helped address a building envelope waterproofing issue that was encountered during the course of our construction.

And then, as discussed, we are under a memorandum of understanding, and there is an access easement agreement in place, and that's memorialized in our property use and development agreement that was recorded last year.

And then, yeah, the alley itself.

So in alignment with the original plan, it accommodates two-way traffic but is a southbound alley and is signed as such.

It has special paving in the form of sunset pavers on the north side and stamped concrete on the south.

Around the site, we, speaking of new sidewalks, built a number of new sidewalks with ADA ramps and pedestrian signalization, striping, seating, bike racks, and the like.

And then finally, yeah, connection to Freeway Park, so in the northwest corner of the property, more ramps and striping and signalization, as well as encountered an unforeseen condition below the sidewalk across the street that we helped remediate.

And then just, this is in the property use and development agreement, but just a reiteration of the improvements that were done and the approximate values associated with each.

And then, yeah, a couple photos of how it turned out.

This is looking at our west tower from Seneca.

And then the next one from our west tower looking towards Town Hall.

So that's what used to be the back end is now, as part of their renovation and our work with the right-of-way, much more accessible from this side of the property.

There's just a couple more photos in here for context.

That's about it.

Awesome.

All right, cool.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate the presentation here and the proposal.

At this point, I will open it up for any comments or questions from any of my colleagues.

Of course, of course.

The distinguished gentleman from Queen Anne.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I just had a question.

I've been to the town hall many times, so I've seen this from that perspective as someone's gone to town hall.

And the towers look great.

I was just curious, so it's not really in the briefing, so this is more of a curiosity question in terms of the how you work the logistics for the, the two buildings themselves.

Is it coming from Hubble place in terms of like garages and the like, um, for, for the apartment community or yes, for the apartment community and, and, or the, the street level retail.

Yeah.

So the, the access is off of Hubble, the, for the apartment community, the garage, um, kind of see it there, right where it says boundary on the lower left or on the left side.

Yes.

Um, that's the primary building, building entrance and, And you can't tell it from this view, but both towers are actually atop a common garage.

So the alley runs atop structure.

And so that garage is accessed from that single location.

OK.

And then that supports the retail operation.

Correct.

Yeah, the first level one and a half of the parking garage is open for commercial use.

And does, I guess for town hall, They're not here represented, but if they have any logistical support, you come from the back.

Yeah, Town Hall, the alley provides, the now private alley provides for drop-off and ADA access because otherwise the steep slopes and the steps at the main entry can be a little problematic.

So we do see, I think that's one of the main uses, the small drop-off and that support for for ADA access.

It was the photo with the red doors, the town hall red doors.

I ask, because just to be consistent, that's what I ask.

Obviously, I wasn't on the Transportation Committee at the beginning, but that's one of my standard questions, as the central staff and the SDOT folks know, logistics, loading docks, commercial, residential.

And so I felt the need to ask even though I wasn't here previously in the earlier versions of the committee, because it's really important.

And I could tell, you confirmed what I was thinking, and I understand the point regarding the town hall piece, too.

And the reason why I ask is that, because if we push logistics onto the street, that creates other problems.

And it sounds like everything's internal, everything's sorted.

Yeah, and I think that was a key discussion when the previous transportation committee was reviewing this, and the vacation allows the below-grade connection with the alley gone, and so the two towers can consolidate uses, and the entirety of their access for move in, move out, all that kind of stuff is on Hubble, and then...

On Spring Street, there is some drop-off stuff.

We know if you're getting pizza delivery, they're not going to go in the parking garage, so that accommodates some of that.

So Spring Street for the light drop-offs, Hubble Place for all of the core functions, and then for Town Hall, the alley, the now private alley, provides for more of their access.

Okay, with my logistical due diligence complete, thank you.

And again, I've been there, I've been to town hall a number of times, and the square is beautiful, so well done on that.

And then really important too, and it's kind of given a quick mention, and this is not Parks Committee, but Freeway Park needs a lot of help.

There's some work that's going to be done leading up to the World Cup, FIFA World Cup next year.

And so this is a nice kind of neighbor to that.

So I appreciate the linkages towards freeway park across the street from Seneca there.

So thank you.

Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Kittle.

I was hoping you would have a comment or question, given this is your district.

And yes, you are one of the champions on this council of logistics, thinking through the nitty gritty operational details of enablement, details that go unseen for many people, but we all rely on so deeply and so heavily in so many profound, impactful ways, including freight and cargo mobility.

sanitation services, cleanup, et cetera, list goes on and on.

So notice I said you are one of the champions on this council.

All right, first time we're hearing this ordinance, it is the final stages.

So I anticipate that we will be voting on this at our next transportation committee.

Do any of my other transportation committee colleagues have any final comments or questions?

Okay, thank you everyone again.

Appreciate the conversation.

We have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Our next meeting is May 6th at 9.30 a.m.

Is there any final business to come before the committee for the good of the order before we adjourn?

Hearing and seeing none.

No further business.

It is 11.23.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.