Transportation, Waterfront and Seattle Center Committee 09/08/2026

All right.

Well, good afternoon.

The September 8th, 2026 special meeting of the Safety, Transportation, Engineering, Project, Sports and Experiences Committee will come to order.

It is 2.03 PM.

This is a special meeting of this committee.

I am Rob Saka, chair of the committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council member Foster.

Council member Kettle.

Here.

Councilmember Lin.

Here.

Vice Chair Rink.

Present.

Chair Saka.

Here.

Chair, there are four members present.

Thank you, and let the record reflect that Councilmember Foster is excused for today's special meeting of the Transportation Waterfront in Seattle Center Committee.

First, I wanna note that after we published this agenda, my office was informed that Council Bill 121263, which was a renewal of a Skybridge permit, the second agenda item, did not need to be approved by City Council because the terms of the renewal had not been changed substantively.

Therefore, I am removing agenda item two from today's agenda.

Now, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

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

All right, well, good afternoon, colleagues, members of the public.

Thank you so much for joining us today for this special meeting of the STEPS Committee.

Today's meeting is focused primarily on an issue that has been at the heart of this committee's work since the beginning of the year, when we reorganized and restructured the former Transportation Committee under an expanded portfolio.

Traffic safety, that's been the focus.

When we created the reconstituted steps committee, we deliberately put safety first in the name for a reason.

Whether you choose to walk, bike, roll, ride transit, drive, or move freight through our city, everyone deserves to get where they are going safely.

Nearly 11 years ago, Seattle committed to Vision Zero with the ambitious goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. Sadly, we are not on track to meet that goal, despite our best efforts to date.

That is difficult to acknowledge, but it does not mean abandoning the goal or lowering our sights.

It means sharpening our approach, strengthening our focus, because striving for zero traffic deaths is more than just aspirational.

It reflects a basic moral principle.

Everyone and every life on our street matters.

We also have to be realistic about what city government can and cannot control directly or indirectly in some cases.

We cannot eliminate human error or prevent every reckless decision.

Our authority also has limits and significant dependencies.

Safety is a shared responsibility that cannot be addressed by the city alone.

Indeed, a universal recognition that responsibility is shared among road users and jurisdictions has become a central tenant of the federal safe systems approach to traffic safety, which this legislation seeks to incorporate and transform into durable action, among other requirements.

There is much we can influence directly and indirectly.

We can design safer streets, improve visibility at intersections, We can also use data and target enforcement to address dangerous behaviors and locations, make large vehicles performing city work safer, and when tragedy occurs, we can learn and respond more quickly.

That's the philosophy behind the Seattle Safer Streets Act.

My office began developing this first of its kind legislation earlier this year alongside community members and advocates.

Since our first committee discussion in August, we have continued refining and finalizing the package based on feedback and legal and operational review.

This legislation is not the final word on Vision Zero, but it does take important concrete steps now while establishing more durable expectations for Seattle's approach to traffic safety going forward.

And make no mistake, durability matters.

Administrations change, leadership changes, including here at the dais.

Policies and priorities change.

But when we identify safety practices and frameworks worthy of enduring beyond any one person or administration, Council should consider whether they belong in law.

Today, we'll hear from our central staff experts about this landmark package and how it has evolved.

It is a critical opportunity for us to learn more, ask questions, and share feedback as we consider this proposal.

Again, we cannot control every variable affecting safety on our streets, but we can control what we do with the tools we have.

Every serious injury prevented matters.

Every life saved matters.

That's the work before us.

Thank you.

will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Chair, we currently have two in-person speakers signed up and one remote speaker.

Thank you.

Each speaker will have approximately two minutes.

We will start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, could you please read the public comment instructions?

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

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

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.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list, David Haynes.

There he is.

He's coming in.

Hey, take your time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Haynes.

Welcome.

Appreciate the patience.

My name is David Haynes.

I'm living in Lower Queen Anne.

Coming here, I hopped on the first bus, coming past, turned into the 14. about five or six drug pushers get on the bus, make a meet and greet, negotiate on whatever products they got.

Someone's got this airplane bottle of toxic poison.

I don't know if it was liquid meth.

I notify transit security.

They don't want to do anything because the guy's left the next block.

It's not fair.

We've got to put up a crap like that.

But I'm here because of safe streets on all proper interpretations of.

we still need 21st century first world quality infrastructure that's resident friendly and pedestrian friendly.

That where, if you're a pedestrian and you're trying to cross the street, and you push the pedestrian stoplight, you get priority, not the car.

You gotta stand there for like two minutes.

But the corrupt comprehensive plan that the landlords on city council created to sabotage the integrity of the next 20 years of development are still allowing for the road rage in between all these low quality buildings.

and when you have trash trucks that are allowed to come into your neighborhood and bang and clang for more than two days a week, there needs to be a dressing of the abuse and exactly where you place those.

But the infrastructure of patchwork fixing it by leaving it up to these contractors who supposedly fixed Third Avenue and made it a living hell to drive on the bus because your back is being pummeled, your hips and your ass are being pounded with metal seats, including on the train.

And it's a living hell.

It's messing up your mental health and physical health.

but the infrastructure can have patchwork skims.

I haul ass on this bike down Queen Anne Hill, and it's dangerous as hell at nighttime, but even during the day.

But there's a patchwork skim that you can do to fill in all those little scooched out potholes that'll grab the small little scooter wheel and just flip you out and rip the frickin' handlebars out of your hands.

but you guys have to realize that just because we have 20th century car-centric infrastructure doesn't give you all the right to force people to still put up with living on the side of the road rage.

You gotta shut down some of these roads and allow for walkable neighborhoods where you tear up the heat island and build housing and put green space to walk the block without anybody road racing through the neighborhood.

Thank you, Mr. Haynes.

Our next in-person speaker will be Tyler Vasquez.

Good morning.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tyler Vasquez.

I'm with Cascade Bicycle Club, and I wanted to appreciate Council and Councilmember Saka for making traffic safety a priority.

We're seeing in our city that the Mayor and also Council are coming together to be able to elevate concerns that Cascade Bicycle Club really is concerned about.

One of the things that you referenced in your speech earlier was resilience.

I do want to note that earlier this year, the Federal Transportation Agency scrapped proven safety measures of bicycle lanes to mitigate speed on our roadway.

I just wanted to note that because when we come with resilience, and we want to make sure our policy is resilient.

We want to make sure that with the polarization of our federal to city governments, we have the ability to have policy that responds in a way that also is taking into account proven safety measures.

Additionally, I wanted to thank the attention on side guards.

This weekend, I was walking with my wife around the neighborhood, and we saw that there was a Recology truck that had side guards on them.

And I see that this as the aspects of having vendors be able to input and have proven safety measures.

Once we found out that Christian Sayre, unfortunately, was killed by a Recology truck, Cascade Bicycle Club put side guards on our box truck.

that's a box truck that goes to all our rides throughout the whole state.

We noted that it was a priority for our non-profit, but also a priority for safety for all users.

And we feel that many of the vendors throughout the whole city can do the same thing.

Lastly, I just wanted to say that having walkable neighborhoods elevating the priorities of vulnerable users, which are defined in this piece of legislation, is really encouraging for our non-profit, for safety advocates and also for our children throughout the city.

So thank you.

And I hope you're all able to move with this legislation and prioritize traffic safety.

Thank you, Mr. Vasquez.

We will now switch to our remote speakers.

Our first and only remote caller we have is Gordon Padelford.

Gordon, please hit star six.

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

My name is Gordon Podelford.

I'm the Executive Director of the Seattle Streets Alliance.

And I really also want to echo Tyler's comments that we appreciate this Council's attention to Division Zero.

It's encouraging to see the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch align and placing an emphasis on making sure everyone can get home safely to their loved ones.

You know, our transportation system

is a culmination of many choices, and we can make choices that will keep everyone safe on our streets.

And we appreciate the council exploring different options to do just that.

You know, as Tyler mentioned, side guards are really important.

You know, according to the U.S.

DOT, a large truck comprised just 4% of registered vehicles.

They're involved in 8% of pedestrian fatalities and 11% of people biking who are killed.

And half and a quarter, respectively, people biking and walking are hit by the side of the truck first.

and so we know that sideguards are a proven solution that can really make a difference and it's encouraging to see Seattle taking action on that.

In terms of the overall bill on different tools that are included in the Seattle Municipal Code, I would really love to hear STOT's perspective at the next council meeting on what legal tools are really needed to sort of give them additional options to move more quickly to make changes.

Many of these seem to be things that are already allowed We'd be lovely to have some movement on known blockers like, for instance, the ability for the Pioneer Square Historic Preservation Board to block intersection daylighting.

That is a legal blocker that we know about that SDOT has run into.

And if we're able to muster changes to that, that would potentially allow SDOT to move on.

Something they know would make a difference.

So I'm just curious to hear SDOT's perspective on what those blockers are potentially.

at a future meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gordon.

Chair, we've had one more in-person speaker sign up.

This will be Kim Wilson.

All right, thank you.

I wasn't expecting to share today, but I am probably one of those rare people that actually follows the speed limit.

And I have noticed in places that it's actually causing more danger to follow the speed limit than it is not because evidently our public thinks it's unreasonable on some of the thoroughfares.

So I just wanted to share, and I'm happy to share which streets, but I will say that there are times where I'm following the speed limit and literally causing people to make reckless decisions to go around me, along Magnolia Inner Bay, along parts of UW area, So I know that that's part of this committee's work as well.

And so I just want, I shared that feedback when those first, the 25 first went in 10 years ago, I guess, eight or 10, whatever that was.

And it continues to be an issue even now.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, that was our final speaker.

All right.

Thank you.

if there are no other additional registered speakers, remote or in person, we will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, briefing and discussion.

Seattle Safer Streets Act.

Thank you, and looks like our presenters have already joined us at the table.

Thank you, welcome.

Before I turn it over to our central staff partners, I wanna briefly acknowledge that since our first discussion, Mayor Wilson issued an executive order advancing several complimentary traffic safety actions.

I suppose great minds can arrive at some of the same intersections as we appear to have done and aligned on from a legislative and executive perspective.

And that's a good thing.

I'm pleased to see additional complimentary actions from the mayor.

The two efforts are complimentary, but distinct.

Executive action can move quickly.

Initiate changes today.

Legislation, by comparison, can establish durable requirements that survive changes in administrations, department leadership or priorities.

Again, the tools are complementary, not at all interchangeable.

Where something is important enough to institutionalize, there is real value and impact in putting it into law.

And if we're using our respective authorities to make streets safer, Seattle benefits.

Today, our focus is on doing our part from a legislative perspective and hearing how this package has evolved since our first discussion last month.

And before we also proceed with central staff, I just wanna note that one detail about the drafts that we will be reviewing today between being approved by me, approved by law, being uploaded to Legistar, the draft of the ordinances related to traffic safety, receive some light edits from the law department, particularly that first bill that we're gonna cover today.

So some edits on the technical side, most related to traffic safety, and most notably for the sake of consistency, the rest of the to be more in line with the rest of the SMC.

So our legal team believes that the ordinance need to reference both vulnerable users and public right away.

and vulnerable travelers, which I strongly support.

So these are the edits that are reflected in the red line version that we're gonna kind of cover today.

Hopefully we'll be able to upload a clean version of the doc to the agenda after this, if doable.

But the other two drafts have also of course been reviewed by our legal partners and they do not contain those edits.

All right, that said, Welcome, central staff.

I'll turn it over to you.

Can you please introduce yourselves and begin your presentation?

Amanda Allen with central staff.

Ann Gorman, central staff.

Okay, let's jump in.

Okay.

So today we are talking about the Seattle Safer Streets bills that Ann and I have been working on with the council member.

Here we go.

There are three pieces of legislation for your consideration.

First, we start off with the Traffic Safety Ordinance, then we'll move into the Traffic Safety Position Responsibilities, which touches on the SDOT chief safety officer and the traffic engineer roles.

And then lastly, we'll be covering the contracting recommendations regarded to the installation of side guards on contracted vehicles.

So just a little recap, at the August 20th meeting of this committee, we did brief you all on a draft version of the traffic safety ordinance and the traffic safety position responsibilities.

They were attached as informational items.

There have been some edits made since then, and we'll highlight what's changed between then and now.

And also at that meeting, we discussed the concept of legislation regarding side guards.

All three bills were attached to the September 8th committee agenda as informational items, just due to the timing of the recess and when there was a full committee meeting, they won't be able to be on the IRC until the introduction and referral calendar until September 15th.

I'm not expecting significant changes between now and then.

Today's focus really will be on what's changed since now in the last committee meeting and introduce to you all the contracting side guard recommendations ordinance, which has not been seen before.

So just a little recap of the traffic safety ordinance.

Reviewing from our last meeting, the legislation really focuses in on, as we discussed last time, recognizing the importance of Vision Zero and looking for ways to codified that importance and the importance of SDOT's work in contemplating traffic safety measures, incorporating those traffic safety measures into the work that's done in the planning and design phase, in operations, and also maintenance of transportation infrastructure.

It adds in some specific references to specific types of safety countermeasures, like leading pedestrian intervals, intersections, sight line enhancements, no turn on red restrictions.

And it also had, as we talked about, a request that the Washington State Department of Transportation return feedback on SDOT on ramps and on ramp designs within 180 days.

So that's what we covered last time.

New things to the traffic safety ordinance that you will see.

First is whenever SDOT conducts a major paving project there in the ordinance now, which wasn't there before, there is a call out for intersection site line upgrades to be made and to be considered.

and also a call out for the city traffic engineer to review project design and identify appropriate safety measure treatments.

Secondly, there are a couple places in the ordinance version that you would see today that incorporate additional data elements called out for annual reporting to provide some context on per capita incidents of serious injuries and fatalities and some requests for other data elements.

Moving on to the next slide, just calling out, we discussed a little bit at the last meeting SDOT's programmatic fatal crash response policy that they have rolled out in May.

And this version of the ordinance also recognizes that policy and identifies it as a baseline that we want the department to uphold.

and then related to that, there is a request for SDOT to submit a written report describing three different options for progressively more stringent responses that would go above and beyond what the current fatal crash response policy calls for.

So as far as policy considerations from where I sit and not having had a whole lot of time to talk to the department about this particular piece of legislation, there is some caution that SDOT might need some additional capacity to meet the annual reporting or the fatal crash policy options to create those new studies.

And that is where I end.

And I will hand it off to Ann.

So my piece of this presentation starts with an overview of the second of three bills that are in the Safer Streets rubric.

This bill would amend the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify the authority of the city traffic engineer with respect to traffic safety.

It would add in Seattle Municipal Code to the responsibilities of the city traffic engineer, the obligation to review and provide recommendations to enhance the safety of roadways and transportation infrastructure.

Again, that's a safety role.

It codifies this position's oversight of the city traffic safety programs, which include Vision Zero.

And it also codifies this position's direction of and ability to expedite safety improvements on streets with a history of high rates of traffic-related serious injuries and fatalities.

One policy consideration associated with this bill is that in giving the city traffic engineer broad safety oversight and incorporating that in the Seattle Municipal Code, the bill could enjoin a future SDOT director's potential intent to create a separate safety position.

for instance, a chief safety officer.

The SMC will reflect that the safety role is under the city traffic engineer.

Next bill is concerning side guard recommendations.

And this bill requests that FAS develop recommended requirements for the use of truck lateral protective devices, also known by truck side guards, which is what I will say, just for the purposes of saving some syllables, by all city contractors, subcontractors, vendors, and sub-vendors.

in asking FAS to do this work.

The bill also says that FAS may consider recommendations for the use of complementary safety devices, such as safety decals and certain mirrors.

An engagement process with industry and advocate participation should inform the development of any recommendations.

The recommendation should model Boston Municipal Code 4.8, which requires the use of truckside guards by Boston City contractors.

And the recommendations are requested by May 1st, 2027. And let me just back up.

I got a little ahead of myself.

FAS is the Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

The city fleets are managed by FAS when departments do not manage their own fleets.

some details about the work that the bill requests FAS to do.

It includes a minimum framework for the requested recommendations about truck side guards.

Essentially, it includes a spec for future recommendations.

and the dimensions that those recommendations should cover include the types and dimensions of vehicles to which they should apply, design, strength, dimension, composition, technical, fit, installation, and maintenance specifications, how and by whom inspections of these vehicles should be performed to make sure that the side guards are indeed in place and that they are installed as they should be, and the enforcement of any new regulations arising from the recommendations.

We were able to speak with FAS about this bill last week.

Very grateful to them for jumping in and providing their analysis.

They raised a couple issues which we have flagged as policy considerations.

FAS may require additional resources to develop the requested recommendations.

For instance, FAS does not have mechanical engineering capacity.

And FAS may not have capacity to perform and or oversee the requested body of work by the date that is currently in the ordinance.

Just as high-level examples, again, because FAS has only begun to engage with the bill, FAS suspected that they might need $200,000 or $300,000 for a contract for somebody to help develop the recommendations.

and the development of the contract, the procurement of a contractor, and the completion of the work, they estimate that typically they could do that more, six to nine months would be a timeframe that they would plan if they were setting up this work program for themselves.

So just a quick preview on next steps.

Today we're having a discussion on these bills.

On the 9th, central staff is hoping that we would have amendment ideas from the council members by close of business.

and then on the 15th, again, it will be on the Introduction and Referral Calendar and with anticipated discussion and vote on the 17th of this month.

So we're interested to hear your questions.

All right, well, thank you, Ms. Gorman, Ms. Allen, for your presentation, the overview, the first, the summation, Ms. Allen, with respect to the significant changes from the last iteration when we talked about the earlier two bills and then the newer stuff, of course.

So I really appreciate that.

I'm gonna jump into comments and questions, but before I do, wanna briefly address two kind of questions that I've had with various stakeholders about the package, you know, the last three, four weeks.

So one is, great questions.

One is, why are we studying a 72-hour fatal crash response instead of requiring one now?

Colleagues, you'll recall, we've heard in this committee, in multiple occasions, actually, you know, community requests during public comment period for a 72 hour post fatality crash response and remediations installed, remedial measures installed by SDOT, kind of in line with our 72 hour service level agreement, informal service level agreement or response posture that we have in place today for spot conditions, pavement conditions on a road, so pothole repair.

It's a great question.

Why not just require a 72-hour response, post-fatal crash response now with this legislation?

And I want the strongest possible policy that we can actually implement today or when this passes.

not an arbitrary deadline, unsupported by staffing and operational analysis, which this study and report would require.

Broadly, this package requires a genuinely stronger model triggered by notice of qualifying fatality.

So it codifies the existing policy as baseline, includes attaching it by reference.

So that's the new baseline.

And it would require a more stringent response model, including evaluation of a 72-hour initial site review and potential 14-day remediation with specific costs and implementation changes spelled out.

Today, The department has a policy which sets as a new baseline that basically says within 90 days or two to four weeks after receiving a final report from SPD, and those reports, by the way, can take anywhere from a few days, more likely a few weeks, and sometimes a few months to produce.

So current policy says, within two to four weeks after receiving SPD's final report, have to do a review, and then remediation isn't required until 90 days after that, if the department determines any remediation is necessary.

90 days after that, which is, can effectively be months, months, many months, compounded upon many months and years.

And so again, the intent and goal here is to establish a baseline that we know the department is capable of doing today, but also putting us, requiring progressively more stringent models to allow us to do better, because that's something that I would like to see, is something more along the lines of a 72-hour response model six-plus months what is effectively in place today.

The second question is, why not mandate contractor sideguards now?

Boston already did this years ago.

is absolutely true.

And when we were iterating, my office was iterating on this with our central staff, law, and community, it's one of the questions that I had.

There's quite literally a model in place today when we talk about Boston.

Here's the truth, Boston is a strong comparator, but Seattle has its own unique technical sound requirements that need to be specifically tailored to our own contracting, vehicle, freight, inspection, and enforcement environment.

This path, defined path, with a date certain to create and ultimately impose these truck side guards is not an open-ended study.

FAS must return by a date certain, May 1st, 2027, with specific requirements, implementation concepts, and sample legislative language for counsel to review.

And, um, and I'm a little confused by the comment about FAS, I understand our central staff is just reporting what they heard.

They might not be able to comply with May 1st or some other timeframe.

It's actually a good question.

Central staff, can you help us better understand the parallel truck side guard reporting requirement in the complementary executive order and the specific date required by that executive order?

Sure, I have some information here.

The executive order requests a report by January 31st, 2027. The report asks for a different body of work than this bill does.

With respect to truck side guards, the executive order asks for an opportunity impacts analysis, including a racial equity toolkit analysis of requiring city contractors to be outfitted with side guards and also with other enhanced safety features.

Your bill, Chair, is much more technical in nature, and, you know, it lists various dimensions regarding which you would like FAS to make requirements that would be applicable to all city contractors.

The executive order is very much in a similar subject area, but it is asking for another thing.

It seems reasonable to expect that after the requested report is delivered on January 31st of 2027, the mayor's office might consider developing actual requirements based on what it has heard about the opportunity and impacts analysis, but that's not what it's doing.

Yeah, thank you for that.

It's not what it's doing, and who knows?

Is it possible that the report due on the 31st could include, even though it doesn't specify or specifically call out or get to that level of granular detail dimensions, length, width, is it possible that departmental report due to the executive on January 31st could still nonetheless include that information?

I don't know.

All I can talk about is what is specifically in the executive order, and the executive order does not request that.

I don't know how often departments, in responding to an executive order, decide independently, I'm going to go above and beyond.

I'm also going to provide this extra body of work.

Well, to achieve the shared policy goal, I would hope they would, because I think our complimentary efforts are ultimately designed to achieve substantially the same policy goal.

And the fact we are giving them three months, deliberately giving them three extra months on top of their, executive date.

So in this one particular area we're building upon, the intent there is to build upon the executive work as it relates to that date and then report back.

So in any event, thank you for the clarity there.

At this point, we'll turn it over to comments, questions from you all, colleagues, starting first with Vice Chair Rank.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

As we discussed, these bills were in draft form during our last committee meeting before recess, with the understanding that changes were still being made, and that seems to be the case with the updated drafts before us today.

And since our last meeting, the mayor issued her Vision Zero executive order, something my office worked alongside the mayor's office on for a number of months and was proud to roll out in District 2 alongside Councilmember Lynn and a number of our transportation safety advocates.

And so I am seeing a lot of similarities between that executive order and what is before us today.

The chair mentioned this as well.

So from my understanding, I'm wondering if central staff, could you please unpack the core differences between that executive order and these pieces of legislation?

I will give it a shot at a high level.

The executive order is a couple pages long, and it's quite dense.

But for the purposes of this committee, I will give it a spin.

Let's see.

Here's some language from the executive order.

It directs SDOT to advance near-term safety improvements and larger projects along some of Seattle's highest crash streets while looking for ways to streamline project delivery.

And the way I read that is the executive order is, it's very operational.

in nature.

As an example, it specifically addresses 19 identified high collision locations.

The executive order also addresses other administrative actions that are outside of the purview of the council as the city's legislative body.

A couple things the executive order does, it directs the city to support legislation lowering Washington's maximum blood alcohol content for drivers to 0.5%, It expands participation in Seattle's School Streets program, which promotes safety by closing to through traffic, some streets that are adjacent to schools, and it commits to improved access to traffic safety information via an online dashboard.

Again, these are all very administrative in nature.

and it requires a report from FAS related to truck side guards, starting with an opportunity impacts analysis.

This requirement, if implemented, would fall on city contractors.

and depending on the size of the city contractor, depending on the number of employees of the contractor, how long they have been in business, a new potentially stringent requirement would be felt differently by different contractors.

And again, just the way I read the executive order, I see the executive as wanting to understand a little bit better what the implementation of any new requirements would look like before saying, and these are the requirements.

Thank you for walking through those pieces.

And just so I'm clear, as was stated, there's intended to be a complementary nature to these efforts.

What are the specific things, then, within this legislation that build upon what the executive's doing, the core differences?

I would say from the traffic safety ordinance perspective, the executive order, like Ann mentioned, is very operational.

So it's focused on having SDOT build projects faster.

It calls out specific areas where they want those projects to take place.

It calls out specific key project areas.

They have a list, a bolted list.

and it also directs SDOT to determine a set of project types and criteria where adjustments to current practices could be accelerated.

So it's very operational.

We wanna see specific projects changing.

In comparison, the traffic safety ordinance, as legislation must, is focused on the code and where we have influence over the code.

So really infusing the traffic safety goals into the work that SDOT does with their different authorities, responsibilities, reporting duties, and really ask them in a called out way to focus in on traffic safety.

So in that sense, they're complimentary in supporting the work that SDOT's already doing.

Certainly.

I suppose what I'm asking for is to think of, in a very visual sense, a Venn diagram, so to speak.

There are things within the executive order where there is overlap between these pieces of legislation.

There are operational pieces, as you just unpacked, that are really distinct about the executive order.

And then I suppose what I'm asking for is, when we think about that Venn diagram, what are the things that are captured by this legislation that are not overlapped by what the executive is doing?

So I think definitely the call out in the legislation on the, I'm always worried I'm gonna get the name wrong, on the programmatic fatal crash response policy, that's not part of the mayor's legislation.

It was a policy that was just published by SDOT back in May, so it's a recent win for the department to have that out there.

having that part of the traffic safety ordinance is something that's new and is different from the executive order.

Also calling out, this I think is more complimentary because the executive order does talk about accomplishing projects and accelerating projects.

It talks about capital projects.

In the traffic safety ordinance, we are calling out a request and a focus in on paving projects, which are a subset of capital projects to include traffic safety countermeasures.

So again, complimentary to what the mayor's doing, but a little bit more focused in on enhancing the sight lines.

And then I guess the last piece, which is related to the fatal crash response policy is making that request for the department to come back to provide alternatives that are on a shorter timeline than the policy that was just adopted in May.

Understood.

Thank you for unpacking that.

I think just with the separate efforts, it's helpful to unpack where are we similar, where are some of the core differences here.

And Amanda, I was struck earlier by something you said in committee, just that you haven't had time to check in with SDOT on additional policy considerations, wondering about level of involvement from the department and when we will receive their formal feedback on these pieces of legislation.

That's a fair question, and I will have to follow up with you about that.

We did share the drafts that were made public last week, and I haven't had a chance to talk with the department in depth yet.

Building on that point, I'm curious if there's a reason why we don't have the department at the table today to discuss these pieces of legislation as well.

And I will just state that I hope we will have an opportunity to hear from them, whether before the committee or formally in writing.

I do think their perspective on implementation is really important here.

But I did want to dive also into one of the pieces of legislation here as it's titled in our agenda packet.

This is information item 2945. This is where there's some language around requiring SDOT to obtain feedback from the Washington State Department of Transportation on designs for on-ramps and off-ramps.

And there's language here that states that in no case this can be more than 180 days for that timeline of receiving feedback from the Washington State Department of Transportation.

And listen, I am all for WSDOT working more closely with us.

We all benefit when we have different levels of government working together.

But as a state entity, we can't direct them like this, can we?

Is that correct?

The way that things are worded in the ordinance is that this is our request to the Washington State Department, because you are correct, Councilmember, we don't have jurisdiction to tell WSDOT what to do.

I wish we could sometimes, just given the complexity of our work, I know, across the city.

But I'm wondering if we've had a conversation with the Washington State Department of Transportation just to understand what is a reasonable timeline.

Particularly, I'm concerned about their inability to meet that timeline and any particular implications for SDOT since SDOT is the delivering partner.

I don't know if there have been conversations, maybe that's more a question for the sponsor, or maybe I'll just state publicly, I hope that we can engage the department, WSDOT, on what is a reasonable timeline so we can set everybody up for success.

I would hope 180 days is a reasonable timeline, but I would certainly like that confirmation.

And on that front, Councilmember, I can comment that the department shared that in most cases they are seeing that they're getting feedback within about three weeks.

So they are in most cases meeting that 180 day timeline.

I think what we're hearing or what the chair has been hearing is that there are some cases where that's not been the case.

So on that specific point, on the timeline, to my earlier point about dependencies, there are dependencies in all of this work, underlying all of this work.

And although it may be true that in some cases, or many cases, the department is reporting a three week review period by WSDOT, This legislation seeks to address those cases where it's not three weeks and where it's excessively long and where SDOT projects are therefore delayed and safety remains on the line.

and in keeping with the fact that we obviously cannot regulate another government, certainly not the state government.

That's why we frame this in the most legally defensible way possible.

It's a request and on the specific timeline, 180 days, we asked SDOT their suggestion for what would be reasonable here, recognizing that the department has a great relationship with WSDOT.

We still have our own respective interests at times and need to move our own projects along.

We're differently motivated at times.

So the 180 day mark was the, it was just a placeholder at first, but that was the suggestion from the department.

Thank you, Chair Saga.

It's helpful to unpack a bit more kind of where that figure comes from and what the current timelines are for getting that feedback back.

And to that end, this is kind of a separate but I think a related question since a number of components in here are providing additional discretion to the SDOT director and I wanna recognize that in this moment we don't have a permanent SDOT director.

And I know there's a fair amount of interest in this since our SDOT director will be the one leading on implementing and shepherding this Vision Zero work, which we all agree is tremendously important.

So I am wondering openly if we have a sense at this time of when we will have a permanent SDOT director.

I'm not aware of any timeline at the moment.

I can get back to you.

Thank you for that.

And I'll close with just a couple of procedural questions.

So the version before us, as I understand it has not, the versions before us of these pieces of legislation before us have not been introduced.

And if I'm understanding correctly, they will be put on the September 15th IRC for a committee vote on the 17th and I will note for the record, I'm a little concerned about a 48 hour turnaround for a bill that has been referred to committee.

And I noticed in the presentation today that central staff is establishing an amendment deadline for tomorrow.

Did I read that correctly?

You did, yes.

This is all very tight timeline if we're going to achieve a vote on the 17th.

and this is a first for me.

I've never seen an amendment deadline for a piece of legislation that has not formally been introduced yet.

How is that possible?

I can only tell you that we've been working out how to make all the pieces fit and this is the timeline that we developed to try to achieve this vote date.

and I apologize for my candor in that.

That was new information learning here in committee just right now that we would have an amendment deadline for tomorrow.

I was under the impression that we would be following a usual process where a bill would be officially introduced and amendment deadline would be set in between its introduction and the committee vote.

So with that kind of timeline in mind, and a question for the sponsor.

I mean, do we anticipate any changes to the underlying drafts before us, before it is formally introduced?

These, and you can have my commitment.

These are the versions that are uploaded in IRC in the legislature right now.

These are the versions that are gonna appear on IRC next week.

And so we can treat these as the baseline for purposes of any amendment concepts you might have, et cetera.

These are the documents.

clean versions of them.

Thank you, thank you, Chair.

And I'll just close with a note, and thank you for affording me the time to ask all of these questions.

We can all agree that Vision Zero work is tremendously important, and we need to see progress on these efforts.

And as we are now, luckily, have the engagement of both the legislative branch and the executive branch on these efforts, making sure we're clear on role clarity, how these efforts are building on one another, is just very important to me.

So I wanna thank you again, Chair, for time in committee today, and I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Kettle, floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Thank you, central staff, for being here and for the update.

Very helpful.

Obviously, traffic safer ordinance shows the need for safer streets and the need for the bill.

Safe, accountable, flexible, equitable, and responsive.

and it shows the need to support Vision Zero.

I appreciate this and this is one reason why I like my district funds are all dedicated to basically Vision Zero projects, you know, safe routes to school, you know, just traffic calming, all the rest and basically arcing from uptown Westlake up through Queen Anne over into Magnolia and I think that's really important to really support this and I think everybody and I have a sense that they are, like all elements believe in Vision Zero, so we have to look for our opportunities to improve it.

One way for me, just as a district rep, is using these district funds, obviously as chair of this committee, is to come forward with this Safer Seattle, Seattle Safer Streets ordinance.

and I think it's really important.

I think it's important in the areas of safety countermeasures.

This is really important.

But as noted by Vice Chair, the complexity of our work really demands for that community involvement.

One thing I've learned over the years, both in the community and now here in council, is the need to get that kind of everyday on the ground experience of dealing with whatever that challenge is.

And so even we have fixes.

The fixes may have some need for tweaks.

And one way to address that beforehand is to have that coordination with committee.

And so that's something that I just want to foot stomp on a little bit because it comes up again now and again, and I think having that coordination with SDOT and my office is always here to support any interaction with District 7 organizations to facilitate any safety countermeasures, any safety plans, Division Zero and otherwise.

Major projects, again, need to coordinate with community, and this is like an area too where in terms of having ideas and then the operational piece as it was being described with the EEO is that we need to ensure that our areas are covered and that we have a good baseline and underpinning for everything that we do.

Now when it comes to major projects, and I'm just gonna highlight a question that's gonna come down for Mr. Laborde who's in chambers today, is that what is a major project?

What is a project that can have an impact in terms of preventing the loss of life?

And there's obviously the main roads like Rainier, these different places that are well known to everybody, but we should also not forget that, like for example, Magnolia Bridge.

When we did the Seattle Transportation, the levy and the plan, we really highlighted the bridges program.

And I say this because I was with Parks at Smith Cove.

Smith Cove Park is moving along.

Great work being done by Parks.

But when you stand beneath the Magnolia Bridge, you recognize that it just takes one instant.

And there may be a lot of cars on that bridge when there's an earthquake or whatever it may be.

And then you can match some of these area problem spots in one second in the event of a major earthquake.

And so we should not be forgetting those projects too.

We should keep that strategic outlook.

And I say that because I'm not sure what's happened with the Magnolia Bridge Study and some of the work and also the first responder connector between the Smith Cove Marina and then over into Magnolia because these are important.

And I just wanted to take the opportunity to highlight that because in an instant, we can have a tragedy equal in terms of number of cars, number of individuals affected than what we've seen in some of our challenges that we see more day to day.

Chair, the last thing I wanted to say, just before the recess I had a meeting with the media and there were some questions regarding the public safety.

and this actually was the day of the mayor's press conference and so forth, which I did not know about, for the record.

I did not know she was having that afternoon.

And some of the questions I was receiving was related to pedestrian and traffic safety.

And I made the point that, yes, public safety, but our system is that I work with my public safety vice chair, and then vice versa.

I work with him as chair of this committee to work those pedestrian and traffic safety issues.

And this is something that I've been doing for over a decade now, going between community and here in the council.

Because in community, Queen Anne Community Council, for example, every year I would have two meetings combined with the transportation committee of that council.

One on pedestrian safety, where we would have SDOC come and brief the issues related to Queen Anne and its immediate surrounding areas, and then one separately with traffic safety with SPD.

So these are two really important areas for me, and they do apply to public safety, but based on those questions I got, Chair, I just think it was important for me right now just to highlight that so everybody's clear that, yes, it is public safety, but as the way the committees are structured and so forth and the responsibilities.

These areas I'm looking to work partner with you chair on pedestrian traffic safety and obviously vice versa on more general issues of public safety.

And so I just wanted to take the opportunity to say that because that came up just before the recess and I just wanted to address it.

All right, thank you chair.

Awesome.

Thank you, council member Kettle.

Well said, appreciate your partnership and this and all of our broader public safety efforts as well.

Um, we have a, we have a charter responsibility to keep people safe and that means keeping people safe on our, in our neighborhoods.

Uh, also means keeping people safe on our roads and our public rights away.

So, um, and starting by protecting our most vulnerable users, which this legislation does exactly that.

So anyway, appreciate your comments.

Any other comments, questions on this?

Turning it over to Council Member Lynn, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks for all your work on this legislation.

I do think it's great that we're working this Vision Zero issue from our side, the mayor's office does theirs.

And I agree with you that, you know, there's the implementation side and then there's the longevity and making sure we have this in law.

And I guess one just concern I have is on the timing, the amendments deadline.

And, you know, as discussed earlier, I would be interested in hearing SDOT's feedback and just want to make sure that, not that we have to adopt what they say, but I do just want to make sure that this is going to work for them as well and if there are potential concerns or tweaking of anything that I'd like to have the time to bring those forward for discussion.

So I'm not sure of just putting that out there, not sure if there, I know there's some urgency to this and I wanna meet the timelines that you're working under.

At the same time, I wanna make sure that we have sort of feedback and kind of to that idea of the longevity, making sure that we get it right.

So just happy to chat offline.

I just want to put that out there.

Again, thanks for bringing this forward.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn.

Appreciate your comments and excellent feedback there.

I'll say that my office has been working closely with SDOT on this, especially the last six weeks plus, even before that.

on various higher level aspects of this.

They have reviewed and provided my office with extensive feedback.

And my office has met with the department, met directly with the department and the executive, the mayor's office, on our complimentary efforts numerous times.

and I would encourage you, Council Member Lynn, Vice Chair as well, anyone to meet directly with the department yourselves.

And I also think for a council-led initiative, council-sponsored initiative, not at all unusual to, in fact, it's pretty standard practice to, when we talk about who's at the table, to have our central staff at the table, sometimes community at the table, but not having the executive branch.

This is a legislative effort.

This is a legislative effort.

Wanna underscore, foot stomp that as well.

It's complimentary.

with parallel executive action as well.

But I'm pleased to see the executive action and this legislation allows us to control our own controllables as well on the legislative side.

And so again, would encourage you all colleagues to meet with the department and engage with them, but I know my office has throughout this process, especially the last couple months.

So I appreciate the feedback.

All right, any other comments, questions?

Okay, hearing, seeing none.

Thank you again, Ms. Gorman, Ms. Allen for the presentation today, all your hard work that allowed us to get to this milestone.

Appreciate the partnership today and on a going forward basis as well.

All right, we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Our next meeting will be held on Thursday, September 17th, 2026 at 9.30 AM.

We will vote on the Safer Streets Act at that next meeting.

As a reminder, amendment concepts are due to central staff by closing business tomorrow, September 9th.

Is there any final business before we come to adjourn this meeting?

Hearing and seeing no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned.