SPEAKER_14

Good morning.

The Public Safety Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.33 a.m.

September 24th, 2024. I'm Robert Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_15

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Present.

Councilmember Moore.

SPEAKER_11

Present.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson should be coming in a few minutes.

Councilmember Saka.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are four members present with one on the way.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

If there's no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Looking and hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to our next Public Safety Committee meeting.

I really appreciate everyone in attendance for today's a discussion regarding real-time crime center and closed-circuit TV legislation that we have before us.

Before starting, I wanted to say thank you to the team with the City of Seattle and the executive, and also King County for their agreement on the King County Jail.

The agreement recently announced is very, very important to what we're doing here with our strategic framework plan.

And I really appreciate the effort that went into that agreement, both on the city side and the county side, because it's really important for the county and the city to work together on the public safety challenges that we face.

I also note that the King County, the director of public defense has resigned her position and I just wanted to note that public defense is very, very important for our criminal justice system.

It is under staffing challenges, like many elements of the criminal justice system.

And we have to work with the county, with the state, to help work through those challenges, particularly in light of pending Supreme Court action on that front.

So I look forward to the new Director of Public Defense meeting that person, once identified by King County.

Speaking of the jail too, one thing that we also need to keep in mind is the long-term.

This is a five-year agreement with the King County Jail, periodically reviewed, but there's long-term goals related to what the county's looking at regarding the jail and so forth.

So we need to be mindful and engaged to understand that to ensure that our long-term needs are met.

And speaking of long-term needs to the criminal justice system, again, many conversations that we're having with individuals on Blake Fix adjustments and the follow-on actions that still need to be done and ensure that our criminal justice system is set here at the city level.

And the statewide public defender look, we have major issues, and again, We need the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, and the Governor to be practical in the sense that we have to be able to work through the challenges that we face in public defense while maintaining the viability and the strength of the criminal justice system.

Because it will have an impact for all the work that we're doing.

If elements of the criminal justice system falter, that will undo all the work that we're doing in terms of creating a safe base in our city and addressing the permissive environment that exists.

So thank you for everyone again for attending.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

Clerk, how many are signed up for today?

SPEAKER_15

We have 13 in-person public commenters and 13, 12 online with some not quite present yet.

SPEAKER_14

We'll have one minute each.

And I also support, as a father of a nine-year-old, our public commenter who's already commenting.

Really appreciate her or his early involvement in public affairs.

And so welcome to the youngest, no doubt, of the audience today.

So thank you.

We will start with in-person.

and then go to the remote speakers.

Clerk, can you please read the rest of the public comment instructions?

SPEAKER_15

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

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they 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 the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is Miles Portman.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

So you guys passed legislation the other day and this is what it sounds to and which is really bad.

Need immediately to repeal the so zone or there's no allotment of funds for clearly marked signs saying drug free zone, etc.

Also, some constitutional defined by Judge Holmes dissent and Abraham versus United States and corporate seems regarding clear and present danger regarding government interference.

Connected does not determine causes such or even caused by drugs.

Use it is speculation like fan fireworks legislation regarding blowing your hands up.

Legalization is lawsuit is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Practice on speech.

He continues should not be curtailed.

There are the present unless there's a present danger of media evil or defendant intend to create such a danger.

Evidence in this case is a two leaf list.

The same as walking down the street, which they concluded not meet the clear present danger test.

Justice Holmes ultimately found that clear and present danger tests, as articulated, are insufficient to protect basic constitutional rights of us and its descendant.

Later in his year in Abingdon, he wrote, we should be extremely vigilant against checks to detect obstruction of opinions unless they so animally threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purpose of the law that is to immediately check this current country.

Can you prove the defendant was arrested, that the defendant came back in the area and just committed a crime caused by a drug or detained such drug?

Can you prove the defendant knew they were in possession of such drug and the crime was caused by such drug before conviction possible?

Can you prove that they were detained such drug or committed a crime drug?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Next.

Next up, we have Cynthia Spies to be followed by BJ Last.

SPEAKER_23

Hi, I'm Cynthia Spees.

I'd like to clarify a few things.

An analysis of all English language studies on CCTV systems found they had no significant effects on violent crime.

You don't need to waste money on a pilot when we already know the answer.

Data sharing isn't the issue.

It's the vendor being compelled under warrant.

You can't write an enforceable contract clause that says you're immune to state or federal laws.

No judge is going to honor that.

This isn't a pilot because neither SIR defines a time limit for the program.

Throwing out thousands of public comments that oppose these surveillance technologies is not good governance or good science.

All that is is self-centered biasing of the outcome and killing democracy.

It seems the current administration's one Seattle way just means surround yourself with yes-men and ignore the Office of Civil Rights, the Community Surveillance Working Group, and the public.

Approving this is giving a blank check to Axon.

All you're doing is buying into slick marketing hype.

The data does not back it up.

This is a wasteful use of taxpayers' money.

Don't pass these bills.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

BJ Last to be followed by Matt Offenbacher.

SPEAKER_29

Good morning.

My name is BJ Last.

I'm presenting counsel with a letter signed by 60 community organizations calling for the city to reject CCTV and RTCC because they create harm, not safety.

Since y'all say you like data, it has over 60 studies and cases demonstrating this.

behind this don't know what they're talking about.

You're saying that the Rainier Beach Action Coalition, the CID Coalition, the Chief Seattle Club, Massage Parlor Outreach Project, Who Streets Our Streets, Asian Counseling and Referral Service don't know what creates safety.

You're saying Casa Latina, El Centro de la Raza, Wisen, don't know what create threats to immigrants.

You're saying the ACLU, Planned Parenthood advocates, and others do not know what are actual threats for people seeking abortion health care.

You are saying that CARE doesn't understand surveillance being used to target certain...

You're saying that Friends of Denny Blaine does not understand this city using processes to target certain groups by the wealthy in this city who are comfortable enough with the mayor to send him unsolicited nude pics.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Matt Offenbacher, to be followed by Steve Humphrey, I think.

SPEAKER_02

Good morning, Council.

I'm a resident of Capitol Hill and a small business owner in Soto.

And I'm here to ask you to reject the tech-assisted crime pilot today.

At the top of their impact report, SBD claims that this tech will prevent gun violence and help people who have been coerced into sex work.

The thing is, excuse me, all the evidence points towards this tech being exactly the wrong tool for achieving these important goals.

On the other hand, if your intention is to create zones of the city where people feel continually under suspicion and threat of arrest, if your intention is to harass immigrants, people of color, and other minoritized communities, then you're on the right track with these bills.

Community problems require community solutions.

This pilot is expensive, and these funds are much better directed to groups who are already doing the work of community safety.

This is what, for example, Mr. Gregory Davis of the Rainier Beach Action Committee is talking about when he says, our tech is better than that tech.

Our tech are young people, their ingenuity, and their genius.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

SPEAKER_01

My name is Steve.

My name is Steve Pumphrey.

I live at 1005 Harbor Avenue.

I'm here in support of Council Bill 12844 and specifically Council Member Saka's amendment to that bill.

I and my neighbors face a clear and present danger.

In the past 12 to 18 months, we can identify five purposeful killings along Harbor and Alki.

Three months ago, a 22-year-old man was killed in front of my home by approximately 4 a.m., and after calling 911, I watched him die in the street.

I had a window blown out by one of the bullets, as did a neighbor.

There have been four other killings on Harbor and Alki in the last year, and one stabbing between my home and Luna Park.

Seattle lacks police resources, and nothing can be done short of using electronic systems of some type to investigate and solve crime.

We do not know the outcome of any of these crimes I just described because we are not aware that anybody has been apprehended or convicted.

Fixed location CCTV can help to investigate and eliminate some of this type of crime.

It is not intrusive if it's used properly, and we think it's important to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Mike Gain, to be followed by Greg Drubnick.

SPEAKER_08

Good morning.

I'm a lifelong West Seattle resident, and I work with a group called the Harbor Alki Community Group, looking for the betterment of our neighborhood and our community.

I'm definitely in support of CB bill 120844 and Rob Saka's amendment number four.

We continually experience gun violence, felony crimes, carjackings, car break-ins, group gatherings, all kinds of activities in our neighborhood.

Over the past few years, many of the community have just become numb to it.

We have experienced multiple gun deaths.

We hear group gatherings and gunshots fired, and it's become something that we've just gotten used to, sadly.

Community members don't even bother calling 911 anymore because they know from experience officers cannot respond.

Sadly, we just don't have the adequate number of officers to properly police our area.

So the cameras, they're a good way to solve this problem, and they don't discriminate.

That's what's good about cameras.

They're colorblind.

They don't care where you're from, your ethnicity, your beliefs.

They cover the diversity issues.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Greg Drubnick to be followed by Shannon Woodman.

SPEAKER_06

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for your time.

And to Rob Saka for helping sponsor this, the CB 120844, amendment number four.

I live on Alki Avenue.

I've been on Alki for eight years, but I've lived in Marine View Drive, West Seattle my whole life.

I've experienced break-ins, I've experienced people at four o'clock in the morning, two guys riding bicycles with crowbars going into car to car to car, I know that the Seattle police is doing everything they can, but with lack of police, the cameras is a solution, at least to keep an eye on.

And as Mike said, there's no diversity in who is doing it, how it's being done, when it's being done.

We'd like to have some type of relief and some help.

And I think that's a solution is the camera system up and down Harbor Avenue and Alki.

We've seen the crime grow, grow, grow year after year after year from murder to break-ins to stealing.

We really appreciate you thinking about this and giving it the best consideration for our neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Good morning, I'm Shannon Woodman of Washington Alarm.

My family has been securing lives and property in this great city for over 80 years.

I'm also a homeowner and a building owner, and both of those have security systems in them.

We were notified one week ago that Seattle Police Department is changing their alarm response policy effective October 1st.

Effective October 1st, they will require audio or visual verification to dispatch an officer.

In the city of Seattle, their mission statement says they will work with the citizens of Seattle.

Yet in 2024, they have not worked with our alarm industry, our experts, including our associations, and best practices on how to reduce false alarms.

Two weeks time is not enough time for us to notify our 65,000 alarm users in city of Seattle, nor to change alarm response protocols in our monitoring stations.

We are asking for more time to study this issue.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Bethany Burton to be followed by Ashley Barber.

SPEAKER_00

Good morning, Council.

Bethany with CILSA Northwest, which represents the security and fire alarm industry in Washington State.

Last week, the Seattle Police Department changed its dispatching protocol effective October 1st to now require supporting evidence such as audio, visual, panic alarms, or eyewitness evidence that a person is illegally entering or attempting to enter a property.

This two weeks notice provided by the SPD is inadequate for planning and implementing the updates required for the 65,000 security system owners in Seattle.

We are respectfully requesting additional time to coordinate with our local businesses and residences who would like to upgrade their systems.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Ashley Barber.

SPEAKER_31

Good morning, council members.

My name is Ashley Barber.

Just last week, I was informed that Seattle PD would no longer be responding to non-verified false alarms as of October 1st, 2024. This change has been in process for eight months with no collaboration from industry, customer, or experts.

I am the daughter of a retired police chief.

I understand firsthand the strain on resources that our police department is experiencing.

I have also worked in the security industry for more than 13 years.

False alarms are an existing problem.

law enforcement and the security industry can work together to come up with a solution that benefits our customers in a way that doesn't leave them stranded and vulnerable at the most dangerous moment.

All I ask is for additional time to come together to work on solving this issue for once and for all.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Peter Condit to be followed by Renee Peters.

SPEAKER_10

Good morning, Council.

My name is Peter Condit.

I live in Green Lake.

I'm against surveillance in Seattle and against integrating private cameras into real-time crime centers.

I do not want police or artificial intelligence systems to watch me and my family as we go about our lives.

Surveillance leads to self-censoring and a loss of individuality, creativity, and, of course, privacy.

City Council should reject these police technologies and instead use the millions they would cost on public health-based safety and community supports like housing, food access, and libraries.

The harmful impacts of surveillance and policing in general fall disproportionately on individuals who have already experienced violence from white supremacy and colonialism.

SPD commissioned a study in 2001 that showed that SPD stops black and native Seattleites over seven times more often than white Seattleites.

And police have a pattern of killing people they interact with, including Charlena Lyles and John T. Williams.

Black lives matter.

Indigenous lives matter.

Vote no on CCTV and RTCC.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Renee Peters to be followed by Jean Park.

And then we'll move into remote speakers.

SPEAKER_32

My name is Renee Peters.

I'm one of the co-chairs for the Community Surveillance Working Group.

I restate that five of six of the working group members do not support the continuation of the proposals.

I personally am concerned that there's not been enough time to ensure that the 12 individual concern areas that we highlight in our assessment have been acknowledged and integrated into the summaries or memos that have been produced in the last week or so.

Furthermore, there's no opportunity to review amendments with the same rigor, which represents a big risk.

For example, amendment number three expands the Aurora surveillance zone about 25 streets, which represents a fundamental change in what we're evaluating.

I've made it clear and apparent that I and other working group members are happy to be a resource for the committee and council to answer questions or provide color to the assessment that we've submitted.

we should establish better representation of and support from the working group as a standard part of these sessions and beyond.

And given that these proposals aren't retroactive, we still have a chance to address safety without compromising community trust by centering these community concerns.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Jean Park to be followed by Vanessa Reyes, and then that's it for in-person speakers.

SPEAKER_30

Good morning, counsel.

I'm from Capitol Hill.

And my main concern is with ShotSpotter.

There has been a study from Cambridge showing that there's an 87% false positive rate.

And the Boston police have found that 70% of the alerts they've gotten has shown no evidence of a gunshot.

And as somebody who works in tech, these kinds of technologies always rely on really large data sets.

So they're always gathering data.

And the thing is with data and the internet is that it has a tendency to stay on the internet for a very long time.

it has a tendency to come back and bite you in the butt when you least expect it.

I'm sure Tanya Wu knows as her tweets have cost has been resurfaced recently.

So you're trying to introduce a technology that's going to cost thousands of dollars a day and going to alert the police for things that they don't need to be alerted on wasting more money.

And I feel like this is a waste of time and also a There needs to be more time to look into how our data is going to be tracked, is going to be used, and how this technology will be prevented from being used by bad actors.

SPEAKER_99

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

SPEAKER_30

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Vanessa Reyes will be our last in-person speaker before we go to the remote speakers.

SPEAKER_12

Good morning, council members.

My name is Vanessa Reyes.

I'm the policy manager with the Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network, and I'm here today to express my concerns about expanding the use of surveillance technologies for the Seattle Police Department.

The technologies you're considering, real-time crime center and closed-circuit TV, are expensive and have been found to be ineffective at deterring crime.

More importantly, they pose serious civil liberty concerns and harms for immigrant and refugee communities, as well as for people who are seeking abortions and gender-affirming care.

Of concern is how these technologies can allow the circumvention of Keep Washington Working and the Washington Shield Law by providing avenues for our data to be sold to private corporations or shared with DHS for federal immigration enforcement actions or other states who are seeking to prosecute people seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care.

Around the country, immigrants, women, and trans and queer communities are facing persecution and attacks.

It would be irresponsible for Seattle to expand the surveillance to undermine the sanctuary protections we have.

Please vote against the technologies.

And I also urge you to consider studies around the use and impact for these technologies.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

We're going to the remote speakers.

The first remote speaker is Trevona Thompson Wiley.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you have been unmuted.

SPEAKER_20

Hi, my name is Trayvonna and I'm a longtime resident of Seattle.

I'm calling in to urge you to reject SPD's request to purchase CCTV and RTCC and invest the 1.5 currently allocated for them in equitable and evidence-based strategies for gun violence prevention.

I've grown up in Seattle most of my life and I've seen firsthand how police use surveillance tools to over-police black and brown communities.

It's actually hilarious to hear from community members to tell black and brown folks that cameras are colorblind and look at everything.

When we know that surveillance is a powerful tool of social oppression, BIPOC communities have been under surveillance and suspected of wrongdoing since colonizers first arrived on these shores.

When those are most impacted say they don't want surveillance and that it will be harmful and the response in the city is rooted in assumption of guilt, that is an expression of racism and classism and sexism and a continuation of the colonial project.

Do we have issues to address when it's harmed?

Yes, we do.

However, our community is demanding real solutions.

It's concerning that the city council is using city money to invest in systems that have been known to fail.

Many evidence-based programs already exist in Seattle that's already doing the work, reject this proposal from SPD and put the money into community.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

The next remote speaker is Charlotte Stark.

Reminder to please press star six.

SPEAKER_19

I'm Charlotte Stark from Alki, supporting Councilman Saka's Amendment 4 to include also Alki and Harbor Avenue.

We have city police chiefs, lieutenants, school districts swearing by CCTV cameras that they are a game changer and the most important technology tool in policing.

We have thousands of cameras on Alki at any given weekend on a sunny weekend in the hands of thousands of people with no expectation by the public in a public space That video on public property will not be taken.

This is the age and the era that we all live in.

That includes even ring cameras and security cameras on businesses aiming towards streets.

We've had 11 shootings at least in less than four years.

We've had at least eight shooting victims.

And on top of that, a number of fatalities.

And in addition to that, a hail of gunfire that has riddled cars and homes to the point that we have nearly a hundred shots fired that did not hit people, but certainly scare people into living in the status of fear.

We need the protection and we need the eyes.

And I urge you to support Councilman Saka's amendment four.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Rose Harriet Sithavong.

Sorry if I am mispronouncing that.

SPEAKER_25

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

My name is Rose Harriet and I am a concerned community member who's also a survivor of serious harm, serious violence.

I am deeply concerned by the conversation that's happening here today as a survivor that does nothing to address surveillance, does nothing to address safety.

All you are, all you are doing is continuing to perpetuate racism by surveilling communities of color.

I and other survivors will not be made more safe by surveillance.

What will make us more safe is providing preventative services to our community members.

We will not be made more safe by having our bodies, our actions caught on camera.

Harm caught on camera does not make us more safe.

What we actually need is preventative services.

What we actually need is to be considered part of public of the public.

BIPOC community members deserve resources.

We know as community that things that will keep us more safe, what will prevent harm, what will prevent violence is a healthy environment, which is BIPOC youth-led programming, housing, healthy food, access to resources, education, healthcare, basic supplies.

SPEAKER_15

Next up is Margaret Spitznas.

Reminder to press star six.

Yeah, go ahead.

SPEAKER_18

I am Margaret.

I'm the executive director of SILSA Northwest, which is the Security Integration and Life Safety Association of the Northwest.

Excuse me.

And I represent the alarm dealers and by proxy their customers.

I've been in the industry for 35 years.

And as an association, we have worked with many jurisdictions, on alarm ordinances.

I am here to talk about the new policy from the police chief about responding only to verified alarms.

Statistics show that 85% of the alarm users' sites do not produce any calls for service in a given year.

We are wondering if it's fair to penalize these alarm owners for the bad conduct of a few who can be dealt with with fines or other penalties or just not, no response to those.

We would like to collaborate with the police department and ask to postpone the enforcement of this policy on October 1st so we can talk and come up with better solutions.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Next up, we have Helen Gilbert to be followed by Aiden Carroll.

SPEAKER_16

Hi, my name's Helen Gilbert.

I live in Northeast Seattle and I'm speaking today for Radical Women and a group we're working with, the Puget Sound Mobilization for Reproductive Justice.

We urge you to reject proposed surveillance technology that would threaten privacy and has historically been shown to not stop crime.

As feminists, we're very concerned that these additional spy cameras could be used to prosecute women seeking abortions when they've fled from states where the procedure is criminalized.

And that would also enable stalkers and abusive partners to gain access to whereabouts of potential victims.

We know that such technologies disproportionately harm people of color.

And if nothing else, the fact your own civilian community committee is against the plan because of its threat to civil liberties.

should convince you all to reject this expensive and harmful plan.

Stopping crime needs money spent toward human services, education, drug treatment, mental health treatment, and ending poverty.

We urge you to put the money where it can be useful.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Next up, we have Aiden Carroll.

Go ahead, Aiden.

Aiden, can you go ahead?

All right, we're gonna move on to Casper Sparks.

Casper.

Please press star six.

There you go.

SPEAKER_21

Good morning.

I'm speaking today to voice my opposition to surveillance tech in Seattle.

In December of last year, Texas Attorney General subpoenaed Seattle Children's Hospital seeking patient medical records because they suspected that Texas residents might travel to our city to receive gender affirming care.

If surveillance tech was in place at that time, they could just ask SPD nicely.

And I simply don't trust that Seattle Police Department would value our privacy over friendly cooperation with another law enforcement agency.

Further, I will remind the council that you have already heard from countless organizations, experts, and constituents about why surveillance tech doesn't work.

You are fully informed about the risks and hazards this tech brings to the citizens of Seattle.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

We're gonna go back to Aiden Carroll.

Aiden, please push star six.

Aiden, you're on.

SPEAKER_17

that would make us safer.

But when you get down to the details, it's never that simple.

It's never just, Oh, we're going to find, identify the bad guys and make them stop being bad.

Like life doesn't work that way.

And the fact is there is a whole lot of scientific evidence about how we can reduce crime.

And this council has been told over and over and doesn't really want to hear it now, but at least to the flip side, Imagine you live in the 1850s, trying to operate the Underground Railroad, when there are cameras on every corner.

Imagine you live in the 1770s, when it's still, officially, we don't have freedom of speech here, and you get locked up by saying that we shouldn't be a monarchy anymore.

These are not abstract issues.

If you are seeking an abortion or an undocumented immigrant or an assault survivor, these are real concrete problems that don't have an alternative.

The way real problems like shootings do have alternatives, you have been offered them and rejected them.

You do not want safety.

You want the illusion of safety.

Look, we can...

Thank you, Aiden.

SPEAKER_15

Next up, we have Katie Gendry.

SPEAKER_24

Hello, my name is Katie Gendry, and I'm calling in today to reject Council Bill 12844 and its amendments and the implementation of surveillance technology, CCTV, RTCC, and automated license plate leaders.

There's so much data that proves that surveillance does not keep us safe.

cameras everywhere, spying on the people of Seattle and cops tracking people and vehicles across our city does not prevent or stop violence.

This surveillance violates the people's civil rights and privacy.

This is an expensive waste of precious public money, which we need to spend on funding programs and resources that actually reduce violence, like meeting people's needs, outreach, food, housing, healthcare, voluntary treatment, et cetera.

These public comments are a part of Seattle's public history.

You need to remember this, as so many Seattleites call in to reject your carceral visions.

You're not listening to the thousands of people and 60 organizations in Seattle who have been opposing this.

People will look back on history and on these public comments and see how your actions and decisions do not reflect what the people want, what your constituents want.

You are threatening our democracy with these fascist, racist bills.

Do not pass this creepy, horrific bill.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Next up, we have Shane Clary.

SPEAKER_28

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Dr. Shane M. Cleary, Vice President of Code and Standards Compliance for Bay Alarm Company.

I have been in the alarm industry for 50 years, and I'm speaking in regards to the policy that we were just notified of last week by the Seattle Police Department that goes into effect on October 1st.

And we're just asking that we slow this down just a bit so that the industry can meet with representatives of the Seattle Police Department to go over the requirements of the policy.

There are other solutions besides what they are suggesting.

There is the cost factor that right now for once the policy were to go into effect that would require technology that most businesses and residents do not have and at that I thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Next up, we have David Haynes.

SPEAKER_34

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

Maybe City Council Chair should take it upon himself to call all those noble crime-fighting cops who quit out of principle and protest under Adrian Diaz and ask them to come back and offer the $50,000 bonus and overtime to be used to fight crime.

I say this because can we really trust the executive to choose the proper technology to enhance the cops ability to pinpoint the accuracy of combating crime?

Let's be real about this folks.

Bruce Harrell, the mayor and Tim Burgess, the deputy mayor both used to be on the city council and they are the original vote to exempt drug pushers from jail.

They're the first backstab on our community that started the implosion of society that we're dealing with now, and yet they're the ones in charge of screening cops and choosing tools cops get to use to make.

It makes you wonder, is the mayor going to choose a low-quality lens on the camera for CCTV to make it more difficult to see the drug activity?

Is he going to make a huge announcement about the cameras being installed, giving the criminals another heads-up like the previous chief did?

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Next up, we have Max Doggett.

SPEAKER_27

I'm a Seattle City resident here to oppose the surveillance bill.

I have little faith the council will do justice by the community.

We are here to bear witness.

We know that these draconian surveillance loitering bills are thinly veiled, remarketed, rebranded tools of The police department, which is really a, you know, a reiteration of play catchers.

I mean, just look up the history if you have any doubt or think that's hyperbole.

I'm grateful for all the people in the community organizations who have come out.

I think it's very telling that the people in favor of this bill that I've heard so far are all residents of luxury property.

And the people opposed to it represent marginalized communities, like people seeking abortion care from other states where it's prohibited and they're repressed.

And with the rest of my time, since they've spoken so eloquently and better than I could on this, I'd like to offer a moment of silence for the victims of this case, like Jindal B. Kandula, Iosif Otego, Ollie Herbert, Don T. Williams, Elena Lyles, and many more.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Our penultimate speaker is Lila B.,

SPEAKER_22

Hi, my name is Lila B in District 4. I urge you to vote no on CB 120845 and CB 120844 and do not advance RTCC and CCTV.

I'm very glad that ShotSpot or GunSpot detection software is not currently on the table because that technology's inherent fault led to the Chicago police murdering 14-year-old Adam Toledo by mistakenly detecting gunshots.

That is not a product of Chicago specifically.

That is a product on surveillance and is something that will likely happen here as a result of these ineffective and dangerous technologies.

You promised that RTCC and CCTV won't add AI or facial recognition for now, but all that's required to change that is a software update and the whim of this council and those promises are hollow.

Last committee meeting, Councilmember Kettle said that Seattle's implementation of these technologies would somehow be more accountable because the consent decree And that makes Seattle unique somehow.

There are actually at least seven other places that have both a consent decree and real-time crime center, including Chicago, who killed 14-year-old Adam Toledo, along with Baltimore, Springfield, Newark, Albuquerque, et cetera.

Seattle is not any more accountable because there is a consent decree.

The reason Seattle has a consent decree is because of a federally recognized pattern of bias and brutality.

I yield the rest of my time.

Vote no.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Our last speaker is T.

Sannin.

SPEAKER_26

Hi, my name is T.

Shannon, speaking on behalf of the ACLU of Washington in strong opposition of the pilot program.

My research shows that both technologies do not reduce violent crime.

Instead, increasing surveillance will disproportionately harm communities of color.

Storing RTCC data in the cloud will make it possible for ICE and red states to prosecute immigrants and people coming to Seattle for reproductive and gender-affirming health care while bypassing state protections like the shield block.

SPD safeguards are not enough.

For example, even if a contract requires the RTCC vendor to inform SPD when they receive a request for data, they can still be legally obligated to not tell SPD.

And even in cases where the vendor is able to tell SPD about a data request that they receive, this would still involve a legal challenge that SPD could.

These risks are not worth spending money on technologies that will not make Seattle safer.

We urge you to reject both council bills.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Thank you, Clerk.

Thank you, everyone, for the public comment, particularly all of you who came today in person.

I know that takes extra effort.

I also want to thank all those that have emailed on the topic, those who spoke to it in community forums.

YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING, WALKABOUTS AND RIDE-ALONGS.

AND SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

SEPARATELY, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAS JOINED THE COMMITTEE.

SO WE ARE SET HERE ON THE COMMITTEE.

I ALSO IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT ACKNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT POINTS MADE.

DATA POINT WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THIS COMMITTEE MEETING.

The accountability point has mentioned in public comment.

I'm specifically talking about the fact that we have OIG, OPA, CPC.

That's what makes us unique.

And I really appreciate the inputs from other areas.

And just for clarification, because I did get an email, because I did note in the last meeting, in terms of public comment, that we had gotten emails from People Power Washington.

I was just acknowledging that we had received it and read it and highlighting questions in terms of the automatic updates.

I did not mean to imply that People Power Washington was somehow supportive of this or their questions had been addressed fully to their satisfaction.

So I just want to make that clarification from the last meeting.

Separately as well, I want to note, I did not know of this letter from September 13th, but I do have the letter from Chief Rohrer on the alarm question, and now I have your letter on the alarm question.

AND WE HAVE A STRONG RELATIONSHIP, COMMUNICATIONS, AND ALL OF THE ABOVE WITH SPD, SO WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THEM FOLLOWING THE COMMITTEE MEETING.

SO AGAIN, A PUBLIC COMMENT, OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR POINTS AIRED AND ADDRESSED.

NOT SURE HOW THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED, BUT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE HERE AND MADE THOSE COMMENTS.

AND THIS IS JUST A SMALL THING, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE SNAPS IN TERMS OF A VERY PROFESSIONAL, ENGAGED SESSION.

WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO OUR ITEMS OF BUSINESS.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IN ADDITION TO WHAT I JUST SAID, ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT EITHER WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT AND AVAILABLE ON THE CARDS THAT WE HAVE, AND ALSO E-MAIL THE COUNCIL AT COUNCILATSEATTLE.GOV.

WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS.

WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM ONE INTO THE RECORD?

SPEAKER_15

Council Bill 120845, an ordinance relating to surveillance technology and authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2024 Surveillance Impact Report and the 2024 Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of real-time crime center software.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you and I welcome Director Walton Anderson, Director of Public Safety, in addition to Mr. Maxey, Chief Operations Officer for SPD, Captain Britt, who heads up the technology team at SPD, Mr. Joukowsky, also on technology, and finally from our esteemed central staff team, Mr. Johnson.

Members, if you don't mind, I was going to ask maybe Captain Britt just to walk through the slides as a baseline since two of our members were missing from the first meeting.

Please no questions during this.

If you could just walk through the slides quickly just to have that baseline before moving into amendments and the questions that they will generate.

SPEAKER_03

Of course, sir.

And with your permission, I'd like to pass to the mayor's office to lead us off with the first couple slides.

SPEAKER_14

Okay.

Team effort.

Okay.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

SPEAKER_14

Yes.

SPEAKER_36

Okay.

SPEAKER_14

We may bring it a little closer, but yes.

SPEAKER_36

Yes.

Good afternoon, and thank you for, again, good morning, actually.

Thank you for having me here.

I believe last week, Deputy Mayor Burgess did the presentation, so based on council's request, I'm just going to run through the slides here.

So again, the objective of this pilot project surveillance technology is to address gun violence, human trafficking, and felony crime.

And I think one of the reasons why we are choosing to present this and ask for Council's approval on this is because gun violence and violent crime against the people of Seattle compels us to act and use every option that we have.

So the first slide, I think, talks about the pilot project objectives.

that these technologies will reduce crime, improve evidence collection, and improve our outcomes for prosecution.

All of these tools are key when we have the challenges that we currently have with police staffing.

We could go to the next slide.

So this is the crime analysis data ranging from January 1 of 2023 through September 7 of 2024. Again, the next slide, I think, shows that we have an increase.

Gun violence from 2012 to 2024 is what the slide shows.

Through August of this year, we had 499 gun violence incidents, and as of mid-September, we were reaching 526 incidents, and we are on pace, of course, to exceed 2023, which again goes to why we need to do this.

Research shows that with other...

Efforts such as police patrol, environmental enhancements, dealing with overgrown trees, lighting, and street cleaning, and community-based police safety initiatives, they're proven to reduce violent crime and property crime as well.

Next slide.

Other investments that we are making, because we know that police action is not enough, and the mayor is dedicated to investing in upstream approaches.

Our other investments include on an annual basis $100 million on non-police response, diversion from the criminal legal system, violence interruption.

And again, the reason for this is Mayor Harrell's vision is a holistic approach to intervening and reducing crime to make the city safe for all of us.

The technology pilot project guiding principles addresses a lot of some of the concerns listed in the public comment that we just heard.

One, this technology will only monitor public places like sidewalks and streets.

Notification signs will be posted.

Video will only be kept for 30 days unless there is evidence of a crime, and then it will be transferred to Seattle Police Department's digital management system as evidence.

Face technology.

Face recognition technology will not be used and Seattle Police Department will not be cooperating any criminal or civil enforcement related to immigration or anything related to reproductive rights or gender affirming health care services.

So again, trying to address some of the concerns that were listed in public comment.

The pilot will be data-driven.

The Office of the Inspector General will retain a subject matter expert to develop and manage an implementation and outcomes.

And this will be based on the information will be utilized and based in partnership with the data analytics team.

The goal of this is to be objective and transparent.

Seattle Police Department will also enable a public-facing dashboard that reports the use of this technology, what is being recorded, the police actions it's being used from, and the expert's evaluation.

Transparency is a necessary aspect of this, and it's key that we have that as part of this.

The type of crime technologies.

is, again, the closed-circuit television, real-time crime center, and I'm going to turn it over to Captain Britt to talk about the type of technologies.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

The two technologies that have been talked about here today that we're asking for approval to conduct a pilot project with are the closed-circuit TV cameras and the real-time crime center.

The three locations that have been selected through the maps that you saw and the heats and the related to the crime rates are Aurora Avenue North in North Seattle, the Chinatown International District, including Little Saigon, and the Third Avenue Corridor in the downtown Seattle area.

Next slide, please.

This is all a part of our process to try and accomplish what we call precision policing.

As was mentioned by the mayor's office, we are at incredibly low rates of officers, and several of the public comments mentioned how low we are with police officers.

We have to do something else to bridge the gap.

The goal is precision policing, making what we have better and more efficient at what they need to do.

That's a five-step process that we're calling precision policing.

The first is to respond quickly.

These technologies are going to give us the ability to respond without getting on scene yet.

So we can be getting real time information to the units that are in route to make sure that they're better and well informed when they arrive on the scene.

Investigating thoroughly is the second part.

That means that by utilizing the footage that's available from the cameras, we will be able to identify suspects more effectively.

And that's the third part of this, which is identifying offenders correctly.

It's not just offenders we need to identify, however.

We may need assistance in identifying victims or witnesses that are involved in these various incidents as well.

The fourth step is arresting safely.

Whenever we have better information, it leads to better, more desirable outcomes.

If we know something is happening at a scene, we can make better plans to effect an arrest in a safer fashion.

The last piece of the precision policing is to prosecute successfully.

And by using the evidence that's collected through the RTCC and the closed circuit TV systems, we're able to present a clearer, more accurate case for the prosecutor's office, for the judge, for the jury to consider what's going on and make their better informed decisions at trial as well.

Next slide, please.

Measuring the performance outcomes of these technologies, as the mayor's office mentioned, the Office of the Inspector General will be retaining or has retained an academic subject matter expert to study the effectiveness and the evaluations will be published at the end of year one and year two.

They'll be working in conjunction with the Seattle Police's Performance Analytics and Research Unit.

full of researchers with access to a large-scale research network that can assist in this process.

The specific outcomes that they'll be measuring are reported crime rates and trends in the geographic zones that are identified, police actions within those areas, including arrests, Terry stops, citations, recovered vehicles and guns, crime clearance rates, so how we're doing with our investigative efforts, and the community perceptions, which is an important aspect.

We want people to feel safer and be safer in these neighborhoods.

The last step here is the public reporting via a public-facing dashboard.

It's important that we keep the public informed as to how we're doing this and how we're using this technology.

We don't operate in the dark.

We need to make sure that everybody sees what we're doing and has confidence that we are protecting their rights while we are making sure that they're safe.

Next slide, please.

And I'm going to hand it over to the Council Central staff for some thoughts as well.

SPEAKER_14

Yes, Mr. Johnson.

Before you start, I just want to say thank you for your council memo that you had to include the policy considerations in areas such as pilot parameters and timeline, integration of private cameras, the data disclosure risk and the like.

Very helpful, as you see in some of the amendments that we'll be going through today.

So, yeah, if you have a brief, you know, kind of summary you can add.

SPEAKER_05

Yes.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee, Tommaso Johnson, council, central staff.

I'm going to just give you a very abbreviated summary of some of the information that was presented during the last committee meeting, as well as in the central staff memo that you have.

So, once again, these two pieces of legislation taken together would authorize the mayor's technology-assisted crime prevention pilot with the bill that we are currently discussing, 120845, approving and accepting use of the real-time crime center software, and 120844, accepting and approving the use of CCTV camera systems.

SPD has stated, I would note, that the implementation of CCTV is dependent on also having authorization for the RTCC software.

Speaking to the duration of the authorization, the CCTV software, excuse me, CCTV system SIR authorization would indefinitely authorize SPD to run this pilot.

There are milestones at year one and year two with regard to the reporting, but the SIR and approval ordinance does not include a firm end date on that pilot.

The RTCC software authorization would be a continuous authorization with no end date.

In terms of the fiscal impact, there's $1.5 million that was approved in the 2024 budget for this pilot program taken together.

SPD and the executive noted that there may be additional associated personnel and other costs that are not knowable at this time but will be once implementation is going.

Of that $1.5 million appropriated in 2024, 1.1 was originally allocated to the Real-Time Crime Center and $400,000 was originally allocated for an acoustic gunshot location system.

As I noted before and as you noted, Chair, subsequently that proposal for the gunshot location system was withdrawn so that it's not part of this pilot and not under consideration by the council.

There was a proviso attached to these funds that is also going to be lifted by this legislation.

As you mentioned, the memo outlines various policy considerations related to the pilot timeline and parameters, the integration of private cameras and data disclosure risks.

If I might, I will also provide a brief overview of the amendments that have been filed, and I'm going to take that one bill at a time since I believe we're officially considering 120845 on the real-time crime center at this moment.

So I'm going to hold off on the amendments to CCTV until that bill is up.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

And I should note, too, that a little bit backwards, Council Bill 120845 is the real-time crime center.

We always say real-time crime center, then CCTV, but in terms of Council Bill ordering, it turns out we'll go with 120845 first and then 120844 second.

Just so people don't go that sequential number and then kind of do the same with the two programs.

It's actually...

We went lead with CCTV, then RTCC to close, just so everybody was aware of that.

So thank you.

Go ahead.

Yes, appreciate it.

SPEAKER_05

As I mentioned, there are five amendments currently filed for 120845, real-time crime center authorization.

Amendment one would essentially technical change.

It would remove from the recitals, and recitals being a non-legally enforceable area of the ordinance, it would remove mention of the city auditor.

from the evaluation component of the pilot project.

This change is consistent with the original intent of the pilot to be run via cooperation by the OIG and SPD with the subject matter expertise, outside subject matter expertise.

Amendment 2 would address vendor contracting for the real-time crime center software technology.

And this would request that SPD include certain contract terms in any contract executed with a third-party vendor for real-time crime center technology.

These terms would be designed to help protect data owned by SPD but held by the third-party contractor by requiring that the vendor notify SPD if the vendor receives a warrant or subpoena seeking this data and a requirement that the vendor retain legal counsel to challenge any such warrant or subpoena This amendment also would request that SPD, or excuse me, the prior terms I mentioned are requests for inclusion in the contract.

The amendment would also require SPD to notify council upon receipt of any information related to a vendor warrant or subpoena.

And it would also require SPD to provide the council with a copy of that contract with the vendor for real-time crime center software once executed, but no later than December 31st of 2024. Amendment 3 to the Real-Time Crime Center would substitute a revised surveillance impact report, effectively expanding the scope of the North Aurora Avenue site to 85th and Aurora at the south boundary and 145th Street and Aurora at the north boundary.

That's an expansion from the original scope of 95th to 130th.

that SIR substituted SIR includes revised maps reflecting this expansion.

Amendment four would address the integration of private cameras into a real-time crime center.

This amendment essentially requires SPD to report back to the Public Safety Committee on the plan and policies for integration of private cameras prior to utilizing such a feature of the real-time crime center software.

Amendment 5 to this legislation would require SPD to report back to the Public Safety Committee when the evaluation of the project is complete, and that will be conducted at the end of 2025 and at the end of 2026 as detailed in the Surveillance Impact Report.

Those are the amendments for 120845, which authorizes the use of real-time crime center software.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, and actually everybody, and I should, Mr. Joukowsky, who didn't speak, and also Mr. Maxey, who didn't speak, thank you also for being here and being a resource for these as we go through amendments.

So with that, I move that committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120845. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Are there any final comments or I should say general comments since we do have a number of amendments by anyone here on the dais?

Okay, so then we'll move into the amendments.

I move to amend Council Bill 120845 as presented on Amendment 1. Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1. Central staff is recognized to describe Amendment 1, but we've already done that unless you have anything additional.

Okay, thank you.

I sponsored this, as noted, this is basically a technical fix regarding City Auditor and SPD, as mentioned by Mr. Johnson.

Are there any questions or comments on Amendment 1?

No.

Will the Clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

SPEAKER_15

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_11

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Councilmember Moore?

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Sachar?

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

There are five in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Amendment 1 is adopted.

Thank you.

Now moving to Amendment 2. Council Member Moore, would you like to move Amendment Number 2?

SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much, Chair.

So I move to amend Council Bill 120845 as presented on Amendment 2. Are there any seconds?

SPEAKER_14

Second.

Second.

SPEAKER_11

There you go.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

It is moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 2. Central staff has already described this amendment.

As sponsor, Council Member Moore, you're recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_11

Great, thank you very much.

So I too share the concerns that have been articulated about the storage of this data on third party website or by a third party vendor, excuse me, and access to reproductive care, healthcare, immigration, transgender care by other jurisdictions that do not support individuals' right to pursue that kind of care.

And I brought this amendment to the ALPR legislation.

This is the exact same amendment, which is basically requiring SPD to include in their contract with the vendor that they will be notified if those actions are taken by outside jurisdictions and require the outside vendor to seek legal counsel and let us know about the outcome so we can be tracking whether or not this is, I think, legitimate fear is in fact coming to pass, and if so, how we deal with it going forward.

And I did want to thank Tommaso for your help on getting all of my amendments together so quickly.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

This is a friendly amendment, and I just wanted to note, you know, as noted in the previous meeting, ALPR was very helpful in terms of how we're going through this.

But on this topic, too, I just wanted to add, and this is an important point that has not really been brought up, and it could be a question, maybe, Captain Britt, if you have any follow-on, is reading through, like, the...

The community surveillance working group report and then the response from the CTO, Mr. Lloyd, it highlights until data is extracted from CCT systems local storage, the data is temporarily stored on the device.

And video may only be extracted for legitimate law enforcement purposes, such as the dispatch call for service or investigation of crimes as governed by SPD policy.

And then it also noted video recordings would be kept on the cameras for 30 days and not retained for longer duration unless manually extracted.

And that was mentioned earlier in the brief.

So in large part, the data will remain on the camera system unless pulled, which then I would think then would trigger, you know, the concerns and what this will address.

Is there anything you'd like to add on that point, Captain?

Because that's not something that's really been talked about thus far.

And I just wondered if you could speak to that.

SPEAKER_03

Certainly, sir.

The footage is stored on the device at the location of the camera, and that is in play for all...

...you're ingested from a donor site.

And the benefit there is that the record on the camera is stored for anywhere from 10 to 30 days, depending on the nature of...

the limits based on the technology and the system, but it will be no longer than 30 days.

Once the footage is deemed not valuable, so it's sat there for 10 days or however long the camera has been storing it, up to 30 days, and we haven't used it, that footage is then overwritten with the next series of footage, similar to how you've seen with security cameras at private locations throughout time.

Once it's moved into our video evidence locker, it becomes a part of our evidence and is subject to our digital evidence rules.

But storing it on the site allows it to be transitory in nature and held for a short period of time.

So I think the CTO's response is accurate.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

I think it's really germane and really important given the concerns, the rightful concerns of many and to include Council Member Moore.

So I just wanted to highlight that.

So thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments on Amendment 2 from fellow colleagues?

SPEAKER_04

Chair Kettle, if I could address something.

Yes, Chair.

It might be helpful.

Mr. Maxson.

Thank you for allowing me to.

So based on the last amendment on the ALPR, we've gone back and started the contracting process with Axon.

Our strategy there was to move it outside of the product-specific language into the master contract.

In other words, once this gets fully hammered out and agreed to, this will apply to all of Axon contracts.

products, so that would be ICV, body-worn camera, ALPR, the CCTV fuses information.

So we welcome, absolutely welcome the amendment, or not in any way speaking against it, but what we're trying to do is have it apply to all of our systems.

Similarly, we added in immigration as one of the categories on ALPR, and that would be the same language for the master contract across the board.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And it goes, it's very germane and very on point.

And it goes to the spirit of what we're looking to do, both originally with ALPR and since I've been to the real-time crime center, I understand Axon's relationship and what we're looking to do.

So that's a very important point.

So thank you, Mr. Maxey.

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number two?

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_11

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and zero opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Amendment number two is adopted.

Continuing with Council Member Moore.

Council Member Moore, would you like to move number three?

SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much.

I move to amend Council Bill 120845 as presented on Amendment 3. Second.

Thank you.

So this amendment expands the proposed North Aurora Avenue CCTV pilot site.

The original proposal is 95th to 130th.

I am asking that it be expanded from 85th to 145th, which are the boundaries of District 5. They are also the boundaries of what has sort of been the historic commercial sexual exploitation track.

And additionally, there has been significant crime below the 95th Street level.

I'll note that two and a half weeks ago, there was an intentional arson just off of 90th and Nesbitt, which was captured by private cameras.

There have been a number of shootings on 90th and Nesbitt.

So there's a significant need to have additional, to capture all of that additional activity.

And so that's why I'm bringing this amendment.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Are there any questions from colleagues regarding this amendment?

Council Member Moore, just two things.

One, obviously, this is an extension of this area.

Two, I would think is this as per SPD's ability to, you know, first the budget issue in terms of there's going to be increased costs, and then the time and ability to And that would be to SPD's discretion in terms of fielding it because they have their initial plan.

And is there anything related to that that needs to be considered or spoken to or is just straightforward on that?

SPEAKER_11

So I'll let them speak to that.

What I have heard back is that there was no objection to expanding the area, but I would need to come up with the funds in the budget process to add the cameras in the blocks that are being expanded.

So I will be bringing that request to budget, but certainly I don't want to.

SPEAKER_14

Is there anything else?

By the way, I do consider this a friendly amendment, although it does have the budget considerations, which Council Member Moore is acknowledging right now.

Is there anything else on this amendment?

SPEAKER_04

No, not at all.

The Council Member has stated it accurately.

There's absolutely no opposition to it.

It's simply a budget issue.

Okay.

SPEAKER_14

All right.

Council President.

SPEAKER_33

I just want to note, and this is germane to this discussion, but it's more general comment, that I was in a community meeting with the North Seattle Industrial Association and talking about our public safety efforts.

And a person in the audience was in support of the SOAP legislation and said that it's and that because of the impacts of the commercial sexual exploitation on the area around BFDA.

So I just want to say that I believe that your request is consistent with what I'm hearing out there when I talk to folks, that there is support for expanding some of the...

Expanding our efforts in general.

And it is a budget issue, I guess, I suppose.

But at the same time, I also want to just note that I suspect that there will be requests going forward that there is an expansion of this technology.

And so we'll have to deal with that.

But just representing what I'm hearing out there.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I should note on that, kind of like with the soda bill, this committee is really looking at, in terms of the data-driven, in terms of hot spots, the crime data really needs to drive this, and that's really important in terms of any technology, and this will be part of the committee's oversight role.

So definitely support the extension in this amendment, but we also have to be mindful that we cannot do that.

And that will, any other work in the future will be based, just like SOTA, on what the data is telling us.

I also wanna note, thank you, Council President, One thing that comes up in public comment, and it came up in the community surveillance work group note, in terms of community outreach.

You two weren't here last week, but one thing I noted in that committee meeting is that the city council does an incredible amount of public outreach.

What council president was alluring to is something that we all do on a regular basis.

And so often, I've done it in D7 in terms of the downtown core, walkabouts, ride-alongs, all the above, community groups, church groups, whole different sets.

And I think that's something that's not really captured is the fact that our opinions and our thoughts and our questions are informed by countless interactions with the public in these affected areas.

So with that, Clerk, please remind me if we voted for council three.

So that's keep me on the straight and narrow here.

So please call the roll on adoption of amendment number three.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_33

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and zero opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Amendment three is adopted.

I move to amend Council Bill 120845 as presented on Amendment 4. Second.

All right.

Thank you for the second, Vice Chair.

It is moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 4. Central staff has already spoken to it.

I'm the sponsor of this bill.

As somebody who is still a block watch captain for his neighborhood and a member of the broader Queen Anne block watch network and someone who's worked with the Queen Anne Chamber of Commerce in terms of the business watch network, and the like, it is really important to have that outreach and, you know, to the business community, particularly as it relates to amendment number four.

And this amendment is just to, you know, basically a double check and to get a sense of essentially creating a business watch is how I look at it in terms of having businesses volunteer and others volunteer to be part of a a group, if you will, to be called upon if something was to happen in there, if the RTCC notices something in their general area, for them to quickly be in contact as opposed to an officer going out, knocking on doors, trying to contact people.

This will aid in our ability to respond and aid in terms of the efforts of the Real-Time Crime Center.

But this amendment...

IS REALLY JUST TO GET, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXPANSION, IF YOU WILL, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE AND FOR THE COUNCIL OVERALL TO HAVE THIS CHECK IN BEFORE DOING SO.

SO THAT IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT.

ANY OTHER, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

Clearly, it's a friendly amendment since I sponsored it.

Since we've gotten in the habit of any questions, you don't have to comment, but if there is any comment from SPD, you're welcome to do so.

No, okay.

Clerk, please call the roll on Amendment 4.

SPEAKER_15

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacco.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

SPEAKER_14

There are five in favor and none opposed.

Amendment 4 is adopted.

Now moving to the last amendment, Amendment 5. I move to amend Council Bill 120845 as presented on Amendment 5.

SPEAKER_11

Second.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to Adoptment 5. Central staff has spoken to this.

Are there any, as the, well, I'll speak to it.

Again, this is, again, in terms of our oversight and accountability, which is really important.

And again, this came up in private comment multiple times in earlier bills as well.

It is really important for...

to have these check-ins and to have this opportunity for the public to see these reports in terms of how we're going, particularly as a pilot project.

And so that is to essentially acknowledge first the comments that we got from the public, but also to reaffirm our accountability and oversight responsibilities.

So that is the driver for amendment number five.

Are there any questions or comments on number five?

SPEAKER_11

Chair, I just would like to commend you and thank you for bringing these additional accountability amendments.

I think they are important.

I appreciate that you take these issues seriously and you are responding to community feedback.

So thank you very much for that.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Not seeing any hands, not looking.

Okay.

Clerk, please call the roll on adoption of amendment number five.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

I've caught myself now.

In fact, we have a walk-on amendment, Amendment 6. Is that right?

Nope.

SPEAKER_11

That's the other bill.

SPEAKER_14

That's the other bill.

SPEAKER_11

That's for CCTV.

SPEAKER_14

Okay.

So we'll skip that.

And so now, let me go back to my original script.

So we have amendments.

Okay, are there any final comments on bill as amended?

Here we go, Vice Chair Saka.

SPEAKER_35

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just want to thank you for bringing forth this legislation and also special thanks to Mayor Harrell, his office, and the various executive departments, including SPD, for their work on this important public safety initiative.

The executive has initiated a very robust community engagement process, which included a detailed 70-plus page surveillance impact report.

The report addressed a number of privacy concerns as well as potential disparate impacts on communities of color, all very critical, vitally important concerns.

And as a former technology lawyer, aware of the need to ensure that our city agencies have strong data protections and individual privacy safeguards.

At the same time, data shows that violent crime disproportionately impacts people of color and As was shared with this council, shooting events this year to date have shown that 58% of victims were people of color.

Because we know that gun violence is up while police staffing levels are at historic lows and deplorable lows.

The executive and this council have shown that we are aligned on addressing our public safety challenges together, such that we are willing to use and smartly deploy technology as another important tool in our toolkit, along with other strong data and evidence-based evaluations of this pilot program, which are included in this bill as amended.

So like all matters concerning community safety, I've always maintained a yes and approach.

And that's what we're doing here.

So I'm proud to support this bill, the underlying bill, and as specifically amended here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Any other comments?

Council President?

SPEAKER_33

Thank you very much.

I am in full support of this legislation.

I remind folks that this package of technology was approved by the last council in the budget deliberations of 2023 for this year and next.

So this has been before council for a long time, and I just provide that historical knowledge just for information.

Obviously, we had to go through the SIR process.

So I just want to note again, and I've said this before when it comes to surveillance technologies, I respect the concern of organizations such as the ACLU that is focused on civil liberties.

We, as council, have to balance that concern with other concerns and the safety, overall general public safety and health and well-being of our constituents.

So we're threading this needle.

And we're also dealing with a historic shortage of officers and rapidly developing technology that other cities are adopting to help them with their public safety challenges.

I missed last week's meeting because I was in Washington, D.C.

for the National League of Cities conference.

for the presidents of city councils of large cities.

And it really is interesting when you get outside of the city of Seattle and you see what other cities are doing, it gives you a different perspective or a broader perspective.

And we toured the real-time crime center of, they call it something slightly different, in D.C., where they are using CCTV and other software in addition to automatic, I mean, gun violence, the technology that goes by the brand name of ShotSpotter, et cetera.

My point is that this is a city that is known to be extremely progressive, and they have employed this technology across the way.

And I must say that Seattle needs to, I think, take advantage and be also We need to get with the program and recognize that this can help, and we are putting important safeguards on its use.

And I will be in support of this in the next piece of legislation.

So that is my point, is that this is something that is happening in progressive cities across the country.

And I just wanted to represent that perspective.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Council President.

Any other comments?

So, yes.

So for Council Bill 120845, our real-time crime center, I just wanted to note before voting, you know, somewhat what Council President was talking about.

You know, the oversight and the accountability pieces are very important and that they reflect Seattle's values.

And I think in terms of the interaction and the answers that we've been given, that You know, the executive, the mayor, SPD have put those into play, you know, put those into practice.

And I think this also reflects, you know, one of the things I hear in terms of sometimes the opposition is that it's taking it from another time.

And so I wanted to note related to the consent decree that as I've done at all five precincts, yes, there's a reason why we have a consent decree, you know, And we cannot, you know, we always have to acknowledge that.

But you also have to acknowledge all the work that's been done through the consent decree period the last dozen years in terms of building a force, building a accountability system with our accountability partners.

This is really unique amongst all these cities, even amongst the cities Council President was talking about.

And we have to acknowledge this, and that's part of the rationale in, you know, moving forward.

And by the way, we're gonna continue to build on the consent decree, even once it's done along these lines.

And we need to build and support our accountability partners, and particularly in this case, OIG, because it's really important in terms of what we're doing here with this technology.

And we will do that here in the committee and the council.

And I'm also mindful of the tech concerns, like artificial intelligence and the like.

We need to be actively engaged with the vendor and also sure that we are moving forward and smartly as it relates to tech advances.

And I also wanted to restate one more time in terms of outreach to the pilot communities.

There's a lot of different types of outreach and Our decisions are informed by an incredible amount of outreach that we've been doing ourselves, either as candidates, as council members, our staffs, and central staff as well has got insight.

This is something that builds on whatever's been done on the executive side too and will continue to be done as we move forward.

So with all those points made and the points earlier, I am obviously supportive of this bill.

Will the clerk please call the roll on community recommendation to pass Council Bill 120845 as amended.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_15

Yes.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent to the October 8th City Council meeting.

We will now move on to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read item number two into the record.

SPEAKER_15

Council Bill 120844, an ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation, authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2024 surveillance impact report and 2024 is executive overview of the Seattle Police Department's use of closed circuit television camera systems, amending ordinance 126955, which

SPEAKER_14

adopted the 2024 budget and lifting a proviso thank you clerk i move that the committee recommend passage of council bill 120844 uh is there a second second it is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill are there any uh general comments as we do have amendments for this bill as well Okay, we'll move directly into amendments.

I move to amend Council Bill 120844 as presented on Amendment Number 1. Second.

Thank you.

This amendment, much like Amendment Number 1 on Council Bill 120845, is a technical fix.

Not much more to add to that since it's already been addressed and it's already been spoken to.

Any questions on comments on Amendment Number 1?

Hearing and seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number one.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_11

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Amendment number one is adopted.

Council Member Moore, would you like to move amendment number two?

SPEAKER_11

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120844 as presented in amendment two.

SPEAKER_14

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number two.

Central staff has spoken to it.

Actually, we've not done the 844s, right?

SPEAKER_05

That's correct.

As you mentioned, your amendment one was substantively identical to the amendment on 1208405, changing the recital.

Amendment two to 1208404 is largely identical to the amendment that was passed on 845. It just explicitly names the contract for closed circuit television systems, whereas the amendment for the other bill named the contract for real-time crime center software.

But other than that, the amendment is substantively identical in terms of requesting the same contract terms and also requiring the same notification and reporting from SPD to the council.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments on amendment number two?

Hearing none, seeing none.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number two.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

SPEAKER_14

There are five in favor and none opposed.

Amendment number two is adopted.

We will now move on to amendment number three.

Council Member Moore, would you like to move amendment number three?

SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120844 as presented on amendment three.

SPEAKER_14

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number three.

Central staff, I won't forget this time, is recognized to describe amendment number three.

SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, this is substantively identical to the North Aurora Ave expansion plan.

amendment for the Real-Time Crime Center ordinance.

Just by way of brief background, the way that the surveillance impact reports are configured, both impact reports for CCTV as well as Real-Time Crime Center included a description and maps of the proposed pilot sites for CCTV.

So this amendment is necessary to effectuate the expansion of North Aurora Avenue in addition to the amendment to the prior bill.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments on amendment number three?

Hearing none, seeing none.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number three.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_09

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Sacco.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Amendment number three is adopted.

Thank you.

Moving to amendment number four, Vice Chair Saka, would you like to move amendment number four, version two?

SPEAKER_35

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120844 as presented on amendment number four, version two, which was recently distributed.

Second.

SPEAKER_11

Second.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 4, Version 2. Central staff is recognized to describe Amendment 4, Version 2.

SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Chair.

Just briefly, Amendment 4 is originally filed of the planned evaluation on the closed circuit television systems pilot to study the appropriateness, feasibility, and cost of potential future CCTV camera deployments in other areas of the city outside of those identified for this pilot, including but not limited to the Alki and Harbor Ave areas of West Seattle.

The only change to version two is that it additionally directs SPD as part of this report study to evaluate the potential use of closed circuit television cameras for public safety concerns and categories of crime outside of those Currently included in the pilot, as a reminder, broadly speaking, the pilot as it is now is focused on gun violence, human trafficking, and other serious and persistent crimes and felony crimes.

And so this amendment would ask SPD, direct SPD, excuse me, to report out and study, study and report out on expansion to both different sites and the possibility of expansion to different crime categories It would not change the scope of the pilot.

It would be a reporting requirement.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

As the author of Vice Chair Saka, would you like to address it?

SPEAKER_35

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

So my amendment number four, version two, today directs the Seattle Police Department to evaluate the appropriateness of expanding CCTV deployments into other known problem areas of the city, including but not limited to Alki and Harbor Avenue in West Seattle.

as well as explore the potential use and deployment of CCTV to address additional public safety concerns and challenges.

And this was in direct—in light of a conversation that I had offline directly with you, Mr. Chair.

You know, and I support the initial pilot deployment uses of this to address gun violence, human trafficking, and the persistent felony crimes.

That is a good start.

There are other public safety challenges and concerns that we also need to be mindful of, including some of the problem racing activity and associated challenges that we've seen with my neighbors and my constituents in Elkhire and Harbor Avenue communities.

And so, yes, Mr. Chair, I also agree with your earlier assessment that, you know, our deployment and use of these technologies needs to be guided by data.

But this would expand what types of data we're going to capture, because some of the most egregious incidents of gun violence recently have occurred along that area.

And including one about a year, year and a half ago now, still unsolved to my knowledge, a young man was tragically killed at the Whaletail Park where kids play at the sandbox.

And so in any event, I want to thank my constituents of District 1 for lending their voices today.

Some of them had to leave, which I totally understand, but I appreciate all the public comments.

that they shared.

I hear it all the time.

Me and my office are directly engaged in these issues.

The lawlessness on Elkhire and Harbor Avenue is a critical issue.

The lawlessness, disorder, what I call tomfoolery, the nonsense that goes on there in Elkhire and Harbor Avenue has to stop.

And we needed additional tools.

As they've Described in their own words, they understand that we are facing record officer staffing challenges.

And so my constituents, our neighbors in West Seattle, are clamoring for any use whatsoever, any additional use and deployment of automated enforcement technologies to help supplement and augment the staffing shortages.

And so whether that's through automated enforcement technologies like speed enforcement cameras, we need those, yes.

Whether that is through automated enforcement technologies like noise, that would require a change in state law.

There's a path there.

We're working on it.

Yes, we need those too.

Or simply monitoring a known problem area where Things very quickly often escalate into gun violence and property crime.

So my constituents are demanding additional action and smart deployment of these technologies, mindful of the notable privacy and security challenges.

And I think we have some good mitigations in place to address those.

But what's going on has to stop.

And also want to thank Captain Britt for his comments earlier.

He said, part of what this technology seeks to do is address community perceptions of safety.

We want people to feel safer in our neighborhoods and communities.

And is deployment of these technologies including, but not limited to, Harbor Avenue and Elk High, is that likely going to prevent crime?

Maybe, maybe not.

Probably not.

Although I do think some people will think twice when they know they're going to be captured and monitored and video recorded and have that potentially used as evidence in the investigative process following any potential crime they might commit.

But will it undoubtedly help contribute to the feelings of safety in impacted areas?

Yes, yes it will.

So this pilot project is appropriately narrowly tailored as the city auditor's recent report shows that we adopt a place based public safety approach.

And this is what, as we know, colleagues, the recent soda and soap bills focused on, specifically targeting place-based actions and solutions.

At the same time, we need to be open to using such technology to create better public safety outcomes in other targeted areas throughout the city.

That's why this amendment expands upon what should be evaluated, and it creates a path to doing that.

The criminal activity In this neighborhood, Elkhine Harbor Avenue has grappled with ranges from illegal street racing, should be considered in future deployments under this amendment, and related criminal activity up to and including gun violence, such as the tragic killing of Luis Angel Solis Lara this past June at what seems to be the epicenter of lawlessness.

of the year and another shooting that occurred in the area just this past weekend.

So, colleagues, the crime along this beautiful waterfront is the premier destination beach area.

I would argue it's the best beach in all of Seattle.

And I know some of my colleagues might disagree, but it's the best.

We want more people to come.

But as a popular regional and even international attraction, It's also suffering from the ongoing nightmare of many residents.

Many of my neighbors and constituents in this area, they're traumatized.

They can't sleep at night from the loud music that, with the drugs and alcohol and guns, sometimes escalates into gun violence, people's homes being shot up, people dying, people in that area are experiencing toxic stress and trauma.

And deployment of technologies like this, automated enforcement technologies like this in that specific area would help contribute to safety in that area.

So, you know, I just want to echo and amplify and uplift the voices of some of my colleagues neighbors and constituents who took the time to show up and testify here earlier today.

By the way, that was in person or virtually.

By the way, that was a sliver.

That was the tip of the iceberg.

Enough is enough.

And as proudly as a world-leading technology city that we are here in Seattle, let's smartly use and deploy technology to expand our efforts to investigate crimes, identify bad actors, and ultimately create a safer Seattle for all.

It's important that we listen to all perspectives.

Every last one.

Thank you again to the Harbor and Alki residents who showed up today and we worked with to create this amendment.

Colleagues, I humbly ask for a yes vote on this amendment.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

And I do consider this to be a friendly amendment, Council President.

SPEAKER_33

I'll be a yes vote.

Just ditto what you said, sir.

I appreciate that this legislation is narrowly tailored and data-driven, and I also—so I respect that.

This amendment will expand not just the geographic scope, but also the the kind of crimes that's being looked at.

And I have to say that I support this, in part because we, as council members, when we're talking to our constituents out there, It's very hard for us to hear about repeated crimes of a certain nature over and over and over again and tell them, well, that doesn't really rise to the level of the use of this technology for that, and then fill in the blank.

And so I'm just representing that from our constituent standpoint, they want us to focus on what is impinging upon their safety and well-being every day, all the time.

And so I will be supporting this amendment for that reason and just wanted to represent the perspective out there.

SPEAKER_14

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Any other comments from colleagues?

No.

Obviously, I've had conversations with Vice Chair Saka on this amendment.

And I think from a good governance perspective that as we work through this pilot, as we work through the data, like particularly up to year two, from a policy and operational considerations perspective, we should ask questions, is it possible, both operationally, so this is where the interaction with SPD is going to be so important, but also from a policy perspective, working with the Director of Public Safety in terms of what we can do here.

And ultimately, we may or may not move in certain directions.

That will come out based on the data, based on what we're seeing on the ground and what's the policy considerations.

And as I noted to Vice Chair Saka, there's a thing that I know called the FAST test, the F-A-S.

And the question is, will it be feasible?

Will it be acceptable?

Will it be suitable?

And that's what we can do once we get to this point.

But we should start that conversation or thinking about it.

AS WE'LL COME UP IN AMENDMENT, THE NEXT AMENDMENT, AND AS DONE WITH THE PREVIOUS BILL, WE'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TO GO OVER THE POLICY AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS SO THAT WE CAN MAYBE LOOK TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE SEEING IN WEST SEATTLE.

SO THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR SACA, FOR YOUR AMENDMENT.

SO, CLERK, PLEASE, CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 4 VERSION 2.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_11

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Amendment 4, version 2 is adopted.

I move to amend Council Bill 120844 as presented on Amendment Number 5.

SPEAKER_09

Second.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to adopt Amendment Number 5. Central staff, you're recognized to describe Amendment Number 5.

SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Chair.

As you mentioned, Amendment 5 to 120844 is substantively identical to the similar amendment to 120845, simply requiring SPD to report back to this committee or its successor committee on the results of the evaluation assessments that are already contemplated in year one and two of the pilot as described in the SIR.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you very much.

And of course, we could set up meetings, but I think it's important, particularly given the concerns mentioned in different fora regarding privacy and the like, that to have these formal check-ins in the bill itself.

So as previously done with Amendment 5 in the previous bill, I ask for your support.

Will the clerk please call roll on the adoption of Amendment Number 5?

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_33

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

SPEAKER_14

Aye.

There are five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Amendment number five is adopted.

As noted, I got ahead of myself because this bill, as opposed to the other one, does have an amendment number six.

Council Member Moore, would you like to move the walk-on amendment number six?

SPEAKER_11

Yes, thank you very much, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120844 as presented on amendment six.

SPEAKER_14

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number six.

Central staff is recognized to describe amendment six.

SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Chair.

Amendment 6 to Council Bill 120844 addresses Public Records Act disclosure of closed circuit television camera data, including footage.

By way of brief background, the surveillance impact report for this technology notes that under the Washington State Public Records Act, closed circuit television camera footage of this kind is presumptively considered to be a public record and the subject to public disclosure requests.

This amendment instructs Seattle Police Department to essentially follow existing practice and existing Public Records Act exemptions as they apply to certain protections, exemptions related to body-worn video footage, particularly protections for victims of crime, images of minors, and protections related to healthcare facilities, which include exemptions related to footage where the people can be seen leaving or arriving at certain healthcare So this amendment instructs SPD to not disclose closed circuit television camera data in response to a public records request in a manner that's inconsistent with these exemptions and the existing Seattle Police Department protocols describing compliance with those exemptions, unless required to do so by a court order or applicable law.

The amendment also requires SPD's legal counsel to promptly notify the city council, legislative legal council, if there is any such court order or applicable law requiring disclosure.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Appreciate it.

Council Member Moore, a sponsor, do you recognize in order to address it?

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

I'll just make a few brief remarks.

This is essentially the same amendment I brought to the ALPR in trying to be mindful of the public the public nature of the CCTV video footage.

And I do appreciate that SPD has a policy for body-worn camera disclosure, and that they are trying to be sensitive to the issues of privacy and the very real concerns that we have around access to reproductive and gender-affirming care.

and also for people who are here as immigrants and refugees.

So, again, there's no perfect solution, but we are doing our best to create some broad guidelines and guardrails, and that's why I've brought this amendment.

And I would appreciate your support.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Director Walton-Anderson?

SPEAKER_36

Yes, thank you, council member.

With regard to this amendment, I think one of the concerns that we have is just that we need to be able to vet this with the law department.

There are some concerns.

So I'm wondering if we can maybe hold on this particular amendment until we've had the opportunity to do that.

I just did get notice of this amendment this morning, and I don't know if SPD has anything more that they want.

SPEAKER_11

It's my understanding it's been vetted by the law, and they've approved it.

It's exactly the same language as we use for ALPR.

SPEAKER_04

I would second the request to have a little additional time to consider this one because some of the PRA exemptions that apply to body-worn video would not apply to CCTV because there are statutory privacy exemptions.

And I just want to make sure that the language here does not imply that SPD would be...

bootstrapping exemptions from one category into another where they may not apply, as PD, of course, will apply the Public Records Act.

We will assert any valid exemptions, any privacy protections that we can under the law, and we will do so diligently, but the actual language here gives me a little bit of pause, so appreciate the spirit, but I think the language could be fine-tuned.

SPEAKER_11

If Chair may ask Central Staff Tommaso to respond.

SPEAKER_05

I'll just note that this amendment was vetted with the Law Department and also this specific language was reviewed by SPD General Counsel prior to this being introduced.

What did the General Counsel say?

General Counsel was okay with this language as written.

SPEAKER_11

Yeah, I'm not introducing this without having gotten sign-off from SBD and from legal counsel.

So I appreciate the concerns, but I believe they've been addressed.

SPEAKER_14

If the general counsel has signed off it along with law, can you, you know, You know, given that general counsel, we could work between now and October 8th to address, you know, and I can work with council president if there's a need, and council member Moore, of course, if there's a need to adjust the, you know, the bill at that time, you know, with, you know, the fact that SPD general counsel's signed off on it and along with law.

If there is any continued, we can have a consultation and along with council president and council member Moore and then bring any adjustments as an amendment at full council.

Would that be acceptable?

SPEAKER_11

That would be fine with me.

We wanted to amend this if necessary then.

SPEAKER_33

I do welcome amendments in full council.

At the same time, that particular agenda will be quite full.

But that is an option for us, so I am taking my lead from the chair.

SPEAKER_14

OK, thank you.

We will work with you, and we can adjust at the full council at that point.

And the two points are, as central staff noted, laws plus the SBD general council.

So if there's any additional, I will work in terms of adjusting at full council.

With that, are there any additional questions or comments on Amendment 6?

Hearing none, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number six.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_33

Yes.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_33

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Amendment six is adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Hearing none, seeing none, the only comment I will say is that we will follow up on the item that we just discussed to ensure that we are set.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120845 as amended.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that council bill 120844 will be sent to the October 8th city council meeting.

I just, I wanted to close before going to the adjournment point that in an earlier council meeting I had discussed you know, getting an update to the 30 by 30 program and talked about September 24th as being a possible date for that.

In my conversations with the mayor's team and SPD, there's some different events related to 30 by 30 that are gonna be happening.

And so instead of having a formal agenda item today, I just wanted to note, since I did mention that before, that we will get a full 30 by 30 update agenda item later in the year.

um unless if there's any other admin updates on that would you like to give director walton anderson but we can wait until that point my understanding right now it's a little bit of a cart before the horse uh so we will do that unless there's uh if there's any additional comments i i know that uh you know i can go over some things briefly if okay council members do want to but i i do think the opportunity for

SPEAKER_36

SPD to present their great work later on this year in full when some of these things have been accomplished would be.

appreciated and probably much more, give a much more full picture of the work that's been going on.

So I will leave it to council in terms of.

SPEAKER_14

Okay, so we'll do that.

That'll be at the end of the year.

And because this is a very, very important topic.

So I appreciate that.

And so with that, we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

None, hearing none, seeing none.

There's no further business to come before the committee.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.