Transportation Committee 5/6/2025

you

I am Rob Saka, chair of the transportation committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll.

Vice chair Hollingsworth.

Council member Kettle.

Here.

Council member Rink.

Present.

Council member Strauss.

Present.

Chair Saka.

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

All right.

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

members of the public, those tuning in in TV land on Seattle Channel, thank you for joining us for today's Transportation Committee meeting.

First off, I want to start by highlighting some excellent work by the Department of Transportation in a May 3rd Seattle Times article by Nicholas Deshay, which describes how SDOT made a very quick fix to a bike lane after a vehicle hit a cyclist on Fourth Avenue in Pine.

After a run-in between a driver and a cyclist, that very day SDOT Director Emery heard the news.

She along with other SDOT staffers went to the intersection in question, springing quickly into action.

That afternoon, the first concrete barrier was put up and I'm glad to know that SDOT will continue to monitor their intersection to help ensure its safety.

I mention this story because it highlights the power of community partnership as well as what a responsive, effective government, in this case as implemented by our executive department SDOT, can and should look like.

When our agencies work together to undertake great challenges and go through many efforts, work collaboratively to help make our city safer for all.

So thank you, Director Emery and Estop for your hard work here.

Colleagues, we have a very stacked agenda.

Three important topics.

The first topic will be a briefing discussion of possible vote on Council Bill 120971, which would enable and establish additional uses for automated traffic safety cameras.

Colleagues, you'll recall that this legislation was previewed and discussed at our last committee meeting on April 15th and in anticipation of this legislation being formally transferred.

Briefing a discussion on our camera program more broadly at the Transportation Committee immediately before that.

So the funding and deployment of automated traffic safety cameras technology has always been a priority for this council.

me personally and our various constituents.

This vital technology when responsibly deployed is a crucial tool to addressing unlawful behavior in our city and making our city and our streets safer.

So I wanna thank my colleagues for the thoughtful engagement on this topic and the department for their work navigating a complex piece of legislation to enable compliance with state law.

Automated traffic safety cameras are important to supporting the fundamentals of basic traffic safety.

whether you are a driver, biker, pedestrian, take public transit, or like me, all of the above.

They are a vital tool to change behavior so that our communities and neighborhoods can be kept safe.

As to the legislation itself, we will hear from central staff But briefly recall that the new state law consolidated several components of the Washington code, including red light and school speed zone cameras.

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

Ultimately, this legislation aligns city code with recent changes to state law.

So thank you again to SDOT, the mayor's office and council colleagues for your collaboration and hard work on this important topic so far.

Look forward to today's lively discussion.

Our second agenda item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on council bill one, lifting a proviso from the 2025 budget.

You'll recall, we previewed and discussed this proposed legislation as well in our last committee meeting.

Also colleagues, you'll remember that during council's 2024 budget deliberations, we co-led the charge for funding to support the expansion of automated traffic safety cameras outside of school zones to address the needs of communities that are clamoring for this kind of technology.

This legislative tool ensures that these allocated funds could not only be spent on non-school zone automated traffic safety cameras, which again is a vital priority and crucial tool for many neighborhoods in our communities.

The proviso was also meant to ensure collaboration with SDOT by coming up with the timeline for procurement, a deployment strategy, and ultimately ensuring responsiveness to the neighborhoods that need this technology, including in my own district, Elkai and Harbor Avenue.

But check the 2023 ordinance, which is being rescinded as part of this for a list of the other neighborhoods and opportunities for possible deployment of these non-school speed cameras.

So I want to thank council member Strauss, especially for his partnership on this important budget proviso.

Finally, our third item on the agenda is a briefing discussion and possible vote on council bill 120945 and alley vacation in district seven.

I have a little alley vacation envy from my colleague, Councilmember Kettle.

Permit and alley vacation legislation are important and impactful items that routinely come before this committee.

This particular project began way back in 2018 and is in District 7 up near Town Hall.

I was impressed during our last committee session with the benefits this project will bring to the neighborhood in District 7, including sidewalk improvements and new landscaping features.

I encourage colleagues to review the presentation that is attached to the agenda to refresh your memory and see the entirety of this project.

We'll discuss it later, of course, as well.

So we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on today's agenda and within the broader purview of this committee, clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have four in-person speakers and four remote speakers.

All right, each speaker will have approximately two minutes.

We will start with the in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

The first speaker on the list is Don French, followed by Gordon Paddleford.

Thank you.

That's Dan French.

Thank you.

That's Dan French.

Do you want the truth or do you want to feel good?

If I were contacted by someone that stated that work I performed was deficient, I would have the ethics to ask them what was deficient.

If somebody called me, left a message, and stated that work I had performed was deficient, I would have the ethics to return the call and ask what they thought was deficient.

If somebody called me multiple times about safety issues on the work that I performed, I would have the ethics to return the call and find out what they thought was deficient.

If somebody emailed me with detailed information indicating that work was not only deficient but unsafe, I would have the ethics to look into it and get in touch with them about their concerns.

If somebody stated that they had proof of these safety issues, I'd have the ethics to ask to see the proof and talk to them about it.

If somebody contacted me about getting to an emergency room in a hospital, that's me, I'd immediately look into it and determine the root cause.

If somebody took the time to contact me multiple times on the record about safety issues they can prove, I'd take the time to talk to them about it.

Do you feel good?

This report is a lie.

This is the 130th Street Report.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

And if you happen to have written comments, feel free to submit those and they can be also administered or admitted into our public record.

Thank you.

Next on the list is Gordon Paddleford, followed by Tyler Vasquez.

Just a brief reminder to please speak into the mic.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Gordon Padelford.

I am a resident of District 3, and I'm the executive director of Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

Yesterday, there was an 83-year-old woman who was hit and killed in Soto at 4th Ave South and Spokane Street.

So I just want to take a moment to recognize that, recognize the life that's no longer here and the Seattleite that's not with us today who should be here.

And in that context, I know we're all committed as a city to Vision Zero and keeping everyone safe, which is why I appreciate you all taking this responsibility gravely seriously, because it is probably one of the biggest responsibilities we have as a society, is to try and keep each other safe while we're trying to go about our daily lives.

She was just in a crosswalk, trying to get somewhere.

Don't know the full story, but could have been any of us.

So, you know, on that note, when we're thinking about the automated enforcement program, it's really, really critical that we're reinvesting that revenue back in safety.

We know the source of revenue, even with the best intentions, the executive's gonna be pulled to try and find some ways to backfill some of that revenue for other SDOT projects.

So the more that this council can make sure that that revenue's being reinvested in communities, the better.

And that also is not only good politics, because the community will support that, it's also good policy, because we know that that's a best practice from around the country, that when we're doing these ticketing programs, that money's going back in to reinvest in safety projects where those cameras are located, ideally.

That's why the Safe Routes to School program has been so popular, because that funding nexus is so tight that community members can understand.

When they're getting a ticket for speeding next to a school, that's going directly back into keeping kids safe getting to school.

So the tighter of a nexus you all can create for these programs, the more popular it's going to be, the more effective it's going to be.

And on that note, Amendments 3 and Amendments 5, I think, get us closer to that vision.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Tyler Vasquez, followed by Clara Cantor.

Good morning.

My name is Tyler Vasquez, and I serve as the Policy and Advocacy Officer for Cascade Bicycle Club.

We advocate for people who bike or want to.

I first want to thank Mayor Harrell, Estott, and also Council Member Strauss for going down the last Tuesday to recognize that there needed to be a fix.

And that temporary fix is now seen as a Toronto barrier.

Secondly, I also want to recognize the timely action.

Director Audiam Emery was able to get her team out there and was able to have timely action.

It's seen through your comments.

However, I also want to emphasize that our bicycle network is only as safe as our most dangerous parts.

Long-term safety requires more than reactive fixes or punitive measures.

True lasting changes, some through physical infrastructure, as Council Member Rink put in an amendment, such as protected bicycle lanes, safe street design, and traffic calming features, such as speed cushions and narrowing of the roads.

Not just enforcement tools, but similar to automated cameras.

Today you will hear about Seattle's automated camera policy.

Cascade recognized that automated cameras are Automated cameras are a tool to slow traffic and address dangerous driving behavior, but they are not the long-term solution our transportation system needs.

That is why our city passed the Keep Seattle Moving levy previously in the fall.

Appreciate the amendments put forward by Councilmember Saka and Rink.

As the city reinvests camera revenues, those funds must go towards building a safer infrastructure, especially in communities that have long been under-invested in.

I want to echo what Gordon also referenced, closing that nexus.

Additionally, we believe that operation and maintenance spending should be reinvested in Division Zero and other safety programs.

We urge the city to pair enforcement with meaningful, equitable investment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler.

Last in-person speaker, Clara Cantor.

Hello, can you hear me?

Hi, my name is Clara Cantor.

I'm speaking today on behalf of Whose Streets Are Streets, and I'm also a community organizer with Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

Seattle residents deserve safe streets.

We're all here with the collective goal of slowing down dangerous speeding.

especially when our neighbors are being injured and killed due to that dangerous speeding.

We just heard about the incident that happened yesterday.

One of our neighbors was killed on Fourth Avenue South.

We believe strongly that the long overdue physical safety improvements, not punitive enforcement, is the best way to curb dangerous speeding on our streets.

This automated enforcement program is intended as a safety tool to slow down speeding drivers and for the legitimacy and the public support of this program, all that revenue needs to go back into slowing down speeds and contributing to that program where we're trying to get to vision zero.

instead of being used as a revenue generator for the city.

I would like to encourage all of you to please vote yes on four critical amendments to the legislation today.

The first is amendment three, to ensure that all revenue goes towards street infrastructure that slows down speeding, not spent fixing potholes or other street operations, regardless of how valuable those might be.

Amendment four, please vote yes to standardize the warning structure for all new cameras.

by removing all the exceptions for school zone speed cameras.

A standard structure will be easier for SDOT to implement and easier for the public to understand.

And SDOT's data shows that warnings are 95% effective at preventing second violations.

Please vote yes for amendment five to install enforcement cameras only after other inexpensive street safety measures have been ruled out.

and please vote yes for amendment six to provide some minimal protections and misuse of data.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, we will now go to our remote speakers.

First up is going to be Ethan Campbell.

Ethan, when you're allowed to talk, please hit star six.

Hi, I'm Ethan Campbell.

I'm a cyclist and pedestrian in Seattle who cares about traffic safety.

Ben involved in efforts with the National Vision Zero Network to create guidance for cities on effective and fair automated enforcement programs.

With this in mind, I urge your support of amendments 3, 4, 5, and 6. Amendment 3 would ensure that camera revenue goes specifically towards street safety, which is the national best practice that's important for the credibility of this program.

Amendment 4 would standardize the 30-day warning period, including for school zone cameras.

S.O.P.' 's data shows that warning periods are effective.

Amendment 5 would simply require SDOT to explain before deploying a camera why proven safety improvements like speed cushions or a stop sign are not feasible or sufficient to reduce speeds at a location.

These quick treatments are often cheap, unlike cameras, which each cost $66,000 a year, a recurring expense ultimately borne by Seattleites paying tickets.

This amendment simply says, consider changing the street first.

Amendment 6 includes an important privacy protection for camera data, which I strongly support.

But I urge counsel to go further by taking the long overdue step of putting this program through Seattle's surveillance ordinance review.

Not to hold it up, but simply to tell the public who has access to this data, particularly within SPD.

State law protections are valuable, but they're no substitute for basic transparency about data privacy.

Lastly, I encourage this committee to vote no on Amendment 1. Sidewalks are vital, but speed tickets should go towards speed mitigation.

If SDOT wishes to direct revenue towards...

But the reality is that pedestrians in Seattle, by and large, are not dying because of a lack of sidewalks.

They're getting injured and killed while trying to cross roadways designed for high speeds, like the 83-year-old woman in Soto yesterday.

This revenue should go towards fixing those roads first.

Again, please support Amendments 3 through 6 and vote no on Amendment 1. Thanks for your consideration.

Okay, next up is Charlotte Stark.

Remember, Charlotte, when you're allowed to speak, please hit star six.

Hello, I'm Charlotte Stark from Alki, President Alki Community Council, and supporting Rob Sacco's automated traffic camera proposed legislation 120971. Here in Alki, as you know, Alki Avenue and Harbor Avenue, as you mentioned, have been for many years, if not decades, troubled, dangerous roads with drag racing, et cetera.

And in these areas that have already been designated raceways, we've had numerous accidents that have been head-on collisions at such high speeds, exceeding in a 25-mile-an-hour area, 80 to 100-mile-an-hour accidents, many mixed with DUIs, notably a head-on collision on Alki Avenue, actually several in the same stretch of Alki Avenue, but one in particular was a DUI driver over 80 miles an hour who hit a woman, young woman, 24 years old, sent her over the seawall, submerged, and it was passersby who pulled her out of the water and saved her life.

She was in a coma for three weeks.

The defendant on site didn't know why he was being arrested.

He was under the influence.

And when asked, when he stated, why would I go to jail?

The witness said, well, you may have killed someone.

And his response in the court records was, I don't give a blank.

That's the kind of driver that we're dealing with in Alki on a regular basis and have them.

And I want to support that.

not only the application of this camera implementation to roll out, but I do want to speak and agree with one of the previous speakers on the revenue generated, that it not go towards the sidewalks, et cetera.

I believe it's better for that revenue to be reinvested in more cameras to generate more revenue to address more troubled spots, specifically to address high speed.

Thank you so much.

um next speaker david haynes remember to hit star six hi thank you david haynes councilmember saka no offense but there has not been enough done on public safety to justify people going downtown relying on public transportation and there hasn't been enough done to convince the king county metro to work together with other agencies to clear in and around the bus stops once and for all with drug addicts trespassed in question to shut down their criminal underworld partners and to improve Metro's interconnected services with sound link like rail that's supposed to feed the main arterials.

We need to improve those roads that are shattering the buses and breaking them apart.

For example, I think it's 148th Street and Shoreline.

The Linklite Rail drops you off, and then there's like six buses that are parked, and all the bus drivers are on break.

So you've got to wait 10 minutes.

Now, let's say you feel like running to your friend's house 10 blocks away.

The sidewalk will dump you into the street and makes it impossible to go one block from the grocery store to his house that's near 145th and 15th.

And it seems like we need to have a focus on like calming the road rage with strategic tickets that expedite people's understandings that they can't be like road raging through the neighborhood.

But we still need to patchwork fix a lot of these roads that are the main arterials that feed off the sound link light rail.

so that Metro can improve the service without ruining the buses and hurting your back and like jolting your brain and denying you any reading possibility on the bus.

But, you know, there seems to be like a misinterpretation of what is a criminal and you have criminals in Delridge.

You need to like focus on wiping those dudes out instead of sympathizing with them.

Okay, last speaker, Rick Grossman, are you there?

Final call, Rick Grossman.

Okay, that's it.

All right, there are no additional registered speakers and we will now proceed to our items of business today.

So will the clerk please read item number one into the record?

Agenda item one, council bill 120971, an ordinance relating to automated traffic safety cameras, establishing additional uses for automated traffic safety cameras to increase safety, authorizing qualified civilian employees to review violations detected by traffic cameras, updating finance and fund policies related to the use of camera revenues, amending ordinance 124, amending sections 5.82.010, 11.31.020, 11.31.029, 11.31.121, and 11.50.570 of the Seattle Municipal Code and repealing section 11.50.580 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

All right, first things first.

I think a motion would be in order to move the base bill.

So therefore I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120971. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120971. We will now proceed with the discussion of the legislation and the proposed amendments that have been submitted.

It looks like our central staff has already joined us at the table to go through this legislation.

And then we'll go through the amendments.

Good morning, Council Members.

Calvin Chow with Council Central Staff.

I think there's been a fair amount of discussion about the underlying legislation.

It does make changes consistent with the state code into RCL municipal code.

Probably the biggest changes are the allowing the use of civilian SPD and SDOT employees to .

As well, there's a number of cleanup actions related to the financial planning and how the money gets spent.

And I think that's really the gist of the amendments that are before you.

Unless there are questions, I'll move right into amendments.

Yeah.

Do any of my fellow committee members have any questions?

base bill.

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you for your appreciation of my partnership with you during your opening remarks.

This is a good bill.

When I go back and look at how long has it taken to work on something like this, I look back to a The legislative record in Olympia, where our own Greg Doss testified in support of this bill, I believe in 2014, when he was working for the police department.

And so we look at how long has this taken?

It's taken quite a bit of time.

I'm excited to vote on this today.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

All right.

Next order of business, let's proceed with the discussion and votes of the amendments.

So I move to amend council bill 120971 as presented on amendment number one.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120971 as presented on Amendment 1. Cal, will you please explain the amendment and the effect?

Amendment 1 is offered by Council Member Saka.

It has revisions to the financial policies.

We do two things.

It would direct 15% of all camera revenue to the funding of new sidewalks, sidewalk alternatives, and repair of sidewalks.

And it would also have the cumulative effect of reducing the amount of general fund money of red light camera revenue going to the general fund from 80% to 70%.

So it would be a reduction of the amount of money supporting the general fund, about half a million dollars a year.

All right.

And as the...

if there are, I welcome any questions for Cal, but as the amendment author, I will first go ahead and speak on the proposed amendment one here.

So, we have, the problem that this amendment seeks to solve for is, as was noted in public comments today, and, repeatedly throughout our multi-transportation committee meeting discussion of this proposed legislation, there is a public legitimacy problem or opportunity, if you will.

If most, the overwhelming majority of camera revenue goes towards general fund rather than being reinvested and proven safety investments, including pedestrian safety, then that doesn't tend to boost public legitimacy and confidence that this is truly designed to change driver behavior, increase safety rather than, solely for revenue generating purposes only.

And so again, all these, the principle here is that more of these revenues should be reinvested towards in the community.

So as Cal noted, the current proposed allocation is 80% for the general fund, 20% for another, a broad category of safety investments, which could potentially include by the way, What we have here is for sidewalks and sidewalk repair.

Colleagues, we have a missing sidewalk problem in our city.

27% of the city does not currently have a sidewalk and communities, it is an equity issue, it is a safety issue.

Communities like all over the south end, many parts of my district, Del Ridge, Highland Park, South Park, Georgetown, North end, there's many parts of the city that don't have sidewalks.

Also colleagues, I know you're on the same exact city attorney executive briefings with us where we routinely receive briefings and updates from the city attorney's office on the mounting legal risk pertaining to our broken sidewalks in our city.

So we have a missing sidewalk problem, 27% to be exact, and we have a growing broken sidewalk problem in our city.

And we know that these investments can improve safety for all, especially for sidewalks.

So this amendment helps boost the public legitimacy of this camera program by ensuring that More of the revenue actually goes towards proven safety measures and also helps address the missing sidewalk and broken sidewalk gap in our city.

And as we know, we help champion a bold new investment in terms of levels of funding for missing sidewalk to address our missing sidewalk gap and our broken sidewalk network throughout the city through the recent voter approved transportation levy.

That is an important start, but it's not the end all be all.

Just like this proposed amendment isn't intended to supplant those funding obligations.

We need to find other ways to creatively address the broken sidewalk network and missing sidewalk network across the city.

We know that that helps address safety.

So sidewalks and new sidewalks and sidewalk alternatives, if you will, and sidewalk repair are fundamental to the basic public safety needs of our communities.

And it's exactly what they expect for us to be delivering.

And we know that also automated traffic safety enforcement cameras are an important component of traffic safety.

Indeed, they're one of 40 plus proven countermeasures under the federal safe systems approach road safety.

They should not be meant as a revenue generating tool only.

And the original proposed allocation of 80% towards the general fund greatly contributes to that community perceptions, which I think we need to chip away at.

And my modest reallocation, proposed reallocation of this does exactly that.

So again, not everyone drives, not everyone bikes, not everyone takes transit or does all the above like me, but everyone is a pedestrian at some point in their daily journeys navigating our vast transportation network across our city.

Therefore, sidewalks are crucial to basic pedestrian and traffic safety investment.

And by the way, there are other, there's still more 15% remaining of the balance of the 30% for safety investments could be used for other vital traffic safety investments.

So to help make sure our city is more level for all.

So thank you, colleagues.

I urge a yes vote here.

Welcome any questions or comments.

And I start here first with Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

A couple questions.

First one for you.

Can you remind me, these amendments were shared with committee colleagues last Friday, is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

I will note for the record, it would be helpful to have a little bit more time with some of the amendments.

I know that there's a lot going on, but especially if you've got ideas for amendments, walking us through them at an earlier date would be helpful.

Cal, a couple questions for you.

How much is this program expected to bring in?

So council members, I think the clearest thing I can point to is the 2023, there was a, the SPD gives a report of how much revenue was generated.

So for the red light cameras in 2023, they generated 5.2 million and school zone cameras generated 9.5 million.

Thank you, Cal.

Is that from having these cameras in static locations, or is that the program overall that happens to be?

Existing static locations.

And note that there is a factor of how many people are actually paying them and how many of them.

So it's not necessarily all the infractions that are issued.

It's the payments that were received for that year.

And have those cameras been in those static locations for more than five years?

Most of them have, yes.

Okay.

Do we know how many cameras we're expecting to put out in this next year or in the next two years?

In the next year, I don't have the exact number, but I believe the proposal is essentially to double the amount of school zone cameras and then a small exploring of other out-of-school zone cameras, not necessarily programmatic, but the executive has signaled an interest in exploring those other options.

Okay.

And can you remind me, last year during the budget conversation, we had a little bit of a confusion here on the dais about the money that we took out of the school zone cameras to do this.

Can you remind me how that school zone camera funding is set up?

So currently, there is a separate fund that just supports traffic safety in school zones, essentially.

It's called the School Safety Transportation, I forget exactly the name of it, but it's specifically tied to school safety projects.

All of the school's own camera money goes into that fund, and 20% of red light camera revenue also goes into that fund.

This legislation in front of you essentially changes that fund into a broader Vision Zero.

traffic safety in general and directs all the rest of the camera revenues into that fund as well.

So things like block the box, restricted traffic lanes, those types of things, those monies would also go into that pool.

I think the executive's intent is to still spend that money relative to the programs that generated it, but the financial principles in front of you, the financial policies are really directed more to a broader Vision Zero and accessibility issues within traffic safety and accessibility issues.

Thank you.

And so this amendment here would divert some of that funding into sidewalk and sidewalk repair, is that correct?

Yes.

So this would do two things.

It would essentially take 15% of red light cameras and 15% of revenues from all the rest of the cameras and set that aside for new sidewalks, sidewalk alternatives, and sidewalk repair.

And then it would also reduce the amount of money going to the general fund from red light cameras.

Okay.

Thank you.

What I'm hearing right now in my analysis is that we don't have a steady understanding of how this program is going to be deployed outside of the school zones over the next year or two.

We have the ability to look back at the red light camera data to understand generally how much money is going to be made.

I am open to making changes to these different funding categories and using this revenue that is generated from speed cameras, specifically into specific programs.

I do need more information before I'm at a place where I can vote yes.

I'd say on this amendment in particular, Council Member Saka, I stand steadfast with you in the goal to get as many sidewalks built and as many sidewalks repaired as possible.

Colleagues, you may recall last year during the transportation levy, I brought forward an amendment that made the whole fund agnostic on repair or expansion.

And this is coming from somebody, I don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood.

So I'm not speaking for, I want as much sidewalk funding and I want as many sidewalks built as possible.

And I'm proud to have stood with you last year to put in a historic amount of sidewalk funding.

We've never seen that much, I think, since probably around World War II when we started expanding the city.

Don't quote me on that, that's a guess.

So with that, today with outstanding questions regarding the amount of money that we're gonna be generating from this, how and where it's going, and the historic level of sidewalk funding that we put into the levy this last year, I will be voting on that.

Thank you, Chair Saka, appreciate it.

Also, thank you, Mr. Chao, for being here once again in support of the committee and all things transportation.

I want to express my general support for this bill.

I think it's fantastic.

As usual, I don't have the history that my colleague from District 6 has, but I recognize the points he's made.

And one thing that I'm a big fan of is, and we do this a lot on the public safety side, is alignment between the RCW and the SMC.

And just so aligning with state law is such a key thing.

I also wanted to note my general support, not general support, my strong support for traffic safety and pedestrian safety.

I always tend to break those out when I was at the Queen Anne Community Council.

Each year we would have a meeting on traffic safety with SPD and then a pedestrian safety meeting with SDOT.

And I think that was good for the community and a good approach to cover the basis.

And in a lot of ways, this bill kind of does it in one.

So thankful for this bill.

Also, I really appreciate the points made regarding sidewalks and the needs that we have both for new and repaired.

sidewalks as well.

That's a key thing.

Obviously, during the course of the levy process, I was really throwing my support behind, even though I'm District 7, behind Districts 1, 2, and 5, because those districts were the ones with the greatest need.

But when it comes to repairs, District 7 has its share, too.

So definitely support sidewalks.

One of the things, and Councilmember Strauss kind of alluded to this, is For me, there's a lot of moving pieces.

And for those that don't know, there's a lot going on right now.

We have three select committees.

We have big things happening in our regional committees, not to mention in our regular committees, like in public safety or transportation and the others.

Something that a lot of folks, it may not be apparent, but it is.

And I think it's important, you know, I am on the finance and obviously the Select Budget Committee with the economic forecasts and so forth.

I believe this amendment is an amendment that should be worked and coordinated with finance and with budget.

And essentially, in my view, a good governance, you know, kind of role.

And I think that we can get to a place where, to the points made, that funds that come out of, you know, these kinds of things, or maybe others, but look at it holistically and then say, hey, okay, we need to use these funds in support of traffic safety and pedestrian safety and safety overall.

And I think in that context, I think we would get to, a better place and then mindful of all the different pieces that go into this through the finance and budget process as well.

So I'm supportive of the points within it, but I feel that the way about it from, in my own personal opinion, from a good governance is to take this and combine it with the finance budget committee and then look at it from that holistic point of view so then we can have an answer that speaks to the points already made to this, but does so cognizant of the issues that we're also facing on the finance and budget side.

And I note, too, that Councilmember Rink's amendment number three gives the strategic direction on this front in terms of, if I remember right, traffic safety and vision zero, I think is the way she phrased it.

And so with that, believe in what's trying to be done here, but would like to work it through that way.

Um, so I would vote no on this amendments.

Thank you, chair.

All right.

Thank you, council member Kettle.

Do I, do any of my colleagues have any other questions or comments on this amendment?

All right, hearing and seeing none, as the amendment author, I will have final say here before we proceed to a vote.

Colleagues, again, this helps address community perceptions that, These cameras are a revenue generating tool only, and that's not the case, nor should it be the case.

And the greater the share of the revenue allocated towards our general fund, the greater that contributes to that perception.

So this makes a modest proposal to adjust from 80% towards the general fund to 70%.

and also reinvest that remaining 30%, especially 15% into proven countermeasures that benefit everyone, including pedestrians.

So I hear the points about various committees and more information.

I respectfully disagree on this particular and how those issues show up in this particular piece of broader proposed legislation.

But regardless, I ask for your support and thank you for the conversation.

So if there are no other questions or comments, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment one.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

No.

Council member Rink.

No.

Council member Strauss?

No.

Chair Saka?

Yes.

Chair, there are two votes in favor and three opposed.

All right, the motion fails.

And we will now proceed on to other amendments.

Amendment number two is offered by Council Member Saka.

First, Cal, I will go ahead and formally move this and then we'll allow you to explain it if you don't mind.

As presented on amendment number two, is there a second?

Second.

All right, it is moved and seconded to amend council bill 120971 as presented on amendment two.

Go ahead, Cal, floor is yours.

Thank you, apologies.

So council members amendment two is offered by council member Saka.

One of the items that the underlying legislation does is it rescinds the action that council took two years ago to identify restricted racing zones, which had previously been authorized by state law.

So this amendment asked SDOT to take a look at those identified racing zones for deployment of other speed cameras.

So using the existing, the new state authority to take a look at these locations.

Thank you, Cal.

And as the amendment author, I will go ahead and speak to my amendment from my own perspective and my own words and voice.

So colleagues, my second amendment helps address the previous racing zone construct that is officially being repealed by the 2024 changes to state law by specifically asking the department to look at previously identified areas such as Elkai and Harbor Avenue, Magnuson Park and Golden Gardens Park that are in need of this vital camera technology to curb illegal speeding.

So most of these locations previously listed in the 2023 ordinance that is effectively being rescinded by adoption of this legislation today designated restricted racing zones, which were a precursor to future deployment of speed cameras.

So most of these previously designated locations of the 10 listed in that 2023 council ordinance would still likely qualify for deployment of speed cameras under one of the expressly enumerated authorized locations under the 2024 changes to state law.

More specifically, speed cameras may be deployed, quote unquote, under the text of the legislation within public park speed zones.

And that is specifically defined as I believe something along the lines of within 300 feet of a park.

So although on the one hand that 2023 council ordinance is officially being rescinded because authority for designating those racing zones has therefore been rescinded by, it's superseded and rescinded by 2024 state law, a lot of complexities, a lot going on here, a lot to track.

So on the one hand, those have been officially rescinded.

It still offers us on the other hand and our department, a great roadmap.

for camera locations that could, and many of which would likely, of that's 10, at my rough estimate, six, would probably qualify under the state speed, the parks speed zone authorization, I guess, under state law, so.

It would just, this amendment would just essentially just request that SDOT re-examine previously identified racing zones as part of their efforts to deploy automatic traffic enforcement cameras.

And this would preserve, as part of this effort to incorporate recent changes to state law and align city code to state statute.

It would respect the previous work of counsel as well.

So that is why colleagues, I asked for a yes vote today.

Do any of my colleagues have any comments or questions?

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

I'll let Council Member Kettle go first.

Go ahead, Council Member Kettle.

I went first last time.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

One of the things I wanted to highlight, and I kind of spoke to it before, the partnership between SDOT and SPD, you know, and what we're doing on the safety front.

And as we hear in public comment a lot, and I'm thinking of Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, Mr. Paddleford's, you know, comments on pedestrian safety.

And the amount of times I've seen the circular skid marks from the donuts and the like from the speed racing that happens in our city.

This is a true threat on our streets.

It's a true threat to our pedestrians and not just pedestrians but across the board.

And I think it's important to keep the pressure on because this bill, and particularly this aspect of it, really builds on what we've done in public safety related to street racing.

And we really need to maintain that partnership in terms of ideas and approach as it relates both on the transportation side but also on the public safety.

And so as it relates to this bill, I'm supportive and I also ask that not to change or anything, but the council requests the Seattle Department of Transportation Review, and I would add, in collaboration with SPD, because we need to ensure that this and the other locations are covered in that one way.

I'm sure it happens, we have representation from SPD here today, but I just wanted to highlight that, and thank you for this amendment, and thank you for because it keeps the press on.

It keeps the pressure on.

This is what we need to do in terms of the tenets of the strategic framework plan on the public safety side, and so I support it, and thank you for both SDOT and SPD being represented today.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Indeed, the power of collaboration as between SDOT and SPD is critically important as we deploy these cameras.

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Just wanted to express my appreciation for you bringing this forward.

You can too now be a historian at the Seattle City Council.

This was good work on behalf of former Councilmembers Peterson and Herbold, Councilmember Peterson being the chair of the Transportation Committee in the past.

I just wanted to note there are a couple locations, 3rd Avenue Northwest and Seaview Avenue Northwest between Golden Gardens Park and 34th Avenue.

I'm going to be using these places as examples in conversations and further amendments, so I wanted to flag for you here that these locations piece of legislation.

And this last piece of legislation was our best effort to address the very thing that we're addressing today without the explicit permission and ability to use speeding cameras in the way we now can.

So I just wanted to highlight that there are issues there.

They've been going on for quite some time and still an issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Indeed, this is a roadmap for deployment because many of these locations are long known, longstanding challenges.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Just as a point of curiosity, well, first I want to state understanding that this amendment here identifies areas that were identified in previous legislation from 2023. As a point of curiosity, is there any overlap between these specific locations and locations identified in the high injury network?

Maybe this is a better question for S-TOP, but curious if you know Calvin.

I'm sure there are sections that are, but I have not looked at it specifically to identify the overlap.

The high injury network covers a lot of the city, so this is a small subsection of it.

Okay, understood.

And then curious about just data collection from SDOT moving forward for these locations.

Maybe it's a better question for SDOT, apologies, but I don't know if we have SDOT here today, but curious about just data collection for these areas if implemented moving forward.

I think probably be best if I follow up with you afterwards and follow up with SDOT to get a better sense of your question and also what data is available.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

I will be supporting today's amendment, understanding that it's tied to these areas have been identified previously and certainly want to ensure that we are following through and trying to focus our safety efforts.

Curious again about overlap with the high injury network, but I will be supporting today's amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rankin.

Cal, do you happen to know offhand at least, I wasn't here in 2023 when the 2023 council ordinance was passed, but do you happen to know offhand what was the basis or what factors did the council consider in adopting these 10, this list of 10 locations?

I mean, in the absence of knowing like presumably the high injury network or Fatal crash data or crash data was part of that analysis, but just more broadly, what factors were considered?

Do you recall offhand?

The previous state law had a carve out that allowed local jurisdictions by ordinance to establish designated racing zones and highlight um, areas of concern that elected officials had identified.

And so this legislation was the previous councils, uh, intent to focus on the areas that they had seen and heard from their constituents and in their districts.

And it was driven much more from the council side.

So, um, these were identified by district council members who were representing those districts.

Uh, so I'm hearing there, there may have been a, correlation between the high injury network data and the identified designated racing zone, may not have.

We don't know for sure, but in any event, this does reflect council's priority and designation for areas for future deployment.

So we should endeavor to respect that work.

I think it offers a great roadmap for for what's possible with respect to our non-school speed zone deployment of future non-school speed zone cameras.

So thank you.

Let's see, council member Rink, is that a stale hand or do you have another follow up?

Stale hand, sorry.

Okay, all right, no worries at all.

Do any of my colleagues have any other final questions or comments on amendment number two?

Okay, hearing none.

Can I urge your support for this?

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

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Saka?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right, the motion carries and amendment two is adopted.

All right, moving on.

I believe there is a few more amendments being proposed today, so.

Chair Saka, I move to amend council bill 120971 as presented on amendment three.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, it is moved and seconded to amend council bill 120971 as presented on amendment three.

Council member Rink.

Well, actually, if you don't mind, Council Member Rink, I'll let our central staff expert, Cal, explain the kind of technical side, and then I'll let you talk about the amendment from your perspective.

Thank you.

And council members amendment three is offered by council member rank.

It is clarifying language in the financial policies to really clarify a phrase that is used in the allowed uses for camera revenues.

The proposed financial policies highlight operational and maintenance investments.

And in the context of the entire funding, this is really about traffic safety and vision zero.

So this amendment adds that language to clarify that that's what the operation and maintenance spending is for.

I should also articulate that there's another element to this where it highlights the City Council's expectation that appropriations will support spending in the locations where the cameras are located.

Thank you, Chair Salka, and thank you for providing that overview, Calvin.

So, colleagues, this amendment serves, again, to clarify the camera revenue spending portion of this bill.

Our goal is to ensure that revenue on operational maintenance programs are going directly to traffic safety and Vision Zero.

Through this amendment, there is also the additional language around directing camera revenue back to impacted communities where these cameras are located.

So we certainly would like the opportunity to ensure that revenue is going back and serving impacted neighborhoods.

So colleagues, I ask for your support on this amendment today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Council Member Rank and Cal.

Colleagues, any questions or comments on this proposed amendment?

Council Members Hollingsworth, or excuse me, Vice Chair Hollingsworth, followed by Council Member Kettle.

No worries.

Thank you, Council Member Rank for this and all the work everyone's done.

My question on this one, and I don't know, Cal, if you have the information, is a part of my concern is the equity piece.

So is there a percentage of cameras that are in one district more than the other at all?

There is, I have not done the math to see where they are.

I know with the camera, the doubling of the school zone cameras, there wasn't equity analysis to try to identify how are we doing sort of citywide in development of that program, and we could follow up with information on that for you.

The city's website does have a list of exactly where all these cameras are, so it is possible to put them on a map and see what that looks like.

I would state that the specific language here is really highlighting that as a principle.

It's not necessarily articulating that it has to follow the exact...

the exact distribution.

So it still gives some authority to kind of, it's not a rule, it's guidance.

Understood.

No, that makes sense.

Thank you.

My only concern with this one particularly is the language regarding, and I know, you know, I know allowing people, excuse me, I know it's the language particularly in terms of it staying in certain districts, and so that's the only concern of mine.

I completely support the I completely support the funding being dedicated to the safety projects.

It's just more so having the departments under their discretion, figuring out which project is more feasible or where it can be distributed is kind of the thing.

So anyways, thank you, appreciate it.

Thank you, Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Let's see, Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Saka, and again, thanks to all involved, Council Member Rink for the amendment, and Mr. Chow for your comments, and also Council Member Hollingsworth.

I think this shows intent, this shows where we're looking to go, and I support that.

And to Council, one of the things here is that wherever we have cameras, it is a place of dire need.

It is a place of many safety concerns.

And...

And with that, they probably need more help.

So I understand the intent here, but it's done in a way that I think that gives flexibility and that we can look to support those neighborhoods that need cameras for their broader transportation, traffic, pedestrian safety needs.

And I think to your question, Council Member Hollingsworth, I think the amendments or the pieces in the bill that relate to reporting, you know, as it says here, where the traffic crashes have occurred in each location where there's automated traffic safety cameras located and so forth.

I think that will be definitely aiding us in terms of our understanding of to where, and I think that's important.

And then we can look to support those areas more.

And again, this goes to the earlier amendment.

I think we can do that in collaboration with the Finance and Budget Committee to really get into the more details, more tactical versus this.

So I'm in support.

Thank you, Chair Saka and Council Member Rank.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Strauss, floor is yours.

Thank you.

Cal, can you help me understand when this says directing revenue spending to the communities and locations where the cameras are located, can you remind me how that is defined?

If we have a speed camera on 8th Avenue Northwest, does that mean It can only be used on 8th Avenue within that quarter mile, District 6.

This isn't a restriction.

It is establishing guiding principles to provide guidance to the executive on how they would implement.

I think the language is meant to be a little bit loose in terms of the communities and the locations, so trying to make the case that it should generally address the traffic safety risks in this location, and that could mean an adjoining corridor that affects this area.

That could mean the general population that's affected by this location.

I think it's meant to be a little bit more loose in terms of implementation because it is guidance to say the overall intent is to have these revenues support the locations that are bearing the impact.

This is a should, not a must.

It is a should, not a must.

So it is guidance, but not binding.

That's true.

Okay.

Thank you.

That addresses my concern because frankly, you'll hear me say this a couple more times this morning that I have two locations where I like these speeding cameras in my district.

And while I would love for that funding to come right back to the streets in my district, I also know that we have serious issues in district two that need to be addressed with funding.

I oftentimes say I'm elected by the people of Magnolia, Fremont, Finney, Green Lake, Greenwood, Crown Hill, Ballard, and many other micro-neighborhoods, and I represent the entire city of Seattle.

So that's my concern here is that we've got problems all over our city, and while this might be a good solution in District 6, that doesn't necessarily mean that that revenue, I would love it to stay in District 6, but we have to look at the entire city's funding resources.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Let's see, Council Member Kettle, is that a stale hand or you have a follow-up?

Okay, cool.

I will just say from my perspective, this is one of two of the other amendments that are not mine that I am going to be supporting today.

So I wanna thank Council Member Brink for bringing it forward.

I agree with some of the concerns that have been raised by all of my colleagues who have spoken on it today.

But I am comforted by that last exchange that Council Member Strauss had with Cal, that this is a should not a must obligation.

So it leaves some room for flexibility, execution flexibility by saying that this is council intends, anticipates.

But sometimes, certainly from an equity perspective, revenue generated in Magnolia needs to go to Delridge or Rainier Valley or anywhere else in the city.

So we need to be flexible and nimble, but also try our best to make sure, I mean, to the extent feasible, most of this revenue stays within the broader kind of community and not getting into the weeds around what that sort of means or broadly into the neighborhood without getting into the weeds around what that means.

I think it leaves appropriate flexibility as has been described.

So for that reason, I will happy to support this amendment today.

I guess Councilmember Schrauss.

Chair, just wanted to make sure that you are aware that the Magnolia Bridge is failing and is of great expense to the city.

Just wanted to make sure that you're aware of that point.

Thank you.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Absolutely.

Yep, yep.

I am keenly aware of that, and we need...

It's all hands on deck to find a solution.

But you also know, colleagues, that the $10 million, $15 million plus revenue that could be generated from this is not going to, we need a replacement of that bridge.

And it's not going to be a meaningful solution to do that.

Also, this is for safety investments.

I hear you, I don't wanna quibble over, like I hear you, I agree.

Council member, Council Member Brink, as the amendment author, you get last word here.

Just want to express my gratitude for my colleagues for your questions and engagement on this amendment.

I hope you all see that we've tried to strike a balance between wanting to promote and have equity as a guiding principle and also ensure that we are directing these funds back to community and to important safety programs.

So thank you for the engagement and again, encourage your support.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

If there are no final questions or comments, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 3?

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

No.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Saka?

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and one opposed.

All right, the motion carries and Amendment 3 is adopted.

All right, I think there is another amendment.

Yes, Chair Saka, I move to amend Council Bill 120971 as presented on amendment four.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120971 as presented on amendment four.

First and foremost, Cal, if you wouldn't mind explaining the technical components of this and then I'll turn it over to Council Member Rink.

Amendment four is offered by Council Member Rink.

In the underlying bill, there was previous guidance from the city attorney's office that the schools on camera, that we did not have the authority to issue warnings for schools on camera infractions.

Since the legislation was transmitted, the attorney's office has updated their legal advice that that actually is guiding the court, not us.

And so we can establish a uniform warning program for all our traffic safety cameras.

So that's what this language would do.

It would also make a technical change to change the underlying law inconsistent with what the executive had intended, which is to allow for traffic safety violations to be issued warnings for all of the first 30 days of operation.

And that just makes it easier to administer.

So you don't have to go back and check administrative databases and that type of thing.

It just makes it a lot cleaner to administer the program.

Thank you.

Council Member Rink is the amendment author.

You are recognized to speak on behalf of your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

So this amendment allows for warnings to be issued within first 30 days of operations of all traffic safety programs, giving people giving people time and being given a warning as a little bit more of an equitable policy than fining folks outright.

A warning would allow for people to make the intended changes to their driving habits without being impacted by a fine immediately.

And I know as noted in our last committee meeting, Seattle has notably higher fine amounts compared to other cities around the country, so $237 compared to $50 in a number of other states.

mindful that we wanna try and strike a balance between discouraging speeding behavior, giving folks a little bit of grace, and certainly a $237 fine can certainly be destabilizing for our family.

Again, we wanna discourage speeding for the sake of our safety on our streets and mindful that we wanna be able to give folks a moment to adjust and grant that grace.

And with that, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Colleagues, any questions, comments on the proposed amendment before us?

Councilmember Kittle.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Thank you, Mr. Cha, for the update and the clarification on these pieces.

It's important.

I just wanted to say also thank you to our public commenters who spoke actually to this one specifically, and I appreciate having you know, public comment and it really informs across the board what we do in the council.

And so I just wanted to give that a shout out and I will say that I will support this amendment.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you.

Just wanting for the record, thank you for this amendment.

Our goal here is not to collect money from people.

Our goal here, for me at least, I have two locations in my district that continue to have vehicles crash into buildings, and we want that behavior to stop.

And we want people to slow down.

It's not to collect money.

So I'm all for warnings.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

And...

Question I have, I guess maybe this is for Cal because you know, I go deep on all of the legislation and your analysis.

And so I recall specifically from the memo here, the central staff memo dated April 18th, 2025 and our prior conversations and engagement that the 2024 state statute purported to exempt from warnings school zone cameras.

And so if effectively what this proposed amendment, all that does was clarify that that's not actually the case, that state guidance is really for the courts, which is sounds like, why was this not introduced as part of an errata amendment?

It could have been.

I don't have an answer for you.

I'm sorry.

All good.

Okay.

Page four footnote five is from the central staff memo is where you kind of call this out.

And so this modifies that in the manner that you just described.

So I will, well, I'll see if that's a stale hand.

Council member Strauss, do you have any other?

Okay, I will be supporting this amendment today as well, and I wanna thank Council Member Rink for bringing it forward.

Council Member Rink, well, first off, any other final questions or comments on the amendment?

If there are none, Council Member Rink, as the amendment author, you are recognized to give final comment on your amendment.

No additional comments, just thank you colleagues for your engagement on this.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number four?

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Saka?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right, the motion carries and amendment four is adopted.

Chair Saka, I move to amend Council Bill 120971 as presented on amendment five.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120971 as presented on amendment number five.

Cal, would you mind please commenting on the technical aspects of this amendment?

And then at which point Council Member Rank, you will be recognized to speak on your own amendments behalf.

This amendment is offered by Councilmember Rank.

It addresses language in the legislation related to the analysis that has to be done for the locations of the cameras, and it adds an additional emphasis on requiring the analysis to identify physical traffic safety improvements that were considered for the locations and why they couldn't be deployed.

Um, that is within the, uh, the state, but, uh, language, but it adds additional emphasis to that, um, requirement.

All right.

You're recognized.

Well, thank you, Chair Saka.

Um, so again, this amendment emphasizes the consideration of physical traffic safety mitigation, particularly through built environment changes and design when considering areas, um, for camera deployment.

We understand that there are many different solutions for traffic safety, which can include the physical change to the environment.

And this amendment is simply kind of double tapping that as a strategy before jumping straight to cameras and fines.

So we're going to need a multifaceted approach.

This is emphasizing some of those built environment changes that we could be making in the future.

So colleagues, I ask for your support on this amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rain.

Colleagues, any questions or comments on the proposed amendment number five?

Starting first with Council Member Strauss, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Cal is just gonna get into it.

Is this a should or a must?

If you can see on the page in front of you, there's that last phrase that's in the state legislation, the anticipated actual effectiveness or infeasibility of other mitigation measures.

That includes physical improvements.

So my interpretation is that this is highlighting that the council would like to see those physical ideas called out specifically in that analysis.

Let me, maybe I jumped ahead of the track meet here.

Understanding does this require that these mitigation efforts be deployed ahead of?

It does not.

Okay.

Then the issue that I have, so now we're going to talk about the two locations in the street racing bill.

SDOT was effective at deploying speed cushions on 3rd Avenue Northwest.

However, only between a certain segment.

So in the 70s, essentially between 65th and 80th.

these speed cushions have slowed speeds down it has not addressed the issue that we're experiencing between essentially 41st-ish and 50th or market street where there is still speeding it's adjacent to an industrial zone that worked having these physical speed cushions worked on third avenue northwest however on seaview avenue northwest where we are having cars hitting buildings.

We have gone through, and many thanks to Vanu.

I see you in the audience today.

Many thanks to you, Vanu, for the additional fog lines and safety measures that we've put in.

I originally went to Vanu and asked for a guard rail to put in front of this building so it stopped getting hit.

And I was skeptical, I will admit, and Venu proved correct, that by simply adding additional markings on the street, we've been able to slow down traffic.

However, that traffic is still speeding through an area where there's a lot of pedestrians moving about.

And so there is still an issue there, which...

And on Seaview, we can't have speed cushions for a number of different reasons.

And so I'll come back to 8th Avenue Northwest, last example here, where we're changing from the industrial zone into a neighborhood residential zone where speeds are off the charts.

And I've asked SDOT to put in three crosswalks, and we're not sure that we're able to deploy them this year.

And so...

Those crosswalks are not going to slow people down to a safe speed.

They do help.

And so just getting to my point, I would not be able to vote for this if it was a requirement to be done in advance.

I will vote for this if this is something that we are saying should accompany or be done in conjunction with.

Is that a correct understanding that it's accompanying and in conjunction with?

Yes, so what this is doing is it's in satisfying the state requirement that requires that the traffic engineer evaluate these locations to essentially justify why the cameras need to go in.

Part of that documentation would be talking about exactly that history.

It would document, for instance, for Seaview, speed curtains could have been looked at and why are they not applicable in this location is part of that analysis.

So it's not a requirement for a physical improvement.

It is a documentation of the analysis for justifying the camera.

Thank you very much.

I will just note for the record here, anytime that SDOT wants the data on 8th Avenue Northwest, happy to provide it.

I think when we were out there on our street walk, we did not see a single person obey the speed limit.

Thank you, Council Member Schrauss.

Council Member Kettle, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Regarding this amendment, section five is quite clear.

It talks about must prepare analysis.

That includes equity analysis, the various pieces of that.

And then also that it must show a demonstrated need for traffic cameras, which goes to my earlier point.

This is when everything else fails.

And SDOT is really good working through.

And so I think that Section 5 speaks to this well without the need, because I worry a bit regarding the last phrasing of the amendment and why they should not be deployed.

I think Estad has demonstrated its ability, and I think of Section 5 as is, is good.

So Council Member Rink, Chair Saka, I appreciate what's going on with this amendment, but I will vote note on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Any other questions or comments?

I have my own.

First off, let me say I want to thank Councilmember Rank for sincerely for bringing this forward today.

I really do appreciate the intent behind this.

a shared goal to ensure that we center equity.

We prioritize other sort of physical safety improvements.

I will, however, not be supporting this today for really essentially the reasons that council member Kettle just laid out.

I think the adequacy and sufficiency of the existing state requirements are are great.

And I think that, I believe that the proposed amendments would ultimately impose unnecessary overhead and unduly burden the department by requiring them to specifically justify and document why other physical traffic safety improvements could not be deployed in the area.

Worst part from my perspective is I think that would effectively result in a and a mass slowdown and deployment of any of these cameras and require them as a matter of absolute last resort only as Councilmember Strauss kind of illuminated earlier.

You know, there are many communities across our city that needed these yesterday in his district and my district in Elkine Harbor Avenue.

And so this would just impose, I think a little too much burden and further slow down their deployment.

And as far as I know, under the federal safe systems approach to traffic safety systems, which is a national best practices set of approaches to keep people safe on our roads, traffic safety does not, traffic safety and the corresponding engineering solutions do not attempt in any way to stack rank.

any of the 40 plus proven countermeasures, 40 plus proven federal countermeasures under the safe systems approach.

And as far as I know, it doesn't attempt to stack rank because you need to deliver the best treatment at the best location at the best time.

And, Instead, my understanding is that the safe systems approach purports to require a very highly fact specific and data intensive analysis of unique conditions contributing to unsafe conditions in a given area.

But in the end, federal safe systems approach ultimately empowers traffic engineers to make the final decision on the best treatment needed to address the unique underlying safety challenges at play in a given area.

Cameras are one of the valid treatments.

So are other physical improvements as well.

But I don't think we should attempt to kind of stack rank those and I think we should defer to the expertise of our subject matter experts, traffic engineers, and let them make the final decision.

In addition, as Council Member Kettle noted earlier, I think there are sufficient safeguards already in place as expressly required under existing state law, which currently mandates that any possible deployment must be 100% guided by data together with a very robust racial equity analysis requirement to address valid concerns related to disparate impact on certain communities.

So in other words, as part of the overall .

Racial equity analysis, robust racial equity analysis, as well as traffic analysis, robust and comprehensive traffic analysis is now already explicitly required under state law.

And this is, In my view, an already exacting standard, and I worry this is, the amendment would just go a little too far.

Again, I appreciate the intent and motives behind this, but I think there is sufficient safeguards built into the original legislation.

And for those reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment today.

But let's see, any final questions or comments before I turn it over to Council Member Brink as the amendment author to have the last word?

All right, Council Member Rank, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka, and thank you all for your comments today.

Council Member Strauss, your examples are well taken, and thank you for providing that bit of history and context related to some examples in your district.

I think we certainly wanna make sure that we're addressing this, and in some situations, it seems as though a built environment change doesn't fully address the issue, and so I know we're all guided by the desire to make sure we're having folks slowed down, and minimizing any potential harm that could be coming from speeding.

And so, points well taken.

I will note, it's my understanding, I know SDOT does a tremendous amount of work and often is evaluating for physical safety improvements.

I've come to understand that this is already an existing body of work that SDOT is doing.

By really emphasizing this point and making this explicit, I think there's an added benefit by making it explicit in this bill that, again, we want to just make sure that we're delivering on this.

But it has been my understanding this would not be too much of an additional add to work.

So, colleagues, I still find that this would be an important thing to add and would not add too much staff time.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Rink.

All right.

So you know, there are questions, comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll and adoption of amendment number five.

Vice chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

No.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

No.

Chair, there are three votes in favor and two opposed.

All right.

The motion carries and amendment five is adopted.

Moving on, I move to amend Council Bill 120971 as presented on amendment number six.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, is moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120971 as presented on amendment six.

Cal?

Amendment six is offered by Council Member Saka.

It would add a new section to the legislation to add some requirements that are similar to actions that the council previously took on Seattle Police Department's automated license plate readers.

So these are requirements that would affect the contract.

So the first one would essentially add prohibit disclosure of camera data in response to records requests that are made under Public Records Act and the other one would require notification if there are warrants or subpoenas seeking this type of information for any purpose.

So these requirements are consistent with the state law which prohibits these types of disclosures and it makes sort of more procedural reports to counsel if they were to happen.

All right, and colleagues, my third amendment addresses privacy concerns and ensures there are robust privacy protections, ensuring that this camera technology has the same type of guardrails and protections that this council passed recently with our automated license plate reader technology, which is a substantially similar technology that also tracks license plates if certain predefined conditions are met.

As Cal from central staff notes, this amendment specifically addresses concerns about surveillance and public disclosure of information by putting into place both robust protections around public disclosure and our vendor practices.

So as a former technology attorney and just a non-practicing currently attorney general, I'm firmly committed to protecting people's privacy.

And for those reasons, I urge a yes vote I welcome any questions or comments, starting first with Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Thank you for this amendment, and I think it highlights what we've been doing in Seattle with Seattle government and the good governance, but also the Seattle values.

I think we've seen this not just with ALPR, but also with the amendments and the changes that were already brought into the bill on CCTV as related to the CCTV that tied into the Real-Time Crime Center.

So I think this brings some alignment, and I think that's important, but more importantly, it also restates our position as a city going to the Seattle values point, so thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Kittle, looks like Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

And I want to thank you for bringing this amendment forward, ensuring that automated traffic safety camera data is not publicly disclosed, and working with our members to notify SPD allows for some greater protection in our community.

And I know I have some still outstanding questions about our current practices around surveillance data, but I do think that this amendment poses and creates some greater protections around this, and that's certainly something that I'm supportive of.

And so for these reasons, I will be supporting today's amendment.

Thank you.

Excellent, thank you council member Rank.

Any final questions, comments?

All right, seeing here none as amendment author again, I urge your support for this smart common sense.

Committee clerk, will you please call the roll on adoption of amendment number six?

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Saka?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right, the motion carries and amendment six is adopted.

All right, before we get to the voting on the Council bill as specifically amended here today, I have invited members from SPD, representative from SPD, and I wanna respect your time and leverage your expertise here today.

I would ideally have, had I had more forethought, I would have invited you to one of our earlier, two or three earlier committee meetings where we talked about this because SPD plays a vital role in the success or not of our rollout of this program.

So Captain, if you wouldn't mind, just coming up here, I have a couple brief questions.

Would you mind quickly introducing yourself, and then have a couple questions of my own, and I welcome any of those of my colleagues as well.

Good morning, council.

I'm acting assistant chief for the Metropolitan Bureau, Captain Sean O'Donnell.

My regular job is as the captain of the traffic section for SPD, which is inclusive of our traffic collision investigation section, enforcement officers, special events, and to include the parking enforcement and the automated camera folks who do the review.

I do just really quickly want to say that in light of the fact that it was brought up, I have received information this morning that there has been significant forward movement in the investigation to the fatality for South and South Spokane.

So I just wanted to bring that up.

And if I can try and answer your questions.

Thank you, Captain O'Donnell.

Yes.

And thank you for the real-time live update on the status of the pending investigation into the fatal crash, one of my constituents.

It happened in my district in Soto, which is a known problem area for these kind of fatal crashes.

Captain, can you briefly explain the department's role in the automatic traffic safety camera program?

The traffic section of the Seattle Police Department is currently responsible for the review of the automated enforcement that's going on throughout the city.

We work very closely and collaboratively with the Seattle Department of Transportation as well as with the Seattle Municipal Court as we work to move this program forward.

We do have staffing within the traffic section and utilize other officers from throughout the department to do some of that review.

And then we are currently working to increase the number of people available for that review by the utilization of parking enforcement officers.

So that's currently being worked through at this point in the review.

Thank you, Captain.

Final question I have, and I will turn it over to my colleagues to the extent they have any questions or comments for you.

So this proposed legislation would align city code with state statute and pursuant to which recent changes to the state law, pursuant to which would allow for civilians to review and issue citations for these tickets.

But also under recent council funding mandates, we are going to, the current plan is for the department to double the number of cameras in school zone locations, double the number of cameras in school locations.

and which merely setting those up, my sense is probably limited if any SPD responsibility, but once they're turned on and then issuing the citations, that's when there's a shared responsibility with SPD to issue those citations.

And in parallel, in fact, the second agenda item we're gonna be discussing today is we authorize additional funding for deployment of non-school speed zone cameras.

So outside of schools across the city, $1.18 million if my memory serves me correctly.

So in short, we're adopting state law that would allow SPD to leverage civilians instead of sworn officers to issue the citations on the one hand and we're and non-school zones as part of a broader council priorities and joint city priorities outside of this bill before us today.

And the executive has reported previously in this committee that the plan is to start doubling those doing the work to double the expansion of school's own speed cameras this year, with as many rolled out this year as possible, turning on as many as quickly as possible, and then start the work of the non-school speed cameras by the end of this year, start deploying the non-school speed cameras by the end of this year with the understanding that gonna be flipping the switch, so to speak, turning those ones on, the first sets of those on early in 2026. So all that is to say, Captain, can you help me better understand SPD's readiness and preparedness to deploy and implement an expanded camera program in both school zones and crucially non-school zones?

As Councilmember has indicated, we've initiated a pilot program with the parking enforcement officers to assist the traffic officers that are currently working in the traffic section on automated camera review in order to manage the number of infractions that show up in our traffic queues.

In addition to that, we utilize officers from throughout the department as they are available to come in, be trained, and to perform that function.

So we continue to look at options in this pilot to try and increase the number of people available for those camera reviews.

All right.

Thank you.

Do any of my colleagues have any other questions or comments for our invited guests who has not yet been represented in these prior discussions?

Go ahead, Council Member Kettle, of course.

O'Donnell, I just wanted to thank you and for the men and women in your unit that do this great work.

This is, again, something I referred to earlier in my earlier community days working with SPD.

And it was really, Captain Sana just came to my head, you know, somebody who, would come and participate and really look to make a difference for our community.

So please pass my thanks for their work and support of making Seattle safer.

Thank you, council member.

I'll do that.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, council member Kettle.

Any final questions, comments for the captain?

Hearing, seeing none, I too want to thank the, as chair of this transportation committee, Vice Chair of Councilmember Kettle's Public Safety Committee, I too want to extend my thanks and appreciation to the brave men and women of SPD for your partnership and working so closely in collaboration with SDOT to deliver this camera program and to roll out this camera program, recognizing that it is hard work and contributions by many to ultimately help keep our community safe, people safe on a road.

So thank you.

We have no further questions or comments for you, Captain O'Donnell.

Thank you.

Thank you council.

Yeah.

So any final comments on the bill before us as amended?

Hearing seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass Council Bill 120971 as amended.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

The motion carries in the committee recommendation that council pass Council Bill 120971 as amended will be sent to the May 13th 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.

Agenda item two, council bill 120972, an ordinance relating to appropriations for the Seattle department of transportation, modifying a proviso and amending ordinance 127156, which adopted the 2025 budget.

All right.

Thank you.

Well, our presenter, it looks like Cal is already at the table.

Mr. Chow, thank you.

Please reintroduce yourself and begin your presentation.

And colleagues, just as a FYI, I plan to go as late as noon today, but my hope is that we'd be able to get through the rest of these two agenda items in a more expedited manner.

Council Member Sockley.

Yeah.

I believe committees are scheduled for two hours.

Is that correct?

Committees are scheduled for as long as at the chair's pleasure.

So today I'm going to go up to 12.

Advance notice would be appreciated.

Thank you, sir.

Council Members, the legislation in front of you is offered by Council Member Saka.

Last year in the budget process, you identified money for the implementation of cameras outside of school zone areas, and then you put a proviso on that funding prohibiting that spending until authorized by future council action.

So this legislation would be...

lift that proviso, it would also make some technical changes just to ensure that this money is dedicated for funding of cameras outside of school zones.

All right, thank you.

And as the the sponsor of this proposed legislation, I'll just say, yeah, this helps empower the department to actually spend the money that we authorize.

I think throughout the course of these three meetings that we've had to discuss deployment of all camera types, I think the department has a good plan to start rolling out by, again, by end of this year.

and turning on early next year, the initial sets of non-school speed cameras.

So we need to empower them by letting them start to spend that money to do exactly that.

Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments?

Okay, again, urge your support.

I wanna thank Council Member Strauss for your partnership in this budget amendment.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll and recommendation to pass council bill 120972.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

The motion carries in the committee recommendation that council pass council bill 120972 will be sent to the May 13, 2025 city council meeting.

Moving right along, we will move on to our third item of business.

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

Agenda item three, Council Bill 120945, an ordinance vacating the alley in Block 52, AA Denny's extension to the Terry's first edition in the First Hill neighborhood and accepting a property use and development agreement, acknowledging the Seattle City Light easement on the petition of North Block Spring Street Development LLC, clerk file 314364.

Thank you and looks like our presenter has already joined us at the table.

Please do introduce yourselves and when you're ready, begin your presentation.

Lishwitsen Council Central Staff.

As you heard at your last meeting, this is a ordinance to grant the final vacation of a alley on First Hill.

on the block bounded by Seneca and Spring Streets and 7th and 8th Avenues.

It's the block that includes Town Hall Seattle.

The vacation facilitated the development of two apartment towers containing over 500 units of housing and the development of a 5,500 square foot public plaza open to the public.

as well as improvements along the streetscape and around the town hall building, which is a city landmark, and pedestrian improvements between this block and the freeway park, which is catty corner from the block.

With adoption, this would vacate the city's interest in the alley returning ownership to the petitioners.

All right.

Well, thank you, Mr. Whitson.

Appreciate your comments here.

Do any of my fellow committee members have any questions or comments?

All right.

Council member Kittle.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

In the interest of time, I just wanted to, I wasn't going to mention making remarks, but as the district seven representative, I wanted to state that my support of this, I think it was well covered in the previous meeting.

And what I like about it is that it's not in of itself.

I've already seen the benefits related to Town Hall from my visits, my events at Town Hall, but also from my recent visit to Freeway Park.

know this this vacation the work that's been done here kind of complements Freeway Park on the other side of the street to the north of this vacation and I think that's another benefit that we should be highlighting and looking to really promote where we have two efforts kind of supporting each other in a way you know not directly but still give that feeling that extra sense for the First Hill community in this case that that green space, that kind of open public space.

I think that's very much positive.

And so with that, I just wanted to say thank you for your work on this.

Thank you, Mr. Whitson and your team for your work on this and those that have participated from SDOT, also from the ownership group.

And I will vote yes, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Any other comments, questions from my colleagues?

Hearing and seeing none, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120945. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the Council Bill 120945. Are there any final comments?

Hearing and seeing none, I assume that's a stale hand, Council Member Petal?

Yep, hearing and seeing none.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll on recommendation to pass Council Bill 120945?

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that council pass Council Bill 120945 will be sent to the May 13th, 2025 City Council meeting.

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

Our next meeting is on May 20th at 9.30 a.m.

Just wanna note to Council Member Strauss and all my colleagues here, feedback taken.

Advanced notice would have been helpful and I own that and I will endeavor to do better on my end, giving you a heads up that we could expect longer committee meetings.

I also view it as a shared responsibility for you all, members of this committee.

You plan, you need to leave early for any number of valid reasons.

I totally understand that.

We all need to do it from time to time.

So to the extent you need to leave, you have a hard stop, please do let my office know in advance and we can coordinate our efforts.

I will do my part.

I ask that we all do yours as well.

But good news, we got us out of here by 1124. So our meeting, our next meeting is, like I said, May 20th at 930 AM.

Any final business to come before the committee before the meeting adjourns?

There ain't no further business to come before the committee.

We are officially adjourned.

It is 1124 AM.