I'm not going to argue with Disagreeable, because frankly, I don't have time for his ad hominem nonsense. Neither anyone else for that matter.
Seattle should be fine, although even introducing this as evidence is going to be tough: there is no foundation for it.
Now that I see <1/4 mi VIS, I'm thinking you may have a better argument.
I'll let you in on a little secret about Kirkland Muni: If you can throw a bunch of information at him saying that the visibility is low, foundation shouldn't be a problem. Also, if you continue to throw motions at it and waste the courts time, the judge will most likely say "screw it, dismissed." Seen that done there more than 5 times.
If I were you, I'd look into a deferral, and if that isn't an option, then I'd pick the statement and the statute apart and give him 20+ motions.