►
Description
Traffic and Transportation Commission Special Meeting - December 12th, 2022
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
E
D
This
is
a
time
and
place
for
public
comments.
Registration
for
public
comments
is
available
for
those
wishing
to
address
the
traffic
commission
regarding
inebs
on
the
agenda
or
on
a
subject
within
the
city's
jurisdiction.
Speakers
for
specific
agenda
items
shall
be
called
and
heard
during
that
specific
item.
D
All
remarks
should
be
addressed
to
the
traffic
commission
as
a
whole.
Speakers
are
requested
to
State
their
name
and
community
of
residence
for
the
record
under
State
Law
Public
comment.
Matters
may
not
be
considered
by
the
traffic
commission
unless
listed
on
the
agenda,
but
may
be
refer
to
the
city
engineer
for
administrative
follow-up.
D
B
E
Thank
thank
you
Mr
chairman,
so
one
thing
I
wanted
I
wanted
to
offer
one
correction
potential
correction
and
one
clarification
on
under
section
two,
where
I
think
it's
second
paragraph,
commissioner
limo
made
a
motion
to
accept
I
I
think
it
might
make
for
a
better
flow
of
what
happened.
If
the
last
two
lines
which
states
motion
fails,
one
four
by
the
following
votes
was
moved
after
the
next
paragraph
starting
Vice,
chair
pleasure,
because
I
think
that
what
happened
during
the
meeting
was
a
motion
was
made.
We
discussed
the
nature
of
the
motion.
E
Vice
your
pleasure
offered
a
substitute
motion.
We
had
the
discussion
about
whether
to
entertain
it.
He
removed
it.
Then
we
went
back
to
the
motion
and
and
voted
on
it.
So
I
wonder
if
that's
a
correction
that
could
be
made
to
better
reflect
what
I
think
happened:
I'd
happy
to
entertain
discussion
by
the
commission
on
that.
B
E
Mr
chairman
I,
also
I,
did
have
one
kind
of
clarification
that
I
wanted
to
offer
as
well,
not
a
change
sure
but
I
wanted
to
also
mention
it.
Vice
Pletcher
had
mentioned
during
the
the
process
of
making
what
he
had
kind
of
described
as
a
substitute
motion,
and
there
was
discussion
about
whether
that
was
in
order
and
and
doing
that.
E
So
in
my
research
on
I
wanted
to
kind
of
get
a
sense
of
what
is
out
there
in
what's
called
substitute
motion,
at
least
in
my
experience
within
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks,
the
the
the
nature
of
substitute
motions,
that's
not
at
least
what
it's
called
in.
In
some
cases,
a
substitute
motion
is
sort
of
what's
called
a
subsidiary
motion
or
it's
an
actual
Amendment
to
the
motion.
E
Regarding
what
other
jurisdictions
do
with
substitute
motions,
my
understanding,
at
least
at
the
time,
I
had
sort
of
taken
the
substitute
motion
as
being
something
that
was
being
offered
in
place
of
the
current
motion
and
I.
Think
that's
the
reason
why
I
was
mentioning
it
so
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
there
are
some
of
what's
generally
called
substitute,
motions
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
people
had
an
understanding
of
why
the
discussion
occurred.
E
B
F
D
5,
where
it
discusses
motions
to
amend
it,
says
that
a
substitute
motion
on
the
same
subject
shall
be
acceptable.
So
a
substitute
motion
is
treated
as
an
amendment
to
the
the
main
motion
and
that's
how
I
understood
it
and
and
a
sub
in
the
emotion
to
amend,
would
take
precedent
over
the
the
main
motion
you
would.
You
would
take
a
motion
to
amend
before
the
motion
to
approve
the
main
items.
E
F
B
B
G
That
is
correct.
Thank
you
very
much
good
evening
Commissioners.
This
is
a
continued
item
from
our
November
meeting
on
the
crossing
guard
item
based
on
the
feedback
provided
by
the
commission
on
the
October
19th
2022
meeting
and
the
November
16th
meeting
staff
is
returning
to
offer
final
recommendations
on
the
new
crossing
guard
standards
and
policies.
G
As
you
know,
tonight's
meeting
is
the
culmination
of
five
prior
meetings
with
the
traffic
commission
and
the
city
council
earlier
this
year
on
the
crossing
guard
program,
the
last
of
three
of
which
are
detailed
here
in
October
staff
and
what
you
can
call
a
study
session
provided
a
history
and
current
standards
to
the
traffic
commission
and
received
feedback
on
a
possible
program
and
policy
changes.
Coming
back
the
following
month
in
November,
we
presented
a
proposed
draft
policy
and
standards
to
the
traffic
commission.
G
This
isn't
a
part
in
response
to
the
direction
and
discussions
at
the
last
meeting
that
clarified
that
the
traffic
commission,
being
an
advisory
commission
and
not
a
discretionary
body
and
also
the
desire
not
to
have
the
traffic
commission,
perhaps
have
to
make
all
the
administrative
decisions.
So
let's
just
walk
through
this
as
outlined
here
on
this
slide.
G
So
there
were
any
requests
in
for
additional
guards
or
locations
to
be
submitted
in
writing
to
the
public
works
department
staff
will
report
to
the
public
works
director
annually
and
identify
the
locations
after
analysis
that
do
not
meet
the
minimum
standards.
The
traffic
commission
will
review
and
approve
that
annual
list
and
take
any
you
know.
Public
comment,
appeal
of
the
Public
Works
director's
decision
to
the
city
councils
is
maintained
and
included
in
the
in
the
review.
G
So,
as
requested
by
the
commission
at
the
last
meeting
staff
expanded
the
list
of
alternatives
which
had
previously
included
just
item
number
one
and
added
three
additional
alternative
criteria
that
will
make
the
program
even
more
flexible,
while
still
staying
within
the
mutc
guidelines
and
just
as
importantly,
remaining
objective.
In
terms
of
the
the
analysis
for
each
one.
The
details
of
each
are
in
your
packet
and
in
the
draft
resolution,
but
let's
just
walk
through
each
one.
G
Second
and
then
the
second
one,
which
is
the
first
of
the
the
newer
ones
we've
added,
is
the
traffic
volume
alternative
which
allows
for
intersections
to
qualify
with
as
low
as
10
pedestrians,
based
on
the
higher
traffic
volume
at
those
locations,
which
is
I,
believe
a
thousand
traffic
count
of
a
thousand
alternative
number
three
is
a
speed
limit
alternative.
This
is
for
the
higher
speed
roadways
which
can,
in
those
cases
the
vehicle
counts,
are
dropped
by
10
percent,
so
that
makes
it
easier
for
those
intersections
to
qualify.
G
G
E
Thank
you,
so
thank
you.
Mr
Dari,
the
there
there
was
a
I
think
change
in
the
nature
of
the
the
approval
process
and
how
that
eventually
gets
to
the
council
from
the
previous
session,
which
sort
of
gave
an
understanding
of
the
traffic
commission
would
be
providing.
It
would
have
some
decision-making
Authority
potentially
of
denial.
Where
this
this
draft
is
sort
of
says
that
the
Public
Works
director
will
be
making
those
decisions
reporting
to
the
traffic
commission
and
potentially
appealable.
E
For
that
you
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
you
referenced
the
nature
of
the
traffic
traffic
and
transportation
advisory
commission
is
an
advisory
one,
and
is
that
sort
of
like
upon
reflection
and
kind
of
the
nature
of
how
the
commission
was
stood
up
by
the
council
and
what
its
intent
was
that
that's
the
nature
of
the
change
of
moving
from
what
was
potential
a
little
bit
of
discretion
to
no
we're
really
just
kind
of
receiving
a
report
and
Advising
on
what
how
the
council
might
think
about
things,
but
no
actual
change
of
authority.
Is
that
correct.
E
I
just
want
to
understand
that
that
was
that
was
something
that
came
out
but
I
think
with
the
explanation
of
kind
of
the
nature
of
the
commission
and
how
it
stood
up,
giving
it
any
Authority
probably
would
change
the
council's
overall
makeup
of
what
what
they
gave
the
authority
so
that
I
understand
the.
Let
me
see.
E
I
did
have
some
question
about
some
of
the
wording
and
I
wanted
to
get
get
an
understanding.
What
what
some
of
the
things
were.
So
in
the
the
way,
the
the
structure,
the
first
section
says,
request
to
add
any
crossing
guards
she'll
be
in
writing.
So
that
sort
of
says,
if
they're
not
already
on
the
list
for
evaluation,
you
can
get
one
evaluated
on
the
list.
You
have
to
do
it
in
writing.
E
Is
it?
Is
it
clear
what
will
come
to
the
traffic
commission
at
that
point?
It
seems
to
me
like
it
would
be
those
that
were
maybe
approved
last
year,
plus
those
that
would
be
submitted
in
writing
for
evaluation
and
then
the
recommend
that
the
decisions
of
the
Public
Works
director
would
be
crafted
and
presented
to
the
traffic
commission
is
that
the
intent
of.
G
I
think
the
the
summary
report
that
the
traffic
commission
would
receive
would
be
more
all-encompassing.
It
would,
it
would
be
a
complete
analysis
of
here's,
the
entire
program.
Here's
all
the
locations,
here's
the
new
ones
potentially
that
were
requested
and
qualify
here-
is
the
ones
that
no
longer
qualify.
C
E
Entire
list-
oh
I,
guess
I
didn't
intend
to
be
the
changes.
It
meant
that
that
it
was
it
was.
It
would
include
evaluation
of
all
prior
prior
approved
locations,
plus
those
that
were
asked
to
be
evaluated
in
writing.
Right
I'm,
just
asking
is
like
is
the
is
the
language
of
that
clear.
It
was
a
little
a
little
fuzzy
to
me
that
that's
that's
what
would
be
coming,
but
you
know.
G
E
Where
it
would
like
the
evaluation
of
what
comes
to
the
traffic
commission
would
be
all
of
these
locations
and
what
the
Public
Works
directors
decisions
are
about
approval
or
not
approval
because
of
the
evaluation
against
the
criteria.
Maybe
that,
maybe
that's,
maybe
some
additional
language,
maybe
in
three
just
to
just
to
kind
of.
G
E
G
E
G
E
The
intent
is,
is
that
it
it
it
fails
to
meet
all
of
them
right
like
that's,
that
that
is
kind
of
the
intent
right
right.
Okay,
okay,
if
that's,
if
that's
the
intent
and
that's
clear,
that's
that's
fine!
Thank
you.
I
just
appreciate
the
walkthrough
of
what
some
of
the
language
intends
all
right.
Thank
you.
B
I
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
just
to
tack
on
to
what
commissioner
Ferris
was
talking
about
when
it
comes
to
the
section
regarding
review,
Authority
I,
just
kind
of
wanted
to
maybe
walk
through
the
timeline
of
a
request
at
a
crossing
guard
location
because
it
seems
to
me
it
may
be
beneficial
to
have
this
discussion,
because
what
I
Envision
is.
Somebody
makes
a
request
for
a
crossing
guard
location.
Let's
say
it's
I,
don't
know
mid
mid-semester
right
and
there's
a
decision.
B
So
there's
a
report
coming
to
us
once
a
year
and
if
somebody
has
a
request,
that's
denied
how
long
do
they
have
to
wait
for
us
to
get
the
report,
because
that
then
triggers
the
timeline
for
them
to
appeal
according
to
how
this
is
written
and
when
we
get
the
report,
we're
not
actually
doing
anything
with
it.
We're
just
getting
reports,
not
even
an
action
item,
so
it
just
seems
to
me
that
it's
a
little
unfair
to
make
somebody
requesting
an
addition
of
a
crossing
guard
location.
B
G
Yeah
I'll
speak
to
the
first
question.
The
the
analysis
is
done
annually.
So
if
someone
is
going
to
request
a
crossing
guard,
we
we
don't.
We
look
at
the
whole
program.
We
do
the
counts
at
the
right
period
of
time.
We
don't
do
it
during
the
holidays,
and
so
typically,
it's
done
during
the
Spring
when
able
to.
We
do
fall
and
spring
counts,
but
so
we
analyze
the
program
in
the
spring
so
that
we
can
potentially
make
the
appropriate
changes
over
the
summer.
G
You
know
in
preparation
for
the
next
school
year,
so
the
review
and
Analysis
by
the
public
works
director
will
be
taking
place.
Approximately
you
know
in
close
proximity
to
when
the
summary
report
will
be
coming
to
the
traffic
commission,
so
it
won't
be
a
decision
from
eight
months
ago.
The
all
analysis
we've
done
right
around
that
same
time
in
the
spring,
which
is
when
right
after
that
we'll
be
coming
to
the
traffic
commission.
G
So
there
won't
be
a
big
delay
or
Gap
there
necessarily,
but
that
can
be
just
considered
and
in
terms
of
the
appeal
period.
I
think
the
idea
was
that
the
this
would
be
the
venue
or
a
forum
for
people
to
be
able
to
have
public
comment,
and
you
know
have
a
a
sounding
board-
a
discussion
Point
here
before
they
go
directly
from
staff
to
council
and
then
Council
saying.
B
Okay,
so
I
appreciate
those
comments.
So
if,
if
we
have
a,
if
we
have
a
meeting
and
one
of
the
agenda
items,
is
a
report
and
it's
an
annual
report
that
discloses
all
of
the
currently
approved
locations
and
then
we're
going
to
have
you
know,
theoretically,
people
in
a
room
giving
us
comments
about
their
thoughts
on
that
report,
I
mean
couldn't
they
couldn't
they
give
their
comments
at
the
city
council
level.
I,
don't
understand
what
why?
Because
we
can't
do
anything
with
it.
B
It's
like
you
know,
shouting
from
the
mountaintops.
No,
no
one's
going
to
hear
it.
We
we
can't
do
anything
with
it.
So
I,
don't
understand
why
somebody
who
makes
a
request
and
look
I'm
I'm,
also
talking
about
a
situation
where
somebody
makes
a
request
to
add
a
crossing
guard
location
because
there's
some
unforeseeable
event
or
there's
some
unforeseeable,
extraordinary
circumstance
and
I
can't
think
of
one
off
the
top
of
my
head
right
now.
B
B
G
B
Sure
sure
yeah
right
I
get
it
so
like.
If
somebody
makes
an
a
request
to
add
a
crossing
guard
location,
let's
say
in
September
October
is
or
is
what
you're
telling
me
that
that
request
will
not
be
acted
upon
until
the
end
of
the
school
year
when
the
new
counts
are
taken.
The
new
pedestrian
and
vehicular
accounts
are
taken.
G
Yes,
typically
in
the
spring
in
the
past,
we've
done
fall
and
spring
counts.
So
in
that
case,
potentially,
if
we
do
the
fall
counts,
we
could
relate
to
them
that
you
know
you're,
that
the
findings
you
know
you're
well
short
or
but
in
either
case
any
changes
to
the
program.
Typically,
it
will
take
place
at
the
start
of
the
school
year.
We
haven't
ever
pulled
out
locations,
mid-year
or
added
or
done.
You
know,
made
made
large
scale
changes
to
add
or
delete
locations
during
the
school
year.
G
H
G
A
B
All
right,
so
my
my
final
question
would
be:
is
it
possible
because
look
that
there
could
be
a
month-long
timeline
right
before
the
Public
Works
director
has
to
make
a
decision
on
a
request
to
add
a
location
and
then
from
there
you
know
the
traffic
commission
doesn't
necessarily
meet
every
month.
I
mean
I,
know
that
that's
the
intent,
but
the
reality
is
sometimes
we
meet
six
times
a
year,
and
so,
if
there's
delay
in
getting
the
report
to
us,
I'm
going
to
call
it,
you
know
it's
a
perfunctory
hearing
on
a
report.
G
Yeah
most
of
the
appeal
processes
at
the
city.
They
go,
for
instance,
in
planning.
They
go
from
planning
to
the
Planning
Commission,
then
to
the
council,
and
so
that
would
be
I
guess
slightly
different
than
how
it
most
it
usually
is.
Structured.
I
also
believe
the
city
council
wants
to
set
the
policy,
but
not
necessarily
you
know,
administer
the
policy.
I
think
that
they're
looking
to
the
traffic
commission
to
do
that.
So.
B
But
we
wouldn't
be
doing
that,
though
we're
not
administering
any
policy
if
we're
just
receiving
a
report
and
being
told
that
this
is
what's
approved
and
that's
it
I'm
not
doing
anything
so
I,
just
I'm
thinking
about
look
I
mean
I'm
thinking
about
time
and
and
I'm
thinking
about
being
in
the
shoes
of
the
person
who's
making
the
request
and
how
quickly
can
I
just
get
a
final
decision
on
this
I'm
just
trying
to
eliminate
some
unnecessary
step
that
doesn't
really
seem
like.
It
serves
much
purpose.
G
Yeah
they're,
the
existing
user
fee
manual
for
the
city,
has
a
procedure
to
appeal
a
staff
decision
to
the
traffic
commission
or
to
to
Planning
Commission.
It's
it's
structured,
quite
the
same.
So
in
that
case,
that
could
be.
That
is
an
Avenue
for
the
staff.
I
mean
for
the
resident
to
get
a
potentially
a
faster
hearing
date
here
at
the
traffic
commission,
and
you
know
maybe
not
need
to
wait
till
the
normal
time
of
the
spring.
G
You
know
the
spring
count
or
the
the
annual
report
that
comes
to
the
traffic
commission,
so
that
would
give
them
an
Avenue
to
have
it
heard
as
a
standalone,
although
they
would
have
to
pay
the
appeal
fee
to
to
get
there,
whereas
under
this
structure,
bringing
it
to
the
traffic
commission
doesn't
require
an
appeal
fee.
It's
just
part
of
our
annual
process.
Okay,.
F
H
B
But
at
least
at
that
point
it
then
this
would
make
sense
that
it
came
to
us,
and
now
you
got
14
days
to
to
appeal
to
the
city
council
I
mean.
If
you
go
that
route,
then
then
this
seems
to
make
more
sense
and
it
seems
like
we
would
have
a
purpose,
then
more
so
than
just
you
know
receiving
you
know
a
report.
G
G
B
Yeah
sure
and
I
have
no
reason
to
doubt
that
I,
you
know
my
bigger
point
is
that
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
what
our
actual
role
is
and
and
all
of
this
going
forward,
because
this
is
now
a
this-
is
a
revision.
It's
a
material
revision
from
the
last
proposed
resolution
that
we
saw,
which
actually
did
have
us
having
a
role
in
the
process.
B
But
now
we
really
don't
have
a
role
in
the
process
and
so
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
to
inquire
as
to
whether
there
is
a
more
expedited
way
for
a
requesting
party
who
has
their
request
denied
to
get
a
final
decision
rather
than
waiting
for
it
to
come
through
us
when
we
don't
really
do
anything
with
it.
So
I
think
I've
beat
this
this
horse
to
death,
but.
B
I
I
The
planning
director
would
have
some
authority
vested
within
him
or
her
to
make
certain
kind
of
over-the-counter
administrative
decisions
and
and
get
that
information
out
to
an
applicant
or
somebody
interested
in
you
know
a
proposal
or
a
change,
or
my
only
thought.
Maybe
suggestion
is
I
watched.
The
conversation
here
develop
is
you
know,
maybe
what
needs
to
happen
at
the
you
know,
be
it
maybe
it's
at
the
fee
resolution
level
or
the
way
this
plays
out.
I
You
know,
I
I
would
hate
for
somebody
who,
within
let's
say
a
month
after
we
have
our
yearly
hearing
on
this
and
says.
I
really
think
this
intersection
needs
a
you
know,
needs
a
new
crossing
guard
and
has
to
wait
11
months
to
really
kind
of
have
that
come
back
around.
But
that
being
said,
maybe
the
change
is.
I
You
know
the
the
Public
Works
director
in
that
letter
to
that
applicant,
denying
the
project
we
build
in
there,
and
this
is
something
we
can
consider
at
a
later
time,
because
it's
not
really
pertinent
here.
Is
we
build
in
there
a
direct
appeal
right
to
the
city
council
just
giving
them
it
skips
us
and
I
understand
that?
I
But
the
way
this
is
written
with
what
Authority
we
have
or
don't
have
you
know
we
don't
have
the
authority
vested
within
us
to
overrule
something
that
is
objectively
based,
but
it
does
give
that
Resident
the
ability
to
perhaps
much
quicker
than
the
way
this
is
written,
hear
the
yes
or
the
here
in
this
instance
the
no
from
the
public
works
director
and
have
an
Avenue
to
hear
the
appeal,
because
I
I
just
think.
Ultimately,
it's
important,
you
know
some
that's
kind
of
my
proposal.
I
Is
you
maybe
look
at
that
and
just
tweak
it
because
it's
just
about
giving
that
option
to
the
resident
for
a
direct
appeal
and
it
goes
to
city
council?
Yes,
there's
a
obviously
a
more
significant
cost
with
staff
time,
but
it's
kind
of
a
middle
of
the
road
approach
to
what
I,
I
think
I'm
hearing
tonight
that
could
possibly
just
not
delay
our
services
to
our
community.
I
A
I
H
I
You
know
macro
issue
dialed
into
one,
maybe
two,
two
City
Council
meetings
at
best,
you
know
I
I
I-
think
if
there'd
be
some
kind
of
report
that
even
just
gets
to
city
council,
you
throw
it
on
a
consent,
calendar
just
something
again
to
keep
informing
the
public,
what's
being
decided
here
at
City
Hall
if
they
happen
to
miss
the
traffic
commission.
You
know
our
annual
traffic
commission
report
just
just
something
give
the
public
another
opportunity
to
see
the
same
report.
The
traffic
commission
receives
I
mean
that's
just
my
suggestion
and.
I
I
So
it's
not
like
we're
going
to
take
away,
but
Council
needs
all
the
facts
to
make
their
determination
on
budget
and
cycles,
and
you
know
I,
just
I,
just
more
information
to
the
council
and
to
the
public
I
think
is
valuable,
especially
because
this
just
from
the
folks
I
talk
to
seems
to
be
a
very
you
know
a
subject.
A
lot
of
people
in
the
community
tend
to
be
passionate
about
I
didn't
have
any
other
questions.
Mr
chair.
Thank
you.
B
J
I
was
thinking
about
what
commissioner
Ferris
said
about
the
procedure
in
in
reading
this
I'm
thinking.
Maybe
number
three
really
should
be
number
five,
because
if
you
follow
the
process,
really
we're
just
receiving
the
summary
of
everything
that
happened
so
I
mean
it's
just
the
chronology
of
it.
It's
just
if
you're
looking
at
it
from
a
flow
perspective,
maybe
number
three
should
be
number
five.
G
J
And
on
on
current
number
five,
so
if,
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
criteria,
but
it'll
still
get
a
crossing
guard
for
that
following
year
right,
but
the
notification
will
go
out
that
this,
the
the
location
will
cease
to.
There
will
be
no
crossing
guard
the
year
after
that.
So
if
that
determination-
but
let's
say
it's
spring
of
23
and
the
determination
has
made
that
a
location
is-
is
not
going
to
get
a
crossing
guard
23-24
they
get
across
in
guard,
but
24
25.
J
E
B
E
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
had
the
opportunity
for
the
Public's
to
have
that's
part
of
the
meeting
so
through
this
I
think
this
has
been
really
helpful,
just
to
get
a
sense
of
what
we're
trying
to
provide
us
a
policy
and
make
it
consistent
with
the
two
previous
meetings
worth
of
of
comments.
Of
of
wanting
to
to
do.
This
I
do
remember,
at
least
in
the
past
two
meetings,
and
vice
chair,
Pletcher
I,
think
has
kind
of
mentioned.
This.
E
Is
that
giving
a
form
in
some
manner
just
like
the
the
ability
for
the
public
to
know
what
the
decisions
are
and
have
their
ability
to
to
weigh
in
I
thought
was
something
that
that
we
have
and
I
think
we,
you
know,
have
sort
of
structured
that,
in
a
way
of
Public
Works
director
will
make
decisions
it
will
be
presented
to
the
traffic
commission.
It
will
receive
a
report.
There
will
be
a
meeting
for
which
that
happens.
E
If,
if
the
desire
for
the
policy
is
to
keep
the
traffic
commission
as
an
advisory
commission,
and
therefore
no
actual
decisions
are
made,
is
it
possible
that
one
of
the
actions
that
we
can,
in
fact
take
is
in
review
of?
That
report
is
to
provide
our
recommendations
about
the
approvals
denials
based
upon
what
the
Public
Works
director
has
stated
and
that
that's
just
our
view
on
it,
so
that
if
it
gets
to
the
point
where
someone
does
want
to
appeal,
the
decision
of
the
Public
Works
director
goes
to
the
council.
They
have
the
fee.
E
That
information
is
at
least
available
that
it
was
reviewed.
It
was
in
public
forum
we
weighed
in,
and
we
may
have
said,
we
support
the
Public
Works
director's
position,
or
there
was
additional
evidence
that
that
was
there.
We
have
no
official
Authority,
but
we
are
advising
at
that
point.
Is
that
something
that
could
be
considered
as
part
of
this
process
to
be
helpful?.
E
E
I,
don't
think
we
want
I
think
we
want
to
try
and
figure
out
how
to
enable
the
public
to
get
their
case
heard
and
be
fair
in
in
the
right
way.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we've
we're
doing
it
in
a
way
that
does
provide
the
public
the
opportunity
to
have
their
their
voices
heard,
but
I
do
I,
guess
get
the
understanding.
A
lot
of
this
is
driven
by
the
the
prior
process
has
been
evaluation.
E
It's
come
to
the
the
traffic
commission
and
the
city
council
weighs
in
every
year
like
they
have
to
make
a
decision.
I
think
it
sounds
like
they
may
want
to
not
have
to
do
that
every
year
and
only
in
circumstances
to
where
a
decision
is
made
and
someone
appeals
it
does.
The
council
get
involved
to
to
weigh
in
is
that.
Does
that
kind
of
consistent
with
what
what
we
think
the
council
is
looking
for
here.
B
Well,
one
further
question
I
have
for
staff
is
to
to
follow
up
on
commissioner
ferris's
comments.
Number
three
in
the
proposed
resolution
says
that
we're
getting
report,
but
it's
only
on
approvals,
so
I
mean
Mr.
You
know,
commissioner
Ferris
says
well,
isn't
there
a
way
for
us
to
make
recommendations
on
you
know
any
adverse
action
that
was
taken
on
a
request,
but
we're
not
even
going
to
know
about
it
because
we're
only
getting
a
report
that
tells
us
what
the
approved
crossing
guard
locations
are.
B
I
I
You
know
everything
that's
been
done
by
the
public
works
director
for
the
year,
I
mean
essentially
I
view
it
to
put
it
in
constitutional
language
terms.
It's
it's
the
check
and
balance
on
the
Public
Works
directors,
actions
for
the
year,
so
I'll
throw
that
out
there.
It's
it's
it's.
This
is
the
process
in
which
the
public
forum,
in
which
we
dive
into
the
program
for
the
year,
evaluate
it
top
to
bottom
talk
about
what
the
Public
Works
director
did
or
did
not
do,
and
the
Public's
able
to
come
and
voice
comment
on.
I
B
E
Thank
you,
I
I,
do
understand
the
nature
of
keeping
the
traffic
advisory
commission
as
an
advisory
commission,
I
and
I
do
think
that
the
discussion
we've
had
here
is
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
play
a
constructive
role
in
in
the
ability
of
implementing
the
policy
on
behalf
of
the
council,
yet
still
making
sure
the
public
has
some
sense
of
their
their
city.
Government
is
hearing
them,
even
if
it
isn't
necessarily
something
we
can
change
the
actual
decision
on.
E
We
might
be
able
to
advise
on
it
so
I'm
I'm
in
favor,
I.
Think
of
the
nature
of
the
way
the
policy
has
been
written,
given
all
those
sorts
of
things
with
there's
a
way
we
can
add
in
that.
We
would
provide
our
recommendations
on
the
Public,
Works
directors.
I,
don't
know
the
right
language,
but
just
whatever,
whatever
our
review
of
that
is
on
the
approved
and
denied
locations.
E
As
part
of
the
report
we
receive
and
if
there's
any
specific
language
changes
that
we
should
have
either
in
the
reordering
to
make
it
easier
to
understand
the
flow
as
well
as
ensuring
Clarity
that
the
report
will
Encompass
all
locations
evaluated
by
the
public
works
director
for
that
year.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
So.
B
Then
you
know
that
this
only
comes
to
us
once
a
year,
and
it
just
seems
like
you
know,
the
I
think
the
the
example
given
in
the
course
of
the
discussion
was
that
you
know
somebody
makes
a
request
for
a
crossing
guard
location
after
us
after
the
school
year
starts,
and
you
know
they're
going
to
potentially
be
waiting.
You
know
many
months
or
they're
going
to
make
a
request.
After
we've,
you
know
heard
the
annual
report
and
they're
going
to
be
waiting
an
extended
period
of
time.
B
I
Thank
you,
Mr
chair.
As
far
as
number
three
goes
kind
of
following
up
on
your
your
time.
Your
kind
of
beginning
revisions,
I
I'll,
just
throw
out
there.
The
way
I
kind
of
foresee
it
is-
is
annually
the
traffic
and
transportation
advisory
commission
will
receive
a
comprehensive
report
from
the
public
works
director
on
the
crossing
guard
program
for
the
upcoming
school
year.
It's
comprehensive
it's
on
the
entire
program
and
it's
for
the
upcoming
school
year.
I
I
E
E
But
if
we
believe
that
the
the
the
the
duck
crossing
guard
program,
if
that's
fully
encompassing
of
all
evaluated
locations,
I
would
I
would
be
fine,
but
that
would
be
the
intent
I'd
want
to
see
because
we'd
want
to
we'd
want
to
know
what
decisions
did
the
Public
Works
director
make?
Let's
make
those
public,
let's
at
least
review
them
and
I
do
like
I
think
the
way
Vice
chair
Pletcher
is
crafted
it,
which
is
rather
than
us
saying.
We
will
like,
provide
our
specific
recommendations
on
approval
denies.
H
E
Now.
My
understanding,
then,
would
be
even
if
the
even
if
we
were
to
recommend
it.
The
the
report
goes
to
city
council
for
a
consent
item
for
them
to
receive
the
report.
That
does
not
change
the
opportunity
for
someone
to
actually
appeal
it
and
have
that
become
an
agenda
item
for
the
city
council
to
review.
That
decision
of
the
Public
Works
director
is
that
is
that
correct.
G
E
H
E
You
know
some
of
the
delivery,
we're
striving
toward
efficiency
and
being
too
cold
about
it,
but
we
do
know
when
the
school
year
starts
and
if
we
are,
you
know
open
about,
we
want
if
you
want
to
have
that
evaluated.
Here,
are
the
time
frames
in
which
to
do
that,
then
it
can
be
part
of
the
event
yearly
evaluation
of
the
program.
What
I
worry
about
is
people
not
necessarily
working
through
that
evaluation
and
kind
of
circumventing
it
and
and.
E
B
B
I
B
E
B
I
Throwing
language
out
something
to
the
effect
of
within
a
reasonable
time
after
the
counts,
annual
counts
have
been
made
something
to
the
effect
of
I
I.
You
know
I'm,
looking
at
the
City
attorney
to
help
me
on
this,
but
it's
the
and
whatever
the
annual
counts,
are
the
ones
that
trigger
the
meeting
essentially
trigger
the
Public
Works
director.
Looking
at
the
issue
evaluating
it,
making
decisions
and
bringing
it
to
us.
F
Yeah
I
think
we
could
revise
the
word
annually
to
within
60
days
of
the
Public
Work
Director
determination
on
the
Crossings.
The
report
will
come
to
the
commission
or
I
mean
it's
whatever
reasonable
time
frame.
That
staff
thinks
is
reasonable.
You
know
to
be
able
to
get
that
evaluation
completed,
and
you
know
agendized
and
in
front
of
the
commission.
I
C
I
That
could
happen
if
we
flip
the
whole
process
10
years
down
the
road
and
suddenly
we're
doing
fall
counts
and
that
becomes
that
would
still
play
out
the
exact
same
way
as
the
City
attorney
proposes.
We
would
have
we
would
if,
for
some
some
reason
we
start
doing,
just
fall,
fall
counts.
Public,
Works,
director
looks
at
the
evaluation,
makes
the
call
in
60
days
it's
in
front
of
us.
B
J
So
I
had
mentioned
this
at
the
the
last
meeting,
but
I
still
struggle
with
the
elimination
of
Madrona
off
of
this
I.
Think
the
language
of
within
the
city
limits.
Does
that
I
recognize
that
the
the
reasoning
behind
it
I
also
recognize
that
they
don't
qualify
for
crossing
guard
now,
but
to
close
that
door
on
it
forever.
I
just
have
a
hard
time
supporting
it
that
way.
J
If,
if
the,
if
staff
sees
that
you
know,
maybe
in
that
case
when
when
something
is
brought
to
the
traffic
commission
for
evaluation,
it
could
be
noted
that
this
is
or
an
appeal
is
made,
that
this
is
not
within
City
Limits
and
in
a
decision
or
recommendation
can
be
made
at
that
time.
But
just
to
put
this
moving
forward,
just
kind
of
shuts
the
door
on
it
completely
and
I
would
rather
not
see
that.
J
Does
if
they've
never
had
one
I
can
understand,
but
it
was
always
included
in
there
and
now
we're
essentially
just
removing
one
of
the
28
schools.
That
I
mean
we
can
say
it's
not
within
the
city
limits,
but
that's
for
a
number
of
different
reasons
of
Incorporated
areas.
Etc
this
my
my
opinion.
Thank
you.
B
F
I
mean
somewhat
of
a
form
over
substance.
I
mean
the
reality
is,
is
that
this
policy
is
going
to
apply
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
city
of
Thousand,
Oaks
right
and
I'm
a
little
unclear
on
on
how
that
location
came
to
be.
But
the
reality
is
is
that
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
is
evaluating
locations
within
our
city
right,
like
I,
don't
believe
that
our
evaluation
criteria
is
going
to
apply
to
locations
in
Ventura,
County
or
city
of
Los,
Angeles
or
San
Diego
or
any
other
jurisdiction
other
than
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks.
E
I
think
the
challenge
with
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
is
that
we
have
Islands
right
where,
if
you
were
to
ask
people,
so
is
this
inside
the
city
and
you're
going
to
get
a
legalistic
answer
of
no
and
most
people
will
go.
Of
course
it
is,
and
I
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
the
I
mean
I.
Don't
want
to
speak
for
commissioner
Hayek,
but
I
think
that's
sort
of
like
the
public
is
going
to
go.
Yeah
I
mean
I,
totally
get
it,
but
I.
E
E
You
know
their
their
understanding
of
whether
the
city
council
should
support
the
pain
for
a
crossing
guard
but
and
I
get
it
I
mean
I.
Understand
like
the
you
know,
that's
it's
within
the
technical
jurisdiction
of
it,
but
it's
because
we
have
islands
in
the
in
the
city
that
that
we're
kind
of
having
this
discussion
right
now,
I,
don't
think
anybody
would
say.
E
Yeah
we're
gonna,
go
and
and
pay
for
funding
in
Camarillo,
but
you
know
it
depends
on
when
you
ask
whether
it's
inside
the
city
or
not
depends
on
who's
giving
the
answer
so
I'm
I
would
be
supportive
if
we
remove
the
language
for
City,
Limits
and
and
allow
that
to
be
part
of
the
evaluation
by
City
staff
and
potentially
an
appeal
to
city
council.
That's
what
the
public
wants
to
push.
B
I
mean
I
guess
my
own
comment
is
I
would
tend
to
agree
with
that.
I
mean
this.
Is
this
is
kind
of
handcuffing?
The
this
is
kind
of
this
is
kind
of
restraining.
What
what
could
be
when
I,
don't
think
that
we
necessarily
need
to
be
putting
restraints
on
right
now,
I
mean
I,
think
everybody
would
understand.
The
resolution
if
we
just
took
the
within
the
city
limits
language
out
so
I
mean
I
would
be
supportive
of
that
as
well.
G
G
I
H
I
Is
there
any
again
I
come
back
to
is
just
getting
a
sense
of
the
the
commission
on
packaging
together
that
comprehensive
Report,
with
the
updates
with
our
feedback
and
just
putting
it
on
Council
calendar
I.
Just
wanted
to
be
clear
is
that
there
seems
to
be
some
nodding.
Heads
okay,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
issue
has
been
discussed.
I
F
B
F
B
That
that
captures
a
lot
of
of
the
comments
that
were
made
up
here
this
evening.
The
one
question
about
the
the
timetable
for
appeal
following
a
rejection
by
the
public
works
director.
That
would
be
a
we
talked
about
a
couple
of
different
things.
Would
that
be
a
a
direct
appeal
to
the
city
council,
or
would
that
be
essentially
an
appeal
to
the
traffic
commission
as
a
standalone
item.
F
J
Would
the
council
would
the
council
have
flexibility
to
say
or
the
option
to
say
if
it
is
appealed
to
them
that
they
want
the
traffic
commission
to
hear
it
first
and
make
a
recommendation
or
would
the
policy
not
permit
that,
and
we
just
have
to
go
to
the
council
and
the
council
would
have
to
make
the
decision
I
mean
I?
Guess
the
council
could
do
whatever
they
want
I,
just
whether
this
policy
is
restrictive
in
that
regard?
F
One
other
point
with
regard
to
that
to
consider
is
that
if
we
revise
it
as
contemplated
in
point
number,
four,
which
was
to
have
the
commission
review
the
determinations
within
60
days,
if
someone's
required
to
appeal
within
14
days,
they're
gonna
have
to
file
an
appeal
before
they
have
an
opportunity
to
express
their
concerns
in
front
of
the
commission,
so
that
I
mean
take
that
into
consideration
on
moving
that
date.
I
mean
it
may
be
a
reason
to
keep
the
14
days
from
the
date
of
the
report
at
the
commission
level.
B
B
A
E
Yeah
so,
and
that
was
in
some
ways,
one
of
the
one
of
the
questions
I
was
going
to
have
was
when
it
says
the
the
appeal
of
the
Public
Works
director's
decision.
Is
it
on
the
location
or
is
it
on
the
recommendations
of
the
program
because
it
you
know,
unless
we're
clear
about
that,
it
could
be
you
know,
but
what
I?
What
I,
like
at
least
from
the
the
clarity
of
the
process,
would
be
Public.
Works
director
makes
his
or
her
recommendations.
A
E
Are
then
going
to
have
a
public
hearing
about
it?
The
public
is
available,
they
could
probably-
and
we
will
provide
our
comments
and
if
people
like
or
don't
like
what
they
hear
or
about
the
Public
Works
decision,
they
have
14
days
to
appeal.
Is
it
it's
a
really
a
reasonable
time
frame
people
to
understand
how
how
that
works?
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
and.
G
E
I
I
On
their
staff
report
it
says:
recommend
the
city
council
approve,
but
we're
that's
yeah
I
guess
that's
the
way
I
can
say
it.
I
would
make
the
recommendation
and
the
motion
that
the
we
recommend.
The
city
council
approve
the
draft
draft
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
school
crossing
guard
program,
standards
and
policies.
As
amended
and
noted
by
the
city
attorney's
Five
Points.
F
F
F
C
E
E
E
E
I
D
D
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Madam
Secretary.
Moving
on
to
agenda
item
number
seven
status
report
of
Prior
traffic
commission
recommendations
there.
There
is
none
number
eight
commission
referrals
from
November
16
2022.
Again
there
is
none
number
nine,
our
work
program
and
commission
schedule.
Do
the
Commissioners
have
any
questions
of
Staff
regarding
work
program
or
schedule?
I
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
first
off.
Thank
you
to
again
the
city
staff
for
their
hard
work
on
this
item,
but
kind
of
I've
heard
from
a
number
of
the
members
of
the
public
who
wanted
to
follow
along
in
this
process
and
had
a
incredible
amount
of
difficulty
doing
so
on
our
website
may
I
make
the
recommendation.
You
know.
Currently
our
agenda
as
it
sits
on
the
website,
doesn't
have
hyperlinks
to
the
PDFs
for
the
staff
reports
you
have
to
access
it
kind
of
through
the
back
way
a
whole
different
path.
B
B
J
B
B
Okay,
so
at
this
point
we're
at
item
12,
which
is
the
adjournment
so
yeah
in
that,
in
that
case,
the
next
meeting
to
be
held
at
six
o'clock,
P.M
on
February,
15
2023
or
at
some
point
thereafter
in
the
boardroom
of
the
Civic
art
supplies.
On
the
third
floor
thanks,
everybody
appreciate
everybody's
effort
and
time
patience
with
us.
As
we
talk
to
death,
the
agenda
items
have
a
good
night.