►
Description
Traffic and Transportation Advisory Commission Regular Meeting - November 16, 2022
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
B
B
B
F
This
is
a
time
and
place
for
public
comments.
Registration
for
public
comments
is
available
for
those
wishing
to
address
the
traffic
commission
regarding
items
on
the
agenda
or
on
a
subject
within
the
city's
jurisdiction.
Speakers
for
a
specific
agenda
items
shall
be
called
and
heard
during
that
specific
item.
F
All
remarks
should
be
addressed
to
the
traffic
commission
as
a
whole.
Speakers
are
requested
to
State
their
name
and
community
of
residents
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.
F
One
individual
has
requested
to
speak
on
this
item
and
pursuant
to
traffic
commission
standards.
The
public
comment
speakers
are
allowed
three
minutes
for
the
record.
Zero
written
statements
have
been
submitted.
Also,
please
silence
all
cell
phones
during
the
meeting
and
please
remember
to
mute
your
microphones
when
you
are
not
speaking.
F
C
C
C
C
Okay,
so
while
we
wait
for
our
one
public
speaker
to
to
come
online,
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
forward
with
the
agenda.
We're
going
to
move
to
number
seven,
which
is
the
status
report
of
Prior
traffic
commission
recommendations.
There
are
none.
We
can
then
move
ahead
to
number
eight
commission
referrals
from
our
October
19th
2022
meeting.
There
are
no
on
there,
so
we
can
go
ahead,
move
forward
to
number
nine
work
program
and
commission
schedule.
C
D
D
A
lot
of
the
things
you
learn
from
other
Commissioners
Tom,
Gregory,
Sharon,
McMahon
and
Diane
McKay.
All
sort
of
took
me
under
their
wings
at
different
times
over
the
past
12
years
or
so,
and
I
am
very
grateful
from
everything
I
learned
from
them,
but
the
other
thing
that
I
think
that's
most
important.
That
I
would
hope
that
all
existing
and
future
Commissioners
could
learn
from
is
the
quality
of
our
staff.
D
I
had
the
unique
opportunity
to
work
with
seven
or
eight
different
cities
in
southern
California
and
one
in
Ohio
during
the
last
12
years
and
worked
with
many
of
their
their
different
commissions,
but
with
all
of
their
staffs,
all
very
good.
Qualified
people
couldn't
hold
a
candle
to
our
staff.
Our
staff
is
really
the
cream
of
the
crop
and
we're
very
fortunate
that
our
staff
also
happens
to
be
pretty
loyal
because
I
happen
to
know
through
the
grapevines
over
the
years.
D
The
number
of
opportunities
offered
to
our
staff
by
other
cities,
and
they
stayed
here
and
they
followed
through
with
us.
So
the
one
thing
that
I
would
ask,
most
importantly
of
future
Commissioners,
who
are
not
even
appointed
yet,
but
all
Commissioners.
Staying
on
this
particular
body
is
to
recognize
staff.
D
We
had
interesting
times
go
through
our
commission
over
the
last
12
years,
where
and
we've
seen
this
happen
at
City
Council
on
a
Planning
Commission,
where
people
are
going
to
come
on
board
and
they're,
going
to
fix
everything
and
they're
going
to
explain
to
staff
the
way
things
are
supposed
to
be
done,
not
a
good
way.
To
start.
That's
probably
very
necessary
in
some
cities.
Definitely
not
here.
D
Our
staff
here
is
is
second
to
none,
not
taking
anything
away
from
all
the
other
staffs
they're,
just
not
as
good
as
ours,
and
so
with
that
I
want
to
give
a
great
big
thanks
to
staff
who
have
been
ridiculously
patient
with
me.
Mr
machenko
had
dark
hair
when
I
came
here
and
and
and
I
think
I
think
he's
going
to
be
blaming
me
for
the
change
because
it
can't
be
his
age.
C
H
H
You
know
times
in
which
you
know
previous
previous
meetings
and
previous
things
and
and
how
it
helped
to
provide
context
for
the
current
decisions
we
have
to
make
as
someone
who's
also
like
served
in
various
committees
and
got
the
opportunity
to
serve
with
many
different
people
with
different
opinions,
the
real
critical
part
is
one
I
think
it
is
true.
The
staff
is
phenomenal.
They
are
great
and
informative
and
helping
us
understand
things
and
the
ability
to
work
together
in
a
variety
of
these
things.
I
I
I
Remember
it
very
distinctly,
focusing
on
some
of
the
importance
of
Staff
reports
and
availability
for
somebody
coming
in
that
just
really
had
you
know
for
me
just
wanting
to
serve
the
city
and
that
was
kind
of
my
blank
slate
and
I
appreciate
your
your
your
wisdom
and
guidance
during
that
time
and
I
appreciate.
You
know,
I
think
from
all
of
us.
Your
contribution
to
the
city
over
12
years
and
you've
served
in
many
other
capacities.
The
city
of
Thousand,
Oaks
I
think
the
city's
internally
grateful
for
that.
I
But
to
Echo
your
comments
on
our
city
staff
I
mean
I've.
Had
the
ability
to
work
for
on
a
staff
level
and
see
how
other
cities
are
ran
in
L.A,
county
and
Ventura,
County
and
I
can
say
the
professionalism
and
the
intelligence
and
just
wisdom
that
our
staff
has
is
I
mean
it's.
It
truly
is
second
to
none
and
doesn't
hold
a
candle
to
you
know
many
other
cities.
C
Okay,
if
there
are
no
no
further
commissioner
comments,
my
understanding
is,
we
do
not
have
a
public
speaker
now,
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
move
forward
in
the
agenda
to
item
number
six,
which
is
our
Engineers
reports
and
I,
will
ask
that
our
Transit
program
manager,
Mike
Hauser,
please
present
to
us.
The
first
report.
J
K
Thank
you,
Commissioners
Mike
Hauser,
a
chance
of
program
manager.
Well,
this
is
the
fifth
in
a
series
of
meetings
that
staff
has
had
and
presented
with
the
city
council
and
the
traffic
commission
that
started
with
our
routine
annual
presentation
regarding
locations
that
did
not
qualify
for
a
crossing
guard
and
recommendation
for
closure
based
upon
those
meetings
and
the
feedback
that
we
received
from
the
commission
at
the
October
19th
meeting.
We
are
back
this
evening
to
provide
some
specific
recommendations
to
changes
and
modifications
to
current
policies
and
procedures,
as
it
relates
to
the
crossing
guard
program.
K
Just
to
remind
the
commission
that
currently,
the
city
council
has
authorized
a
crossing
guard
located
across
24
crossing
guard
locations
that
service
20
schools
throughout
the
community
and
the
decision
to
place.
Those
is
based
largely
upon
their
meeting
certain
criteria
that
staff
has
been
using
since
at
least
1999,
to
make
determinations
on
whether
or
not
it's
appropriate
for
a
crossing
guard.
At
this
point,
I'm
going
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
the
city
engineer
who's
going
to
provide
some
comments
about
the
objectives
that
we
hope
to
achieve
with
tonight's
meeting.
L
Yes,
thank
you
Mike,
as
Mike
mentioned
the
and
and
was
as
was
directed
by
the
city
council
in
August
I.
Guess
we
just
wanted
to
highlight
the
the
kind
of
the
objective
of
tonight
and
that
is
to
develop
an
objective
objective
criteria
in
the
ultimate
crossing
guard
program
and
policy
that
can
be
utilized
to
determine
whether
or
not
intersections
qualify
for
crossing
guards.
L
We've
taken
that
approach
with
our
draft
policy,
as
included
in
your
packet
tonight,
and
which
we'll
walk
through
right
now
in
further
detail
and
then
take
some
discussion
and
Direction
on
so
it's
trying
to
distill
the
the
matter
into
the
main
focus-
and
this
is
also
captured
in
actually
the
very
the
very
beginning
of
the
mutcd-
has
a
closet.
Basically,
it's
very
related
to
that
about
the
best
way
to
achieve
the
effective
traffic
control
is
through
uniform
application
of
policies.
K
K
As
you
recall,
virtually
everything
that
comes
before
you
relates
in
some
form
to
the
California
manual
on
uniform
traffic
control
devices.
Crossing
guard
program
is
one
of
those
and
what's
unique
for
our
community
is
at
least
in
this
area.
We
are
essentially
the
only
agency
that
doesn't
follow
those
standards.
We
have
standards
which
are
make
it
easier
to
qualify
for
a
crossing
guard
location
based
upon
the
feedback
that
we
received
from
you.
K
The
second
area
that
we
would
like
to
focus
on
tonight
has
to
do
with
the
approval
Authority.
As
the
commission
is
aware,
we
routinely
bring
crossing
guard
matters
to
you,
seek
your
comment
and
input
and
then,
ultimately,
the
decision
is
made
by
the
city
council.
We
are
recommending
a
change
to
that
process,
which
would
include
of
four
points
for
consideration.
First,
point
being
that
any
request
to
add
a
new
location
be
submitted
in
writing,
which
would
be
evaluated
by
staff
and
then
presented
to
ttac
for
a
consideration.
K
Past
practice
has
been
staff,
will
all
often
independently,
evaluate
and
make
a
decision
on
a
standpoint,
but
going
forward
every
request
would
come
to
the
traffic
Commission
a.
Secondly,
we
would
report
annually
to
the
commission
and
identify
all
locations
that
don't
meet
whatever
objective
standard
we
develop
and
codify
as
part
of
the
process
of
the
process,
traffic
commission
would
not
approve
locations
that
do
not
meet
the
adopted
standards.
That
would
be
a
very,
very
cut
and
dry.
K
They
either
meet
or
do
not
meet
the
standard,
and
if
the
decision
is
that
they
do
not
meet
the
standard,
an
applicant
for
either
a
new
location
or
somebody
that
disagrees
with
the
decision
to
close
the
location
would
still
have
the
opportunity
to
appeal
to
the
city
council.
It
would
be
the
final
determiner
of
for
those
particular
locations.
K
The
commission
commission
at
the
last
meeting
was
very
clear
that
they
appreciated
the
fact
that
these
standards
were
easier
to
meet
than
state
standards
and
a
desire
to
keep
those
standards
and
for
uncontrolled
intersections
and
stop
intersections.
We
concur
with
that,
and
so
we're
not
recommending
any
changes,
however,
for
signalized
intersections,
since
it
is
already
highly
unusual
to
place
crossing
guards
there.
K
To
begin
with,
we
are
recommending
that
we
adopt
the
state
minimum
standards
for
those
particular
locations,
and
I
want
to
be
clear
that
at
least
based
upon
the
counts
that
we
did
this
spring.
The
decision
to
raise
that
standard
to
the
state
standard
would
not
impact
any
school
that
we
currently
have.
That
has
a
crossing
guard
at
a
signalized
intersection.
K
There
is
a
school
from
the
2022
counts
that
we
did
that
meet
the
criteria
for
the
vehicles,
meet
the
criteria
for
the
am
pedestrians,
but
do
not
meet
our
criteria
for
the
PM
criteria,
and
so
what
we
are
suggesting
in
those
situations
so
long
as
the
other
three
criteria
meet
the
higher
threshold
of
the
state
standard
and
using
the
school
as
an
example.
This
would
be
an
example
of
that.
Then.
The
traffic
commission
could
still
approve
this
location,
even
though
one
of
the
four
criteria
is
not
met.
K
The
second
additional
criteria
that
we
are
recommending
that
the
traffic
commission
recording
stopped
incorporate
into
their
into
their
policies
has
to
do
with
locations
uncontrolled
locations
that
experience
high
traffic
volumes.
And,
of
course,
these
are
our
General
locations
that
are
on
arterial
roadways.
With
a
higher
speeds
and
higher
vehicle
volumes,
and
so
we
are
recommending
that
when
the
AM
and
PM
counts
for
vehicles
exceeds
a
thousand
vehicles,
then
the
traffic
commission
can
lower
the
city
pedestrian
standard
from
20
down
to
10,
which
is
only
25
percent
of
the
state
standard.
J
C
I
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation.
I
appreciate
your
you're
playing
the
long
game
on
your
multiple
times,
you're
in
front
of
us
and
doing
presentations
regarding
the
Madrona
location.
Can
you
just
remind
me
what
intersection
were
that
crossing
guard
is
stationed?
Please.
I
And
then
just
to
confirm,
you've
you've
mentioned
I
believe
I
caught
it
over
the
last
you
said,
I
think
three
times
this
has
been
kind
of
that
location's
been
on
the
Block
and
we've.
It's
come
here
and
gone
to
council
and
councils
at
least
two
of
the
three
times,
because
we
really
didn't
get
a
clear
idea.
The
last
time
has
has
still
continued
to
fund
it
right.
K
I
When
they
consider
the
recommendation
coming
from
this
body
and
and
kind
of
operate
kind
of
outside
that
realm,
I'll
just
say
foreign,
is
there
any
indication
or
feedback
as
to
the
reason
why
they
continue
to
fund
this
location
or
any
of
the
other
locations
that
are
kind
of
on
the
Block
per
se?
I
mean?
Are
they
just
I'm
just
trying
to
better
understand
what
happens
at
the
council
level
that
coming
out
of
this?
As
we
look
at
this
new
policy?
I
I
B
H
Okay,
okay,
that
that's
that's
helpful
for
me,
because
I'm
trying
to
understand-
and
that's
fine
if,
if
that
will
be
the
one
of
the
changes,
because
I
was
trying
to
understand
if,
for
example,
if
the
list
of
crossing
guard
locations
is
deemed
to
be
approved
by
the
traffic
Commission,
if
those
are
there,
is
that
final
approval?
Is
that
the
intent
of
the
resolution,
or
does
it
still
go
to
the
council
for
approval?
My
understanding
is
that
the
intent
of
it
would
be
its
final
approval
by
the
traffic
commission.
Is
that.
H
Okay
and
then,
if
there's
a
denial
at
the
traffic
commission
level,
that's
also
final.
Unless
someone
appeals
and
that's
the
resolution
is
providing
the
the
mechanism
by
which
that
happens
right,
correct
okay,
if
we
could
look
at
under
final
approval,
Authority
Sub,
sub
section
four,
it's
a
little
I
I
wonder
if
we
can
possibly
change
the
language
a
little
bit
to
make
it
clearer.
It
says
a
decision
of
the
ttac
to
deny
the
addition
of
a
crossing
guard
location
or
the
closure
of
an
existing
location
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council.
H
H
Thank
you
just
also
for
context.
Well,
let
me
let
me
ask
this
so
under
the
actually
go
earlier
in
the
resolution,
so
you
have
the
qualifying
standards
which
has
the
uncontrolled
intersection
and
all
always
stop
controlled
intersections,
which
is
the
current
city,
standards
for
vehicles
and
pedestrians
right,
but
the
signalized
intersection
is
the
C,
the
California
mutcd
standards
right.
C
H
So
what
can
you
help
me
understand
what
the
under
section
one
for
the
alternative
standard,
75
percent
now
the
way
it
was
described
in
the
report
was
that
well,
three
of
the
four
met
the
city
standards,
but
one
of
them
didn't
as
long
as
those
other
three
met.
California
standards,
then
that
that
that
sounds
like
that.
That
would
work,
but
the
table
underneath
that
has
some
different
numbers:
that
I
don't
I,
don't
I
don't
understand
how
they
relate.
Can
you
help
me
clarify.
E
B
H
L
H
Well,
I
guess
what
I'm
looking
at
is
under
under
the
alternative
standard,
75
percent
California
Manual
of
uniform
traffic,
and
you
go
to
the
next
page.
It
has
a
table
for
the
standard
and
the
numbers
in
the
vehicle
and
pedestrian
counts,
they're
different
from
the
city
standards
and
they're
different
from
California.
The
are
those
the
the
actual
California
standards,
the
350
ones.
Yes,.
H
H
H
Okay,
I
wanted
to
kind
of
understand
why
I
hadn't
seen
it
before,
but
I
I
think
I
understand
it
now.
These
are
the
standards
if
it
meets
at
least
three
of
those
four
for
yes
at
least
three
of
the
four,
except
for
the
one
that
it
doesn't
meet
the
city
standards.
For
then,
that's
okay,
that
that
this
table
is
the
one
that
has
to
meet
those
standards
under
the
75
percent,
alternative
method.
K
Correct,
commissioner
and
I
would
again
turn
your
attention
to
the
screen
and
for
cypresscrew
school.
This
is
an
example
of
this
particular
situation
where,
if
you'll
notice,
the
V
one
of
the
vehicle
counts
does
not
meet
our
minimum
standard,
but
everything
else
about
that
school
meets
the
higher
criteria
for
the
camutcd.
So
in
this
instance,
while
it
does
not
meet
our
minimum
standards,
you
would
still
have
the
ability
to
approve
this
school,
because
the
remaining
of
three
of
the
four
all
meet
the
higher
threshold.
H
Okay,
thank
you
one
last
a
couple
questions.
So,
in
the
previous
evaluation
of
crossing
our
locations,
the
traffic
commission
recommended
of
the
24
locations
that
we
had.
We
recommended
five
closures
right.
That
is
correct,
okay,
and
if
we
were
to
recommend
this
policy
and
it
were
to
be
applied,
eight
locations
would
close.
K
L
And
if
I
might
add
the
five
that
were
recommended
for
closure
earlier
this
year
were
the
first
five
of
ten
that
didn't
qualify.
It
didn't
meet
the
current
city
standards,
only
the
first
five
were
being
recommended
and
the
other
five
were
going
to
be
continued
to
be
evaluated.
We're
gonna
we're
ultimately
gonna
come
back
and
be
recommended
as
well,
so
it
was
really
a
total
of
ten
that
were
that
were
failing
to
meet
the
standards,
whereas
the
updated
policy
provides
some
more
accommodation.
So
that
would
reduce
that
number
to
eight.
H
K
Quite
what
happened
was
staff
made,
and
this
is
again
another
reason
why
we
we're
seeking
to
sort
of
tighten
the
rules
and
staff
independently
made
the
decision
that
for
five
of
the
schools
they
clearly
exceeded
The
Pedestrian
minimums
for
those
schools.
The
issue
was
the
vehicle
numbers.
They
were
not
meeting
those
numbers,
so
we
focused
our
recommendations
specifically
on
those
schools
that
did
not
meet
The,
Pedestrian
numbers
or
in
the
case
of
Madrona,
where
none
of
the
criteria
were
applicable.
H
The
reason
why
I'm
asking
some
of
the
questions
is
that
the
feedback
that
I
believe
I
remember
we
we
provided
was
that
we
were
not
necessarily
wanting
to
make
the
standards
higher
in
order
to
meet
it.
Although
what
the
recommendation
is
is
it
is
going
to
be
higher
for
signalized
intersection,
then
and
I
understand
like
that's
a
like.
None
of
them
are
affected
and
that's
a
means
of
being
able
to
do
that.
H
We
also
had
requested,
if
I
remember
right,
that
would
there
were
there
additional
criteria
that
were
important
for
us
to
have
the
ability
to
evaluate
it,
and
this
the
the
the
numbers
really
are
still
all
about
traffic
and
pedestrians.
There's
no
additional
criteria,
it's
just
an
additional
way
for
us
to
approve
something.
H
The
the
reason
why
I'm
coming
back
to
like.
If
we
have
the
policy,
if
it
were
in
place
now,
eight
of
them
would
been
recommended,
even
though
the
traffic
Commission
in
its
review
of
it
said
only
only
recommend
five
closures.
This
policy
would
have
added
three
more
for
closure
and
there
would
been
no
discretion.
H
L
You
are
reading
that
correctly
and
that's
that
would
be
the
the
goal
of
having
an
objective
standard,
but
the
number
of
sites
that
we're
going
to
be
recommended
for
closure
under
the
current
standards
was
10.
Only
the
first
five
were
presented
forward
because
they
were
clearly
you
know,
you
know
below
the
below
the
line
and
the
other
five
we
were
going
to
continue
to
monitor.
L
But
one
point
to
consider
is
the
overall
number
of
campuses
that
may
be
affected
or
increase
or
decrease
of
the
program.
That's
something
that
will
evolve
over
time.
That's
a
function
of
who's
walking
to
school,
how
many
people
are
are
walking
to
school
and
and
driving
to
these
campuses
and
everything
so
and-
and
the
policy
will
allow
that
to
be.
H
I
completely
understand
that
and
I
have
like
one
or
two
questions
and
I'll
in
in
my
session
of
questions
in
doing
that,
but
the
but
I
I
do
think
it's
important
to
understand
the
policy
in
how
the
impact
of
the
policy
actually
occurs
by
having
a
policy,
but
not
caring
about
the
impacts.
I
think
is
not
in
the
Public's
interest.
So
that's
why
I'm
trying
to
understand
if
this
is
the
policy
we're
acting?
H
What
would
the
impact
be
and
would
that
change
potentially
what
the
recommendation
of
the
policy
is
so,
for
example,
if
there
was
a
location
that
was
approved
in
last
year's
list,
then
when
we
did
the
traffic
evaluation
this
time
it
was
just
under
the
pedestrian
counts,
so
it
did
not
meet
the
California
standards
in
three
of
the
fours
we're
talking
about
it.
Just
it
was
very
similar
to
last
year,
but
just
like
just
under
The
Pedestrian
counts.
H
When
we
chose
to
do
the
traffic
The
Pedestrian
evaluation
under
the
policy
traffic
commission,
it
would
be
recommended
for
closure
and
we
would
not
be
able
to
approve
it.
That
is
the
pot.
That's
the
way
the
policy
reads:
So,
based
upon
what
I'm
hearing
we
have
the
ability
to
have
things
brought
to
our
attention.
If
they
meet
the
standards,
we
can
approve
them
or
we
can
deny
them.
We
can
choose
not
to
approve
them,
but
we
don't
have
any
ability
to
where
if
they
don't
meet
the
standards
we
could
approve
them.
H
D
C
Okay,
one
final
question
from
me:
just
so:
I
understand
correctly
the
the
Alternatives
that
we're
looking
at
here.
One
and
two
are
these
presented
as
a
package
to
say
that
this
new
policy
is
going
to
have
both
of
these
Alternatives
attached
to
it
or
just
one
or
or
how.
How
is
this
to
be
interpreted.
C
D
Commissioner,
lemon
I
do
have
one
question:
it's
mainly
for
our
City
attorney,
and
this
is
has
nothing
to
do
directly
with
safety.
It's
a
question
from
my
experience
when
I
got
on
the
traffic
commission,
one
of
the
very
first
things
they
did
was
take
us
down
to
Chino
for
a
course
on
why
we're
not
allowed
to
use,
stop
signs
to
control
speed
and
one
of
the
main
reasons
there's
many
reasons
all
good.
D
But
one
of
the
main
reasons
was:
if
you
choose
to
do
that
as
the
city
of
Arcadia
and
other
cities
have
done,
stop
signs
that
virtually
every
side
street
you
lose
the
liability
protections
provided
by
the
state
of
California.
So
my
question
is
about
that
when
we
Veer
away
from
or
when
we,
if
we
were
to
Veer
away
from
to
to
generously
the
state
of
California
standards,
does
it
impact
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
from
a
liability
standpoint.
G
What
I
would
say
is
that
the
city
has
the
authority
to
create
the
standards
that
it's
going
to
apply
to
whether
or
not
a
intersection
gets
a
crossing
guard,
and
as
long
as
those
are
objective
standards
and
consistently
followed,
the
city
is
going
to
be
okay,
where
you're
going
to
get
into
trouble
is,
if
you
inconsistently,
apply
the
policy
or,
if
you
put
a
crossing
guard
at
an
intersection
and
that
crossing
guard
does
not
act
reasonably.
That's
when
you're
going
to
start
getting
into
problem.
Did
that
answer
the
question.
I
L
B
I
And
then
does
anyone
know
any
staff
know
from
just
a
historical
perspective.
Obviously,
I
I
keep
coming
back
to
the
fact
that
we
make
our
recommendations
they
go
up
to
council
and
that
you
know
these
sites
continue
to
get
funded.
That
may
be
on
the
on
the
Block
and
not
meeting
certain
city
standards.
I
Do
we
know
on
average
or
can
provide
some
kind
of
estimate
of
how
many
of
these
crossing
guard
locations
are,
are
preserved
by
the
city
council
when
they
come
up
so
it'd
be,
for
instance,
if
five
went
up,
they
say
four,
they
save
three
about
every
year.
Do
we
have
any
historical
data
as
to
what's
gone
up
in
front
of
the
council
and,
what's
inevitably
been
saved,
so.
K
Commissioner
I'll
speak
to
two
earlier
years
about
a
decade
ago.
When
I
did
this
and
it
was
about
council's
I
as
I
recall
councils
concurrence
with
the
traffic
commission
was
somewhere
around
75
or
80
percent
I.
Don't
think
that
we
can
really
include
this
most
current
one,
because
again,
this
is
a
process
that
Council
has
said
before
we
make
any
more
decisions.
We
want
to
step
back
and
take
a
look.
K
This
is
a
almost
25
at
least
almost
25
year
old
process
that
we
just
haven't
taken
a
look
at
and
from
a
staff
perspective
over
time.
We
we
have
noticed
some
consistencies
in
some
schools
that
consistently
do
not
meet
the
standards
fully,
but
for
whatever
reason,
the
council
has
they've
made
the
decision
to
retain
those
many
of
our
recommendations,
particularly
back
a
decade
or
more
ago,
we're
really
based
on
school
closures,
and
so
it
was
really
kind
of
a
cut
and
dry
situation.
K
I
Thank
you
for
that.
That
kind
of
just
I
mentioned
it
time
and
time
again,
I
like
to
understand
that
how
we
got
here
in
the
historical
portion
of
it
to
better
make
decisions.
You
know
that
are
in
front
of
us
a
question
for
the
assistant,
City
attorney
as
a
kind
of
a
follow-up
to
commissioner
lemo's
question,
regardless
of
whether
a
intersection
may
or
may
not
have
a
crossing
guard
or
may
or
may
not
be
within
the
objective
standards
that
doesn't
necessarily
stop.
G
H
I'm
just
trying
to
get
an
understanding
of
the
if
the
policy
were
in
place,
the
if
the
public
wanted
to
have
a
new
location
from
the
previous
list
that
was
approved
last
year,
they
could
request
one
in
writing
and
that's
the
only
way
that
the
staff's
not
going
to
go
in
and
look
at
new
ones.
There
would
need
to
be
a
written
request
to
staff
to
to
take
a
look.
That's
how
the
public
would
know
how
to
get
one
in
front
of
the
staff
right.
H
Okay,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
public
would
know
how
the
policy
Works
you'd,
evaluate
it.
Those
then
the
then
for
every
location
that
is
evaluated.
You
would
determine
whether
it
meets
the
city
or
California
standards
based
upon
what's
listed
in
the
resolution,
and
the
recommendation
would
be
based
upon
the
algorithm
effectively
that
we
have
put
in
place
and
the
recommendation
would
be
if
they
don't
meet
those
standards.
K
With
one
Nuance
to
that
in
that
previously,
prior
to
an
adoption
of
this
particular
standard
staff,
sometimes
independently
made
decisions
on
whether
or
not
to
even
bring
the
matter
forward
to
the
traffic
Commission.
In
other
words,
a
decision
was
made
at
the
staff
level
to
deny
a
request.
So
as
part
of
this
policy,
this
would
be
an
open
and
public
discussion
where
people
could
come
in
and
have
comments
placed
upon
the
record,
as
well
as
the
Commissioners
themselves.
K
H
I
do
understand
the
the
public
forum
part,
but
it's
effectively
that,
like
there's,
no,
the
with
the
exception
of
the
traffic
commission,
denying
a
crossing
guard
location
that
met
the
city
standards
for
such
there's
no
decision
making
by
the
traffic
commission
it's
effectively
holding
a
hearing
and
and
receiving
a
report
and
I
mean
I
I.
Understand
that
like
that
is
what
it's
done.
Is
that
in
the
public
interest,
and
is
that
consistent
with
what
we
want
to
have
as
the
decision
making
for
this.
E
B
L
A
in
a
public
forum
for
people
to
attend
and
observe
and
access
so
that
that's
one
of
the
goals
of
that
program,
but
generally
and
like
many
other
agencies
and
and
the
California
mutcd,
either
the
the
accounts
will
warrant
the
the
crossing
guard
to
or
that
intersection
to
be
eligible
for
a
crossing
guard
or
they
don't
or
it's
there's
not
too
much
other
other
opportunities
or
subjectivity.
That's
typically
introduced
into
these
type
of
scenarios.
Either
you
meet
the
counselor,
you
don't
and
okay,
yeah
I.
H
Guess
the
only
other,
only
thing
I'm,
just
trying
to
maybe
to
the
Commission
in
part
of
the
discussion
on
this
part
is:
do
we
think
that
that's
consistent
with
the
guidance
that
we
provided
to
staff,
which
is
are
there?
Is
there
more
information
for
which
we
can
evaluate
whether
a
crossing
guard
location
is
warranted
or
not?
I
feel
like
the
policy
is
I'm
a
data
guy
and
an
algorithm
guy,
but
I
feel
like
this
is
algorithmic
and
there
is
no.
H
D
D
D
We
often
forget
sometimes
because
of
the
way
we
get
caught
up
in
things
that
we
are
a
limited
decision-making,
Body
By
Design,
while
I
think
that
we
always
want
to
consider
the
public.
We
should
remember
that
we
are
not
elected
and
therefore
do
not
under
any
circumstances
have
the
rights
of
elected
The
Good.
The
beautiful
part
about
our
our
sense
of
government
here
in
Thousand
Oaks
is,
if
we
want
to.
D
If
I
want
to
appeal
a
decision
and
attend
I
tend
to
think
that
in
the
next
couple
of
months,
I
will
be
here
appealing
one
of
your
decisions.
But
if
I
want
to
appeal
your
decision,
it
has
to
be
done
to
a
decision-making
body
that
earned
that
right
by
getting
elected
by
the
elector
by
the
by
the
citizens.
D
That's
very
important
to
me
and
the
reason
why
I
say
that
is
we
do
not
serve
the
public
first,
we
serve
at
the
behest
of
counsel
and
can
be
changed
removed
at
any
point
in
time
that
a
council
member
chooses
that
we're
not
following
our
path
correctly.
We
are
a
deliberative
body.
We
do
have
the
right
to
ferret
out
facts.
D
We
do
have
the
right
to
question
staff
and
get
clarification
mainly
as
a
voice
of
the
public
to
get
that
clarification
or
to
go
on
the
record
when
people
come
in
and
make
a
presentation
us
to
be
included
in
council's
decision.
But
we
are
not
a
decision-making
body.
In
fact,
the
The
Limited
things
Council
has
asked
us
to
decide.
I
believe
are
limited
to
a
cap
of
twenty
thousand
dollars,
at
least
it
used
to
be.
D
D
D
Do
it
for
me
and
I
believe
that
anytime
I
know
I
know
that
one
of
our
commissioners
does
understand
algorithms,
and,
according
to
my
kids,
I
do
not,
but
I
am
the
son
of
an
accountant
and
I
understand
standards
and
policies.
Implicitly,
to
me,
there
is
a
tremendous
shelter
for
the
public
in
standards
and
policies.
I,
don't
like
ambiguity
as
a
citizen
because
depends
who
the
best
lobbyist
is.
D
If
you
have
any
element
of
ambiguity
here
with
consistency,
I
like
the
fact
that
there
is
a
standard
in
a
policy
and
the
standard
and
policy
can
be
changed
worst
case
scenario,
it
can
be
changed
annually
by
findings
of
Staff,
but
it
can't
be
changed
by
us.
It
can
be
changed
by
city
council
and
that's
the
only
place
it
should
be
changed.
D
I
am
a
little
shocked
that
we
have
gone
this
far
funding
something
that
is
outside
the
city
limits
I'm
beside
myself
and
I
must
say
right
up
front
I
have
a
son
and
his
family
that
live
outside
the
city
limits
and
I
love
them,
but
I
don't
care,
okay,
if
you're
in
the
county
you're
in
the
county,
and
why
is
that
also
important?
They
don't
get
to
vote
for
our
city
council,
our
decision-making
body,
so
our
ability
to
go
out
and
whether
we
call
it
protection
or
lording
over
them
makes
no
difference.
D
We
don't
have
that
right.
That
is
a
County
decision
and
I
am
very
very
glad
that
one
of
our
criteria
in
our
standards
and
policies
will
recognize
the
fact
that
if
you
are
not
attacks,
a
a
well
forget
taxes
right
now.
Let's
not
even
talk
about
taxes,
if
you're
not
making
the
decision.
As
to
who
your
city
council
members
are
and
then
who
those
City
Council
Members
appoint
to
commissions,
then
I
don't
think
we
should
be
funding
things
in
those
areas
unless
it's
through
some
sort
of
joint
Joint
Commission
of
some
sort.
D
So
my
bottom
line
and
I'm,
sorry
that
it
took
me
so
long
to
get
there
is
I,
do
think
that
what
staff
has
gone
through
here
has
been
meticulous.
You
have
been
asked
to
go
through
an
autopsy
of
what's
taken
place
over
at
least
the
last
10
years,
and
it
may
be
a
little
longer
and
dissected
it
in
such
a
way
that
we
understand
where
we
were
I,
really
don't
care
how
we
got
to
where
we
were
because
we're
here
today
and
when
I
look
at
what
you've
done
the
work
that
you've
done.
D
It
points
me
in
the
direction
of
wanting
to
have
standards
and
policies
that
are
explained
that
are
understandable.
That
I
have
the
chance
to
run
if
I'm,
a
citizen
coming
and
wanting
a
crossing
guard
that
I
can
run
those
by
you
I
either
meet
the
criteria
or
I.
Don't
and
I
want
to
remind
everybody
on
this
Commission
that
virtually
everything
we
do
follows
a
standard
in
policy
like
speed
humps
like
stop
signs,
so
it
brings
us
into
a
consistent
operation
with
the
work
that
we
do.
D
However,
all
of
those
things
can
be
adjusted
by
going
to
city,
council
and
I.
Believe
that's
the
way
it
should
be.
I
I
want
to
say
that
you
know.
I
just
went
through
an
example
of
this
this
evening,
when
one
of
my
colleagues
had
to
make
a
presentation
to
the
Glendale
Planning
Commission
and
the
Glendale
Planning
Commission
basically
said:
if
you
check
the
boxes,
you're,
fine
and
if
you
don't
we're
going
to
deny
it,
but
you
can
take
it
to
city
council
bottom
line
is
that's
just
responsible
government
to
me.
D
each
and
every
year,
and
it
increases
the
only
time
it
doesn't.
Increase,
of
course,
is
when
school
enrollment
goes
down,
but
it
increases
every
year
and
I
don't
care
where
you're
going
to
school,
even
in
East
L.A,
and
so.
For
that
reason,
I
I
am
suggesting
that
we
follow
recommendation
number
two
and
recommend
that
city
council
approve
the
draft
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
school
crossing
guard
program,
standards
and
policies
that
have
been
enumerated
not
only
in
this
report
but
by,
in
my
opinion,
a
very
clear
explanation
from
staff
and
I'll
Reserve.
J
I
think
one
important
distinction
that
Mr
hidari
made
is
that
we're
not
this
isn't
a
vote
to
eliminate
any
particular
crossing
guard.
This
is
this
is
a
discussion
and
review
and
potential
policy
on
establishing
standards
or
updating
standards.
Adjusting
standards
now
I
have
a
little
bit
of
a
different
take
than
than
commissioner
Lemo
on
the
the
Madrona
Elementary
and
up
until
now,
I
didn't
know
it's
outside.
J
Well,
because
we
as
a
school
district,
we
operate
as
a
school
district.
We're
we're
Thousand,
Oaks
Westlake
Village
Newbury
Park,
which
is
Thousand
Oaks,
so
I
just
have
a
I,
have
a
problem
with
with
that
I
I
do
believe
in
in
standards,
I
believe
in
setting
some
standards
and
I
believe
in
consistent
practices,
but
to
take
one
school
out
of
27
in
the
school
district,
just
kind
of
doesn't
it
doesn't
sit
well
with
me,
even
though
the
residents,
the
residential
area
in
the
school
may
actually
sit
outside
of
outside
of
City
Limits.
J
The
the
students
and
families
do
fundraisers
here,
there's
there's
events,
and
you
know
things
that
go
on
in
the
school
and
there's
their
students
in
that
school
that
don't
necessarily
just
come
from
the
the
the
county,
par
or
outside
of
city
limits
or
there's
potentially,
students
in
there
that
come
from
within
now.
Are
they
the
ones
crossing
the
streets?
Maybe
maybe
not
I,
just
have
an
issue
of
you
know.
J
I
Just
in
responding
to
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
here
tonight,
I'll
be
the
first
to
say
and
I've
done
so
on
the
dice.
While
I
was
sitting
on
Planning
Commission
that,
yes,
we,
we
are
a
body
that
does
not
make
policy.
We
the
administer
policy,
I've
shared
that,
while
you
know
on
many
occasions,
either
I've
said
it
or
or
commissioner
David
Newman
has
said
it.
We've
all
taken
our
time,
saying
that
while
I
was
on
Planning,
Commission
and
I
certainly
think
that
this
body
represents
that
as
well.
I
We
are
not
in
our
traditional
administrative
role
that
we've
been
accustomed
to
where
we
have
these
set
standards
and
we
look
at
whether
we
put
a
speed,
hump
or
a
speed
bump
or
whatever.
We
are
in
a
more
policy
crafting
role
and
when
I
look
at
the
task
before
us
tonight,
knowing
that
it's
been
23
years
since
we've
really
updated
this
I,
my
Approach
is
looking
at
setting
a
standard
that
could
possibly
last
two
decades.
I
As
far
as
the
Madrona
issue,
I
certainly
would
have
liked
to
seen
a
little
bit
more.
Instead
of
just
kind
of
a
a
cut
it
cold
kind
of
approach.
I
would
have
liked
to
probably
have
seen
because
we
have
a
new
supervisor,
be
it
him
or
her
just
a
better
understanding
of
what
the
process
is
going
to
be,
because
I
I
really
think
we
should
try
to
work
with
our
our
County
to
possibly
either
hand
off
that
program
entirely
for
Madrona,
so
that
there
isn't
a
a
loss
there.
I
Just
I
would
have
liked
to
have
better
seen,
maybe
a
little
bit
more
of
a
a
phased
out
approach
than
just
kind
of
the
the
rigid
standard
that
has
been
put
before
us
tonight
and
then,
when
I
look
at
the
crossing
guard
standard
in
general,
I
think
we
have
to
remember:
I
mean
I.
I
dropped,
my
kids
off
this
morning
at
Earth's
in
Newbury
Park.
I
While,
yes,
more
parents
are
driving
their
kids
to
school,
the
crossing
guards
serve
more
function
than
just
handling
children
who
solely
walk
from
their
house
to
the
school.
The
crossing
guard,
specifically
at
Earth's.
If
you
sit
and
I
I
watched,
I
not
only
took
advantage
of
her
services
but
watched
for
about
a
half
an
hour
and
many
of
those
children
that
were
getting
out
and
utilizing
that
crosswalk
were
being
dropped
off
by
their
parents
down
the
street.
They
were
driving
being
dropped
off.
I
So
it's
almost
like
that,
classic
first
mile
Last
Mile
approach
where
these
crossing
guards
help
facilitate
safe
Passage
for
a
kid
who's
being
dropped
off
by
their
parents,
because
they
don't
want
to
sit
in
a
drop-off
line.
That's
a
mile
long
I
think
that's
important
to
note,
because
I
think
that
while
we,
you
can't
look
at
this
as
a
rigid,
black
and
white
standard
of,
do
they
walk
to
school
or
not.
There's
a
lot
of
other
ways
that
you
know
these
crossing
guards
fill
that
function.
I
I
struggle
a
little
bit
with
the
idea
of
the
the
approach
staff
has
taken
and
transitioning
the
policy
overall
to
the
traffic
commission
for
final
decision
specifically
because
this
ultimately
is
a
safety
issue.
This
is
a
pedestrian
safety
issue.
This
is
a
street
safety
issue,
I
struggle
with
the
fact
that
now
we're
asking
residents
to
carry
a
1400
fee
for
appealing.
I
If
we
kind
of
enact
this
policy,
which
is
Staff
staff
has
mentioned
at
a
very
rigid
standard,
I
can't
speak
for
the
council.
I
can't
speak
for
the
reasons
why
they
have
made
decisions
in
the
past
to
keep
funding
areas
that
are
not
that
don't
meet
those
standards
set
by
the
city,
the
objective
standards
set
by
the
city,
but
they've
done
so
and
while
yes,
it
wouldn't
be
10
crossing
guard
locations
that
would
be
cut.
It
would
be
eight
under
this
new
standard.
I
The
way
that
this
policy
does
play
out
and
I
think
again,
coming
back
to
my
Approach
of
looking
at
it
a
decade
or
two
down
the
line,
this
actually
diminishes
the
crossing
guard
program
and
takes
away
crossing
guards
and
while
yes,
there's
a
way
and
a
mechanism
for
parents
to
petition
together
and
ask
staff
to
consider
the
addition
of
crossing
guards,
I
think
it
has
as
written.
It
currently
has
unintended
consequences,
unintended
consequences
which
would
result
in
a
diminishing
of
this
crossing
guard
program
overall.
I
For
that
reason,
while
I
appreciate
you
know
the
comments
being
made
here
today,
I
I,
don't
think
I
can
support
the
recommendation
for
the
city
council
to
approve
this,
as
as
currently
written,
I.
Think
more
so
the
way
that
it's
been
handed
to
this
body
than
anything
else,
I
I
the
rigid
black
and
white
kind
of
standard
where,
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
the
numbers,
it's
an
automatic
denial
by
us,
but
if
it
does
meet
the
numbers
and
meets
those
qualifications,
we
we
do
have
a
yes
no
decision
to
make.
I
It
almost
is
Administrative
at
that
point
because
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
standard-
and
it
comes
to
us
it's
more
of
an
informational
item
for
for
the
public
than
any
decision
that
we
would
make
I
I
do
think
what
ultimately
is
missing
is
kind
of
and
I
think.
Commissioner
Ferris
mentioned,
it
is
just
kind
of
those
additional
considerations
that
we
we
asked
for
and
my
impression
and
my
takeaway
from
our
last
meeting
is
we
doubled
down
on
safety.
I
I
If,
where
is
this
program
going-
and
you
know,
I
I
said
based
on
our
last
conversation-
seemed
like
we're
kind
of
doubling
down
and
I
think
without
kind
of
any
options,
extra
options
that
this
body
could
consider
for
ones
that
don't
meet
the
hard
and
fast
rigid
numbers
again,
I
just
think
you're
going
to
see
a
diminishing
of
this
program
and
a
decrease
in
pedestrian
safety,
and
that's
just
not
something.
I
can
I
can
really
support.
C
Thank
you,
Vice,
chair
Pletcher,
so
at
this
time
I
think
I'll
go
ahead
and
just
give
my
comments
and
I'll
be
brief,
but
I'm
I'm,
a
lawyer
I'm
a
rules
guy
by
Nature
I,
like
definition
I
like
rules,
laws
that
I
can
understand,
I
appreciate
when
something
is
Well
written
so
that
non-lawyers
can
understand
it
and
I.
You
know:
I
commend
the
staff
on
putting
together
the
policy.
C
The
crossing
guard
and
I
talked
to
the
crossing
guard
and
I
I
see
the
job
and
the
function
that
he
performs
and
I'm
very
I'm
highly
appreciative
to
him
for
that,
because
his
job
is
to
stand
next
to
small
children
and
raise
a
stop
sign
in
the
air
so
that
drivers
can
see
him
in
the
street
and
know
that
there
are
children
present
and
when
I
think
about
that
function.
I
think
about
the
you
know.
C
When
I,
when
I
read
this
policy,
I
Envision
a
road
adjacent
to
a
school
where
maybe
it
doesn't
meet
the
vehicular
numbers
that
we're
looking
for
and
maybe
it
doesn't
even
meet
The
Pedestrian
numbers
that
we're
looking
for,
but
there's
there's
a
condition
on
that
street
which
may
impair.
Let's
say
this
ability
there's
a
bend
in
the
road.
It's
a
residential
street
cars.
C
It's
it's
a
public
safety
issue
for
for
children,
so
I
I
think
we
should
take
a
really
long
hard
look
at
whether
the
policy
is
what
we
want
it
to
be
and
as
Vice
chair
Pletcher
pointed
out,
you
know
we.
We
are
in
a
different
role
tonight
and
we
do
have
an
opportunity
to
to
craft
and
design
the
policy
to
what
we
think
will
work
best
and
we
shouldn't
just
be
punters
for
decisions
to
the
city
council
and
say:
hey
look.
D
D
I,
disagree,
I,
believe
that
we
are
not
in
a
policy
making
role
tonight.
We
are
in
a
policy
review
tonight
and
it
would
go
to
council
I
want
to
just
strip
out
Madrona
for
a
second,
because
I
do
understand
and
to
some
extent
agree
with
commissioner
Hayek
without
losing
consistency
and
here's
what
I
mean
we
have
approximately
eighteen
thousand
dollars
per
year
per
crossing
guard.
D
So
the
city
took
on
a
function
that
was
never
our
function
to
begin
with,
and
we're
still
trying
to
protect
covering
most
of
those
crossing
guards.
Now
it
would
seem
to
me
and
I'm
not
going
to
spend
School
District
budget,
but
it
would
seem
to
me
that
two
thousand
dollars
a
year
for
a
crossing
guard
and
a
decision
made
by
the
district
for
that
school
isn't
a
large
stretch.
D
So
we
would
like
you
to
either
reimburse
the
school
district
or
pay
for
a
crossing
guard
for
that
school.
I
have
no
problem
in
doing
that.
I
have
no
problem
in
part
of
our
motion,
adding
to
it
that
we
are
requesting
that
our
city
manager
and
mayor
go
to
our
County
Commissioner
and
request
that,
on
behalf
of
the
school
district,
but.
D
The
non-funding
mechanism
of
Thousand
Oaks
doesn't
allow
us
to
say:
okay
well,
I
have
to
be
honest
with
you,
I
think
the
homeless
are
a
terrible
distraction
to
drivers
and
therefore
Public
Safety
is
put
at
risk.
So
we
need
a
policy
on
what
the
traffic
this
commission
says.
We
should
do
about
any
homeless
that
are
within
10
feet
of
a
vehicle,
it's
unsafe
for
the
homeless
or
the
unhoused
person,
and
it
is
unsafe
for
the
driver.
D
So
we
need
to
come
up
with
that
and
well,
while
we're
at
it
I
I
think
we
should
ask
our
police
officers
to
increase
the
staff
and
be
outside
of
every
bar
to
make
certain
that
we
don't
take
the
chance
anymore
of
drunk
drivers
getting
on
the
road.
Why
can't
you
guys
just
arrest
them
in
the
damn
parking
lot?
D
I
think
there
are
limitations
to
what
we're
allowed
to
do
and
not
going
from
the
Sublime
to
the
ridiculous
and
I
understand
that,
but
to
me,
I
believe
that
we
we
put
children's
safety
at
risk
by
having
a
by
having
either
no
policy
or
an
inconsistent
policy
or
a
policy
that
changes
with
what
our
concerns
might
be.
If
we
are
ever
considering
running
for
Council
or
we
think
that
there's
something
that
we
need
to
do,
we
should
Empower
our
city
council
to
make
the
decisions
they
make.
I
would
have
no
problem.
D
If
city
council
looks
at
this
and
says
you
know
what
it's
a
relatively
small
amount
of
budget
under
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year.
Thank
you,
Planning
Commission.
We
understand
your
policy,
we're
funding
the
crossing
guards.
I'd
have
no
problem
with
that
at
all.
You
know
why
it's
the
right
we
gave
them.
We
gave
them
that
right.
We
don't
have
the
right
to
take
away
the
decision-making
capability
of
council.
What
our
right
is
tonight
is
to
say:
listen.
D
D
D
That's
number
one,
the
one
addition.
The
second
edition
is
that,
in
the
event,
like
everything
else,
in
the
event
that
City
Council
reverses
a
decision
that
was
dictated
by
policy,
the
appeal
fee
gets
refunded,
because
that's
the
way
our
city
works
with
other
things.
If
a
developer
can
go
there
and
win
an
appeal
and
get
his
money
back,
then
a
citizen
ought
to
be
able
to
do
the
same
thing.
C
C
H
One
one
question:
maybe
staff
can
give
us
a
nod
on
the
head
or
whatever.
If
this
is
correct,
my
belief
is,
is
that
the
draft
resolution
already
has
the
second
point
of
commissioner
limo's
item,
which
is
if
the
city
council
does
it
it's
already
in
there.
So
the
the
really
the
only
other
addition
on
the
motion
is
effectively
the
working
with
okay
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
that
I
understand.
Okay,
I
I
share
my
concerns
with
Vice,
chair
Fletcher
and
commissioner
and
the
chairman
here.
H
So
the
the
the
reason
and
I
will
I'll
say
this.
I
actually
agree
with
commissioner
lemo's
statement
here.
There's
no
policy
that
that
is
in
the
city
that
is
not
approved
by
the
city
council.
Everything
is
approved
there.
They
are
the
elected
body,
some
of
those
policies,
though
delegate
decision-making
authority
to
other
bodies,
and
there
are
those
other
bodies
who
in
this,
such
as
in
this
particular
case,
we
are
asked
to
recommend
what
a
policy
could
be.
H
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that
either.
Those
are
you
know,
changes
they
allow
us
to
be
able
to
move
forward
and
have
a
consistent
set
of
Standards
with
which
to
evaluate
those
crossing
guards.
I
think
the
the
crossing
your
locations,
the
the
thing
I
have
the
most
concern
with
is
the
the
sense
that
it
is
more
more
cold
about
how
the
the
decision
is
to
be
made
and
I.
H
I
think
that
there
are
some
elements
within
a
set
of
guidelines
and
standards
that
is
highly
recommended
to
be
followed
to
where
there
should
be
some
additional
discretion
to
take
into
account
other
elements,
because
those
are
the
things
that
make
the
decision
making
like
really
tough
when
it's
sort
of
like
you
know,
we
completely
understand,
but
we
have
no
discretion
here.
The
public
is
generally
dissatisfied
there.
H
While
it
is
true
that
then
they
can
pay
the
fee
and
take
the
risk
to
send
it
to
the
council,
the
higher
that
fee
goes,
the
less
likely
are.
They
are
to
take
the
risk
and,
and
that
that
just
is
true,
you
can
set
it
at
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
and
while
that
that
standard
is
still
true
that
they
could
appeal
to
the
council,
there'll
be
less
likely
for
them
to
do
that,
and
and
I
I.
H
If,
if
we
can
help
it
and,
and
so
like,
like
I,
said
for
some
of
these,
some
of
these
things
I
understand
the
impacts
of
it.
I
think
it's
more
about.
Do
we
have
enough
ability,
as
a
final
decision
making
Authority
on
these
items,
to
be
able
to
make
the
approval
denial
decisions
that
can
then
be
rightly
appealed
to
the
city
council,
because
it
doesn't
quite
have
that
enough.
K
You
have
hit
upon
an
area
that
was
the
actual
issue
when
this
location
was
first
adopted
and
that
the
city
sought
County
Assistance
to
pay
for
this
location,
the
residents
generally
going
to
that
school
were
in
fact
City
residents,
but
the
county,
and
we
we
did
confirm
this
with
the
county.
The
county
currently
makes
no
exception
for
any
school
in
the
unincorporated
area
at
this
time.
K
So,
while
we
appreciate
the
comments
the
county
was,
and,
of
course,
Collective
bodies
can
change
their
minds
at
any
time.
There
is
no
precedent
currently
for
funding
of
that.
The
individual
schools
are
responsible.
Of
course,
an
arrangement
could
be
made
between
the
school
district
and
the
city
council
to
continue
that,
but
in
terms
of
policy
for
the
county,
they
don't
do.
K
That
would
also
remind
the
commission
that
this
particular
School
meets
none
of
the
criteria
for
a
crossing
guard
at
this
time
and
hasn't
for
several
years,
whether
it's
our
reduced
standard
or
any
other
standards
you
would
care
to
impose.
In
fact,
The
Pedestrian
counts
are
below
that
number
10
threshold
that
we
we
have
mentioned
in
our
staff
report.
K
It
is
correct
that
if
city
council
was
to
overturn
a
decision
that
that
process,
that
appeal
would
be
done.
We'd
also
like
to
remind
the
commission
that,
while
there
is
a
standard
that
does
not
mean
that
you
automatically
have
to
approve
a
school
because
it
meets
the
threshold
now
I'm
not
I,
can't
immediately
Envision
a
situation
but
similar
to
the
mutcd
simply
meeting
the
standard
does
not
automatically
mean
you
must
put
a
crossing
guard
there
in
terms
of
the
criteria
that
you
are
seeking
for
additional
areas
for
consideration.
K
K
The
speed
of
the
roadway
The
Pedestrian
volume
and
the
vehicle
volume-
those
are
the
only
four
considerations
for
establishing
a
crossing
guard
within
the
manual
as
it
exists
right
now.
That
said
you
as
a
body
and
speaking
to
the
direction
from
Council,
we
we've
we've
put
forth
our
recommendation.
It
does
not
mean
that
you,
as
a
body,
cannot
suggest
additional
criteria
to
be
incorporated
in
a
resolution
for
the
city
council.
L
And
if
I
just
may
add
one
more
item,
the
that
appeal
fee
which
is
set
is
a
as
an
actual
cost
of
to
provide
that
Services.
It's
not
hasn't
been
established
or
set
as
a
to
dissuade
people
or
at
an
arbitrary
amount,
and
it's
recalculated
every
two
to
four
years:
I
Believe
by
the
finance
department.
So
and
as
Mike
said,
it's
refundable
of
the
party
were
to
get
overturned
on
the
decision.
D
J
Is
that
any
is?
Is
that
why?
Why
is
that?
Is
that
just
for
public
schools,
because,
if
we're
talking
about
schools
within
our
boundaries,
so
we
have
two
charter
schools
that
aren't
chartered
by
the
school
district.
So
the
tax
dollars
that
come
in
go
out
to
Ventura
County
Office
of
Education,
but
those
schools
are
within
our
and
I
believe
we
do
provide
crossing
guards
for
them.
Correct
for.
D
One
more
clarification
because
I
think
this
is
important.
Does
anybody
remember
because
I
don't
trust
my
own
memory?
Why
city
council
decided
when
the
school
district
decided
not
to
fund
crossing
guards
the
city
council
jumped
in
and
decided
to
do
it?
Is
there
anything
on
the
record
about
that
that
anybody
remembers.
K
K
K
I
did
review
essentially
every
single
council
meeting
where
the
council
considered
additions.
I
never
saw
any
specific
reference
to
discussions.
There
were
some
directions
for
whoever
was
the
city
manager
that
time
to
enter
into
some
discussions,
but
no
specific
indication
of
any
agreement
or
non-agreement
on
this
issue
going
back.
You
know
the
full
the
full
breath,
keeping
in
mind
that
minutes
for
older
meetings
are
very
summery
in
nature.
B
K
C
I
I'd
actually
like
to
make
a
a
substitute
motion
that
we
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
feedback.
That's
been
stated
here
tonight
from
certain
members
of
the
commission
that
may
suggest
that
further
working
is
required
of
this
policy,
specifically
with
regard
to
the
objective
standards
that
maybe
the
traffic
commission
is
looking
for.
G
H
Go
ahead,
yeah
my
understanding,
I
believe
in
a
parliamentary
body.
One
cannot
just
grab
the
floor,
say
I'm
going
to
substitute
a
motion,
and
that
takes
precedence
over
the
motion
on
the
floor
now
minor
standing
from
parliamentary
procedure
also
is,
if
the,
if
one
wanted
to
make
a
motion
to
table
the
motion,
that
is,
that
is
a
preferred
motion
and
that
is
non-debatable
and
can
be
voted
on.
If
that
is
in
fact
what
commissioner
plaster
or
vice
chair
pleasure
would
like
to
have.
H
I
Well,
just
I'll
note
for
the
record
standard
practice
in
other
cities
and
municipalities
and
and
as
spoken
by
the
assistant,
City
attorney
is
substitute,
motions
would
take
precedent
and
there
is
no.
If
that
motion
in
certain
instances
requires
a
second
and
doesn't
get
a
second,
then
it
would
not
be
voted
on.
But
you
know
I
I'll
go
ahead
and
withdraw
The
Substitute
motion.
C
B
B
I
C
C
C
H
And
tell
me
if
it's
appropriate
to
to
ask
staff
about
The
Crafting
of
of
this
particular
thing,
I'm
trying
to
understand
so
for
number.
The
under
the
final
approval
Authority,
it
states
that
locations
that
do
not
meet
the
count
standards
or
the
additional
criteria
as
outlined
in
qualifying
standards,
shall
not
be
approved
by
the
the
traffic
commission.
That's
the
way
it
states.
H
So
if
the
commission
were
to
identify
other
elements
that
were
in
the
qualifying
standards
and
that
those
were
in
the
policy
that
would
allow
the
traffic
commission
to
in
those
cases,
have
the
ability
to
approve
and
deny
because
of
the
statement
of,
if
it's,
if
it
either,
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
count,
standards
or
the
additional
criteria,
then
it
shall
not
be
approved.
But
in
other
cases
we
have
approval
denial
discretion.
Is
that
a
fair
reading
of
that
statement
of
the
policy.
L
Yes,
I
would
believe
so
I
think
the
denial
discretion.
There
may
be
some
clarification
there,
I
mean
if,
if
a
location
meets
the
criteria,
I
don't
believe
the
commission
can
deny
it
I,
believe
it
it's
as
mentioned
before
it's
eligible
for
a
crossing
guard,
it
doesn't
mean
that
it
will
have
one
or
will
be
funded
and
so
forth,
but.
H
75
elements
that
gives
us
the
ability
to
approve,
but
we
could
deny
if
it
meets
neither,
then
we
must
deny
that
that's
great.
So
and
that's
that's.
Why
I
think
at
least
at
least
my
heartburn
with
respect
to
that,
was
that
the
the
what
we
were
allowed
to
have
in
front
of
us
to
allow
for
approval
may
not
have
been
broad
enough
to
be
able
to
do
it.
But
if
we
were
to
add
additional
elements
into
the
qualifying
standards,
part
such.
H
Yeah
out
of
three
and
like
what,
and
so
if
we
were
to
craft
it,
to
add
those
additional
things
that
would
provide
elements
for
the
traffic
commission
to
take
that
into
consideration
and
allow
for
approval
denial,
but
still
stay
within
the
the
the
framework
of
the
policy
staff
has
presented.
Is
that
a
fair
way
for
us
to
to
get
before.
H
B
G
All
right,
yeah
I
mean,
if
I
could
add
a
little
bit
to
that.
What
staff
was
attempting
to
accomplish
after
the
last
meeting
was
to
start
with
the
existing
standards
and
then
take
the
desires
of
the
commission
to
have
other
elements
involved
and
create
an
objective
standard
that
could
be
followed
right
and
and
staff
thought
that
that's
what
was
done.
I
I
see
that
there's
a
difference
of
opinion
here
on
whether
that
was
accomplished.
G
So
if
the
commission
is
looking
for
alternate
factors
to
consider,
I
think
that's
fine,
but
what
I
would
suggest
and
what
I'd
recommend
is
that
those
be
crafted
in
a
way
that
are
objective
so
I
mean
I
I.
Think
there
was
some
discussion
about
discretion
right.
The
discretion
is
now
to
craft
a
policy
later
on,
there's
really
no
discretion,
it
either
meets
the
policy
or
it
doesn't
meet.
The
policy.
D
I
have
a
question
here:
I
understand
what
you
just
said.
That
makes
perfect
sense
to
me.
There
should
not
be
any
discretion
left
for
the
commission
when
this
is
done.
My
question
to
you
would
be
under
recommendation
number
one
if
we
receive
the
report
and
we
have
provided
mountains
of
comments
tonight,
that
would
go
to
city
council
without
a
recommendation
of
the
commission,
but
leave
it
up
to
city
council
to
tailor
policy
based
upon
our
based
upon
our
comments.
Is
that
a
correct
understanding.
L
D
D
And
and
here's
why
I'm
looking
for
that
I
think
the
work
that
you've
done
is
good.
I
think
that
everyone
has
made
very,
very
good
comments.
You
know
I
think
there
are
some
things
that
have
to
be
ferreted
out.
The
counts
take
place
prior
to
a
child
walking
into
the
school
as
opposed
to
walking
from
a
mile
away,
but
now
that
staff
has
our
comments.
D
This
policy
recommendation
that
they
have
here
would
be
surrounded
by
those
comments
and
city
council.
Who
is
the
only
elected
body
in
this
mix?
Nothing
against
staff
would
then
make
the
decision
of
what
the
policy
will
be
very
similar
to
other
ordinances,
rules,
laws
and
policies
within
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks.
D
So
from
a
consistent
standpoint,
you
still
have
consistency,
we're
not
recommending
this
packet
of
policies
tonight.
What
we're
doing
is
saying:
here's
our
comments,
they're,
all
a
matter
of
public
record
review
our
comments
and
amend
this
policy
as
city
council.
The
legal
body
can
make
that
decision,
and
then
we
go
back
to
doing
what
the
traffic
commission
does,
which
is.
D
We
follow
the
policy
as
dictated
by
the
elected
body,
and
if
anybody
wants
to
appeal
that
they
appeal
it
back
to
the
body
who
came
up
with
the
policy
to
begin
with,
because
if
we
create
the
policy,
we're
not
giving
people
the
right
to
appeal
to
us.
That's
for
sure.
So
that
is
is
that
in
fact,
an
option
that
keeps
it
in
the
decision-making
venue,
which
is
city
council.
G
C
But
so
so
my
own
comments
about
that
or
that
I
mean
city
council
told
us
to
craft
the
policy
right.
So
how
is
it
going
to
be?
Is
it
going
to
be
well
received
if
we
just
kick
it
back
upstairs
to
the
city
council
and
say
you
know,
there's
a
draft
policy
here
we
don't
make
a
recommendation.
Just
take
all
the
noise
that
we've
been
providing
you
for
the
past
hour
and
make
some
sense
of
it
and
you
figure
it
out.
I
mean
I,
don't
know!
C
You
know,
maybe
they
do.
Maybe
they
don't,
but
I
feel
like
by
doing
that.
It
makes
us
look
lazy
like
we
were
just
kind
of
like
you
know
what
we
don't
know.
We
took
a
vote
on
a
motion.
It
didn't
pass,
so
just
you
know,
send
it
over
to
the
city
council
and
let
them
deal
with
it.
It
seems
to
me
to
to
be
kind
of
an
abdication
of
what
we
were
charged
with
I.
C
You
know
the
way
I
was
thinking
about
this
was
you
know,
we've
provided
further
comments
tonight
right
just
kind
of
supplementary
to
what
we
did
at
the
last
at
the
last
meeting,
and
you
know
rather
than
just
kicking
it
over
to
city,
council
and
saying
here.
You
know
you
guys
figure
it
out.
Is
it
possible
to
ask
staff
to
further?
You
know
digest
some
of
the
comments
that
we've
made
here
tonight
and
maybe
try
and
you
know,
revamp
this
policy
a
little
bit
and
then
bring
it
back
to
us.
G
Sure
I
mean
the
commission
has
the
option
to
return
the
policy
for
further
revisions.
I
guess
what
I
would
request
if
that's
the
the
pleasure
of
the
of
the
commission
to
be
specific
about
what
changes
you
want
made
to
a
draft
policy
but
I'm,
not
sure
I,
know
what
specifically
the
commission
is
looking
for
with
regard
to
changes.
C
See
you
don't
know
and
if
we
send
it
back
to
city
council,
they'd
say
the
same
thing:
we
don't
know
what
they
what
these
people
were
talking
about
on
this
traffic
and
Transportation
Commission
I'm
afraid
that
that
would
be
my
fear
but
I.
Think,
commissioner
Vice
chair
pletcher's
got
a
comment.
Thank.
I
You
Mr,
chair
kind
of
echoing
the
chair's
comments.
I
mean
I,
think
either
way
the
city
council
is
going
to
be
a
final
decision-making
Authority,
whether
we
punt
this
draft
policy
draft
resolution
up
to
them
with
our
comments
or
take
a
second
and
go
back
and
maybe
provide
further
Direction
and
digest
it
and
look
at
it
again.
I
I
I
I'm
reminded
very
similar
of
how
we
look
at
you
know
the
objective
standards
related
to
stop
signs
or
speed,
humps
or
speed.
We
have
other
environmental
factors
that
may
play
into
a
decision
to
that.
We
can
objectively
look
at
when
we
can
Implement
a
speed,
hump
speed
bump,
stop
sign.
You
know,
I
come
back
to
the
speed
humps,
because
that
was
a
more
recent
update
that
we've
done
as
a
body
using
the
chairs
example.
I
I,
think
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
pretend
to
be
a
traffic
engineer,
but
looking
at
an
objective
standard
of
is
there
you
know,
is
there
a
curve
in
the
road?
Are
there
any
environmental
factors
present
where
we
have
a
crossing
guard
station
or
where
we
may
propose
to
have
a
crossing
guard
stationed
that
can
play
a
factor
or
role
into
whether
we
City
staff
chooses
to
support
the
idea
of
a
crossing
guard
or
keeping
or
removing
a
crossing
guard?
I
E
H
So
so
what
I'm
wondering
and
I
do
think
that
if,
if
it
were
to,
if
the
direction
of
the
commission
were
to
to
ask
staff
to
come
back
with
revised
by
I,
think
it's
on
us
to
be
more
specific
as
to
what
those
those
things
should
should
be
to
me,
the
policy
I
think
has
crafted
as
a
as
a
template.
Can
work
I
just
feel
it's
too
constraining
on
what
the
conditions
under
which
a
crossing
guard
could
be
approved
based
upon?
H
But
but
if
we
were
to
be
more
specific
and
say,
could
you
craft
the
objective
standards
to
add
to
the
qualifying
standards
section
that
are
aligned
with
what
the
commission
would
like
to
see
that
enables
that
to
be
standards
with
which
are
allowed
for
us
to
approve
a
crossing
guard
location
that
that's
what
I'm
I'm
hoping
we
might
be
able
to
to
do?
I
just
think
as
crafter
right
now,
it's
just
it's
too.
D
D
C
H
We're
getting
closer
because
we're
amending
the
motion
to
The
Mending,
the
original
one,
but
the
the
thing
I
worry.
The
thing
I
worry
about
is
the
from
The
public's
perspective
and
the
parents
that
have
might
have
been
relying
on
a
crossing
guard
location
in
the
past
that
when
we
do
the
traffic
or
pedestrian
analysis-
and
it
just
barely,
doesn't
quite
pass
and.
D
H
B
H
D
Well,
it
doesn't
it
doesn't.
Let
me
dramatize
it
in
a
different
way.
Sergeant
can
I.
Ask
you
a
question.
Please
absolutely
do
you
have
the
right
to
stop
me
if
I'm
going,
10
or
11
or
12
percent
over
the
speed
limit
right?
Yes,
sir,
you
do
why
where's
the
does.
The
judge
have
a
discretion
if
I
take
you
to
court.
D
D
Okay,
whatever
the
standard
is,
there
will
always
be
one
or
two
points
some
way,
somehow
not
to
mention
the
fact
that
until
we
start
getting
the
influx
of
folks
from
the
valley,
our
enrollment
continues
to
go
down
in
schools,
so
the
chances
of
of
Us
coming
outside
of
some
percentage
at
least
10
percent,
sends
the
message.
I,
don't
believe
we
should
be
sending
a
message
to
the
public,
but
the
10
percent
sends
the
message
to
the
public.
Listen.
D
We
have
a
policy
with
somewhat
of
a
heart,
but
we
don't
have
a
policy
where
we
throw
the
rule
book
out
the
window
and
hope
we
don't
hit
somebody
with
it.
That's
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
if
it's
ten
percent,
at
least
it's
wiggle
room
of
10
and
it's
the
Judgment
of
the
commission
by
the
way,
if
I'm
not
mistaken-
and
this
is
a
question
for
the
City
attorney-
let's
say
somebody
comes
in-
and
they're
12
percent.
D
The
commission
does
have
the
right
to
deny
it
and
state
that
it's,
you
know
only
two
points
outside
our
policy
and
let
city
council.
What
I'm
trying
to
do
is
not
take
away
the
right
well
hold
on
a
second
I'm,
not
trying
to
take
away
the
right
for
someone
to
not
fall
within
that
10
or
15
percent
or
even
20
percent.
D
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
say,
I'm,
not
saying
that
my
kid
could
be
here
next
week,
trying
to
deviate
from
policy
with
the
p
PTA
at
whatever
their
school
is
I,
I,
guess
they're
going
to
Cyprus,
okay,
they
can
and
and
by
the
way
we
also
have
school
of
choice.
Now,
so
you
may
have
somebody
using
those
schools
that
are
not
even
within
the
realm
of
that
school.
That's
fine!
But
the
point
is:
let's
not
take
away
rights
from
the
elected
body
and
give
them
to
an
appointed
body.
D
Thank
you
very
much
for
that,
but
there
was
a
ride.
I
could
not
ride
at
Disneyland.
Well,
my
kids
within
10
percent,
come
on
ten
percent.
You're
gonna
break
a
little
kid's
heart.
There
is
always
someone
who's
going
to
be
dissatisfied.
We
want
to
mitigate
as
much
of
that
as
we
can
now.
I
think
we
all
have
to
look
at
history.
D
How
many
times,
even
under
the
current
policy,
has
someone
come
and
said?
Don't
take
away
my
crossing
guard?
Okay,
the
numbers
are
the
numbers.
There
are
numbers
that
come
in,
that
are
accurate
counts
and
no
one
has
to
pay
for
that
count
other
than
the
taxpayers
of
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks.
We
get
the
count
and
we
say
you
know
what
the
first
motion
did
not
pass,
because
it
was
cold
and
hard
and
had
no
room
for
deviation.
D
E
G
D
K
So,
keeping
within
the
spirit
of
the
cam
utcd,
which
is
narrowly
defines
some
of
things,
there's
two
two
actually
through
two
suggested
from
that,
and
then
one
from
our
own
discussion
is
first
of
all.
Street
speed
is
a
factor
in
consideration.
Now
we
have
presented
you
an
objective
standard
that
does
not
take
into
account
speed
other
than
that
one
alternative.
We
recognize
that
our
tail
roadways
are
typically
going
to
be
busy
and,
by
definition,
they're
also
going
to
have
a
higher
speed.
So
it
may
be
possible
to
build
in
some
flexibility
into
the
objective
standard.
K
C
L
B
L
Lot
more
flexibility
to
roadways
that
have
35
mile
an
hour
or
above
posted
speed
that
they
only
need
to
meet
three
out
of
the
four
criteria,
for
instance,
or
an
alternative
three
could
be
craft.
That
says,
if
that's
the
case,
then
10
reduction
Road
weighs
over
35
miles
an
hour,
10
reduction
on
all
of
the
vehicle
and
pedestrian.
K
A
second
criteria
that
we
could
look
at
again
the
consistent
with
the
mutcd
that
talks
about
the
intersection
type,
if
you
have
say
an
intersection
that
is
exceedingly
wide
in
width
that
takes
more
time
to
cross.
There
may
be
some
criteria
that
could
be
built
in
to
recognize
that
and
again
make
an
adjustment
for
that
purpose
again.
K
These
are
also
typically,
then
going
to
be
arterial
streets,
as
well
with
higher
speeds
and
higher
vehicle
volumes
again
staying
within
the
framework
of
the
standards
that
are
generally
set
for
this
one
of
the
comments
that
was
made
and
I
think
it
is
also
something
worth.
Consideration
is
for
many
of
these
schools,
we've
known
for
years
that
they
haven't
met
any
objective
criteria
and
we
are
now
going
to
establish
an
objective
criteria
that
is,
as
has
been
commented,
is,
is
rather
rigid
and
it
may
be
as
part
of
the
introduction
of
this
process.
K
As
mentioned
that
it's
not
an
immediate
closure
upon
the
adoption
of
this,
but
rather
we
will.
You
know
we
will
notice
the
school
that
this
is
the
first
count
you
haven't
met
the
standard
and
in
the
second
year,
if
it's
the
second
consecutive
year
that
you
have
not
met
the
standard,
then
that
would
be
a
cause
for
an
automatic
closure
simply
by
not
having
met
the
criteria
that
has
been
established
two
years
in
a
row.
I
I
We
should
be
encouraging
Folks
at
the
on
this
dice
to
make
comments,
even
if
they're
completely
in
the
face
of
everything
wrong
because
they're
not
traffic.
You
know
we
should
be
encouraging
conversation
and
encouraging
people
to
make
comments,
because
we're
all
learning
we're
all
trying
to
do
the
best
job
we
can
and
as
a
point
of
order,
I
don't
think
it's
it's
it's
appropriate
to
call
out
those
comments.
As
being
you
know
wrong,
or
we
don't
do
that.
I
I
just
want
to
state
that
for
the
record,
that
being
said,
I
appreciate
staff
going
back
in
and
looking
at
those
comments
and
for
the
commission.
I
am
supportive
of
that.
I.
Don't
know
how
you
know
if
that
triggers
a
10
reduction.
I'm
fine
with
that
idea.
I
just
want
some
kind
of
flexibility
built
in
for
changing
circumstances
and
laying
a
policy
that
can
work
for
the
next
decade.
I
Again,
we
can
go
back
to
the
old
way
of
maybe
changing
some
of
the
objective
standards,
adding
some
flexibility
and
still
sending
it
up
to
city
council
for
the
final
yes
or
no,
that's
also
an
option
tonight
and
commissioner
limo
has
made
constant
reminder
of
the
fact
that
they
are
the
final
decision-making.
Authority
I'd
be
even
okay,
with
handing
setting
an
objective
standard
here
tonight,
but
then
giving
that
final,
making
Authority
back
to
the
city
council
to
determine
to
do
whatever
they
do,
because
I
still
think
there's
other
considerations
that
they
get
to
think
about.
I
They
get
to
make
decisions
on
that
we
just
we
don't
have
that
ability
to
make
decisions
on
so
I
just
want
to
throw
that
alternative
out
there
of
saying:
let's
go
back
and
look
at
an
objective
standard
and
increasing
some
of
the
flexibility
with
those
objective
standards,
but
I'm.
Also
supportive
of
the
idea
of
we
still
make
a
recommendation,
and
it
just
goes
up
to
council
for
final
approval
on
the
consent
calendar
as
it's
always
done.
H
As
amendments
to
the
motion
that
we
have
here
and
try
and
get
this
done
tonight,
I
I,
I'm,
not
I,
wouldn't
be
in
favor
of
voting
with
the
motion,
as
is
because
I
still
think
that
the
only
effect
it
really
does
have
is
it
takes
the
city
standards
and
increases,
or
you
know,
increases
them
by
10
percent
or
decreases
them
by
ten
percent.
That's
that's
all
it
does.
H
It
doesn't
change
the
nature
of
the
you
know
the
the
algorithmic
means
by
which
we
we
do
that,
because
if
it's,
if,
if
it's
allowed
for
us
to
to
approve
it
with
a
10
reduction,
we
could
approve
it
or
deny
it
just
like
we
can.
If
it,
you
know
if
it
if
it
met
those
standards,
so
I
I'm,
I'm
kind
of
in
favor
of
the
you
know
consecutive
times,
not
meeting
standards
as
being
a
little
bit
more
automatic.
H
But
if
it,
if
it
hasn't,
met
that,
then
it
comes
to
us
and
we
have
the
ability
to
prove
it
if
it
hasn't
met
that
it
hasn't
tripped
over
the
standards
multiple
times
in
a
row,
because
that
that
the
thing
I
worry
about
is
the
public
being
surprised
by
the
crossing
guard.
They
relied
on
last
year
no
longer
being
available
and
there's
no
discretion
to
deal
with
it
and
the
only
way
they
can
get
it
back
is
if
they
pay
the
fee
and
get
the
city
council
to
pay
attention.
H
And-
and
that's
that's-
the
concern
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
for
the
commission's
perspective.
We
try
to
craft
the
motion
now
and
get
a
lot
of
the
objective
standards
articulated
now
or
do
we
ask
staff
to
come
back
with
some
of
those
so
that
we
can
have
an
informed
discussion
with
something
in
front
of
us
so.
D
Okay,
now
we
have
a
standard
that
is
more
in
line
with
the
rest
of
the
of
the
of
the
state
and
certainly
other
areas,
including
the
county.
But
there
is
no
surprise
to
a
parent.
The
only
surprise
to
a
parent
is
a
parent
who
is
not
spending
their
Wednesday
evening
watching
the
traffic
commission.
That's
the
only
surprise
but
you've
given
them.
L
H
Yeah
so,
in
some
ways
like
yes,
it
does
address
that
I
think
there
might
be
objective
ways
to
put
that
into
the
policy,
because
it
there
are
standards.
Then
there
are
in
the
evaluation.
Did
they
meet
the
standards
and,
through
that
understanding
how
many
times
they
meet
the
standards
and-
and
that
becomes
something
that
is
taken
into
consideration
by
the
commission
or
if
it's
too
many
times
it's
just
like
it
can't
be
approved.
So
that's
a
part
of
from
my
perspective
and
I'm.
H
Fine
with
that
too
I
think
I
would
need
to
see
it
exactly
on
on
how
that
works,
but
that
that
is
something
in
in
line
with
what
what
my
primary
concern
about.
That
is
because
it
does
provide
a
little
bit
more
it.
It
helps
to
lessen
the
surprise
of
the
public
about
crossing
guards
no
longer
being
there.
H
The
only
thing
I
would
want
to
know
from
the
rest
of
the
commission
is
that,
are
there
additional
objective
standards
that
are
potentially
different,
maybe
that
those
that
staff
had
articulated
that
might
also
be
beneficial
to
have
as
a
criteria
to
say,
look
it's.
It
actually
met
one
of
these
different
qualifying
standards,
and
for
that
reason
it
gives
us
that
I
just
don't
know,
but
what
your
to
your
question,
yes,
is
something
along
those
lines.
C
K
K
K
That
would
be
would
be
one
concern
and
then
a
quick
clarification
for
staff,
so
that
we
understand-
let's
assume,
for
instance,
that
their
policy
is
adopted
and
Council
agrees
with
this,
and
we
do
our
spring
counts.
This
upcoming
March
and
this
particular
particular
school,
has
noticed
that
it
did
not
meet
the
criteria
or
any
of
the
considerations.
That
school
has
noticed
that
it
does
not
meet
the
criteria,
and
then
we
do
the
counts
in
Spring
2024.
K
The
same
result
occurs,
then,
when
the
school
year
begins
in
the
fall
of
2024,
that
school
would
not
have
a
crossing
guard,
because
it
would
have
come
before
the
traffic
commission
that
in
in
that
April,
and
it
was
the
second
consecutive
year
and
there's
no
extenuating
circumstances,
and
then
they
would
be
noticed.
We
just
want
to
be
clear
that
it's
a
a
two-year
sort
of
pro
or
or
a
a
24-month
process.
If
you
will.
B
C
D
K
The
third
criteria,
which
was
staff
presented,
was
based
upon
a
street
width
for
staff
to
determine
that
could
also
provide
a
additional
criteria
for
consideration.
I'm,
not
sure
at
this
point,
if
it
would
be
a
percentage
of
it,
would
just
simply
be
a
criteria,
is
something
staff
will
have
to
consider
and
then,
lastly,
that
it
would
not
any
of
the
adoption
of
this
policy
would
not
result
in
an
automatic
closure
of
a
school
the
first
year,
but
rather
it
would
be
a
two-year
process.
Minimum
for
a
school.
D
C
H
Yeah
I
think
the
the
the
the
decision
point
we're
at
is:
do
we
try
to
be
specific
as
to
how
the
policy
is
crafted
tonight
and
vote
to
approve
it?
Or
do
we
ask
staff
to
take
this
these
specific
elements
and
come
back
with
specific
language
for
us
to
entertain?
I
am
more
in
favor
of
the
latter,
because
I
think
it's
very
clear
as
to
what
we
would
be
voting
on
to
do
that.
Well,.
C
D
D
You're,
looking
at
a
strong
possibility,
okay,
that
at
least
three
of
our
existing
Commissioners
are
not
going
to
be
participating
in
the
discussion
of
of
crafting
what
we
thought
was
best,
so
you
could
be
looking
at
accomplishing
absolutely
nothing
at
the
February
meeting,
because
everybody's
got
to
come
back
up
to
speed
again,
where
we've
been
through
the
discussion.
We
understand
the
issues.
We
know
exactly
what
direction
we
want
it
to
go
in
and
the
stop
Gap
measure
is
Council
is
going
to
approve
it
or
not.
C
D
That's
what
we
don't
know
that
it's
what
he
he
did
sort
of
protect
us
with
that,
because
he
said
it's
not
cumulative.
You
have
the
right
to
give
the
10
with
or
without
the
speed
with
or
with
or
without
a
you
know,
a
curve
or
a
traffic
situation.
You
have
that
right,
no
matter
what
the
the
commission
has
the
right
to
have
a
10
deviance
without
any
of
those
things.
D
D
When
they're
told
the
second
time
that
they
don't
meet
the
criteria,
they
come
to
a
commission
and
then
they
still
have
April
until
September
before
that
gets
put
into
place.
So
they've
really
had
we
said
24
months.
They
really
have
30
months
from
day.
One
so
I
mean
every
safety
you
could
think
of.
If
you're
going
to
have
a
policy
is
in
fact
put
in
there
every
consideration
that
you
had
allows
you
can
do
10
for
your
discretion.
D
You
can
get
10
with
or
without
your
discretion,
based
upon
your
study
of
the
roads
or
the
speed
of
those
roads
or
the
traffic
counts,
so
I
I'm
I'm
having
a
difficult
time
understanding
where
there's
any
ambiguity
left
because
we've
we've
we've
met
the
criteria
we
discussed
of.
We
don't
want
to
shock
them.
We
don't
want
them
to
have
a
no
notice
situation.
You
know
welcome
back
to
school
by
the
way,
there's
no
crossing
guards
and
they
find
that
out
in
August.
That's
gone.
D
H
H
I
think
I
think
that's.
It
is
prudent
public
decision
making
for
us
to
do
that
and
I
think
I
mean.
If
we
want
to
try
and
make
a
decision
tonight
we
can.
We
can
try
to
really
do
a
working
session
craft.
The
language
now
I
think
it's
probably
more
prudent
to
to
allow
staff
to
provide
the
language
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
and
if
none
of
us
are
here,
then
the
new
traffic
commission
appointees
will
be
able
to
make
that
decision,
hopefully
with
some
ability
to
have
an
understanding
of
that.
K
Mr
chair
staff
is,
is
prepared
to
offer
some
specific
numbers.
Should
you
desire
it?
We
could
also
suggest
a
perhaps
a
10-minute
recess
to
give
staff
some
additional
time
to
construct
some
language
that
could
be
incorporated
tonight
or
we
can
go
with
the
other
alternative,
which
is
to
bring
this
back
at
a
later
date.
C
We
can
do
that,
but
I
I
would
just
say
that
you
know
I
I
mean
I,
really
don't
want
this
meeting
to
go
on.
You
know
three
hours
and
Beyond
because
we're
trying
to
craft.
You
know
policy
tonight
on
the
spot.
So
why
don't
we
do
this?
Why
don't
we
take
it?
Why
don't
we
make
a
10
minute,
take
a
10
minute
adjournment
and
we
will
reconvene
at.
Why
don't
why?
Don't
we
just
say,
850
and
see
what
we
can?
Okay,
just.
D
D
What
would
be
the
purpose
of
coming
to
the
traffic
commission
if
it
is
solely
a
decision
of
counsel
if
we're
telling
Council
we're
not
going
to
pay
attention
to
your
recommendation,
go
ahead
and
make
the
decision
yourself
if
we
were
to
do
that,
there's
no
appeal
fee,
there's
no
fee
charged
for
somebody
to
do
that.
Is
that
correct.
L
B
C
You
know
you
know,
look
I,
I,
really,
don't
want
to
put
staff
on
the
spot
and
tell
them
to
craft
language
tonight,
it's
you
know,
look
it's
everybody's
worked
the
full
day
today,
it's
late
and
I,
don't
want
to
misstep,
or
you
know,
present
language,
which
is
in
hindsight
not
going
to
be
what
we
want
it
to
be.
So
you
know
I,
ideally
I
I.
Would
you
know
on
second
thought?
I
would
not
want
to
take
an
adjournment
to
ask
people
to
start
crafting
up
policy
language
at
this
hour.
H
Ferris,
well,
if
it's
possible,
what
we
can
do
is
we
can
table
the
motion
currently
on
the
floor,
vote
to
table
it
and
then
provide
direction
to
staff
in
order
to
provide
this
back
to
us
at
the
next
meeting.
The
traffic
commission,
so
I
will
do
that.
I
will
move
that
we
tabled
motion
currently
on
the
floor.
H
I
B
G
D
G
H
C
H
State
it
so
motion
would
be
to
ask
staff
to
return
a
revised
policy
to
include
additional
sections
in
the
qualifying
standards
section
consistent
with
speed
width
time,
the
number
of
times
not
meeting
the
standard
and
the
10
percent
adjustments
were
there
any
additional
ones.
I
want
to
make
sure
okay
direction
to
ask
for
objective
standards
relating
to
those
and
to
be
brought
back
for
entertaining
by
the
traffic
Commission.
D
J
F
Chair
and
Mel,
yes,
okay
motion
carries
three
to
two
with
commissioner
Hayek
and
commissioner
Lemo
voting.
No,
the
traffic
commission
makes
recommendations
to
the
city
council
and
interested
parties
May
attend
the
city
council
meeting
and
speak
either
for
or
against
the
recommendation
of
the
traffic
Commission.
F
Any
person
wishing
to
appeal
a
decision
of
the
traffic
commission
shall
file
written
appeal
and
pay
an
appeal
fee
with
the
city
clerk
Department
within
14
days
of
the
decision.
The
matter
will
be
referred
to
the
city
council
at
the
earliest,
reasonable
and
available
date.
The
appeal
fee
will
be
refunded
only
if
the
city
council
overturns
the
traffic
commission's
decision.
An
appeal
form
is
available
from
the
recording
secretary.
C
L
Another
alternative
could
be
to
hold
that
meeting
earlier
in
the
month
of
December
because
of
what's
what's
being
provided
and
the
the
revisions
that
can
be
made,
aren't
very
lengthy
in
terms
of
being
time
consuming
so
that
December
21st
date
is
close
to
the
holiday
weekend
may
be
impacted
by
certain
Travelers
or
so
forth.
But
there
could
be
a
date
selected
earlier
in
December
for
alternative
meeting
date.
C
B
B
J
I
would
just
say
that
so
the
schools
are
on
break
as
of
the
16th.
So
if
we
want
to
make
this
any
attempt
for
the
public
to
comment
or
say
anything,
we're
going
to
have
the
entire
School
Community,
basically
on
break
and
whether
they
go
away
or
not,
is
a
different
story,
but
just
to
note
that
the
the
schools
will
be
closed
and
it's
a
good,
probably
a
good
likelihood
that
there
will
be
a
lot
of
families
away
or
on
vacation.
During
that
week.