►
Description
Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting - 10/19/2022
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
A
A
C
E
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
specific
agenda
items
shall
be
called
and
heard
during
that
specific
item.
E
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.
E
Currently,
we
have
no
individuals
have
requested
to
speak
on
this
item
and
pursuant
to
traffic
commissioner
standards,
if
we
did,
they
would
be
allowed
three
minutes.
Also,
no
written
statements
have
been
submitted.
Also,
can
you
please
silence
all
cell
phones
during
the
meeting
and
please
remember
to
mute
your
microphones
when
you
are
not
speaking.
C
F
Again,
Commissioners
Mike,
Houser
I'm,
the
transit
program
manager
for
the
city,
and
one
of
my
ancillary
duties
is
also
to
manage
the
school
crossing
guard
program.
The
item
before
you
tonight
actually
had
its
Genesis
back
in
our
presentation
staff
presentation
to
you
in
April
when
we
recommend
it
as
we
do
annually
some
recommendations
in
regards
to
locations
to
close
for
not
meeting
our
usual
standards,
which
have
been
in
place
now
for
a
number
of
decades.
F
The
at
that
time
the
commission
was
unanimous
in
supporting
staff's
recommendation.
We
took
those
recommendations
to
City
Council
in
June
and
Council
declined
to
take
action
at
that
time
and
ask
that
the
staff
come
back
with
to
them
with
a
comprehensive
history
of
the
program,
as
well
as
how
the
current
standards
that
staff
is
currently
employing
to
make
determinations
and
recommendations
to
both
the
commission
and
to
the
council
were
how
we
got
to
that
point.
F
We
did
that
on
August
30th
in
their
Direction
at
that
time
was
then
to
bring
this
matter
back
to
the
traffic
Commission
for
further
study
and
Analysis
staff
will
not
be
making
any
specific
recommendations
to
the
commission
tonight.
We're
here
to
provide
you
information
and
then
get
your
feedback
on
on
potential
changes
to
our
program
and
policies.
Nor
are
we
making
any
specific
recommendations
tonight
as
they
relate
to
any
specific
School
location,
a
little
bit
of
history
of
the
program
we
currently
have
24
cross
locations
in
this
community.
F
18
of
them
are
adjacent
to
to
schools,
and
six
of
them
are
within
the
proximity
of
schools.
Further
down
the
street
as
I
think
everyone
knows,
the
city
was
incorporated
in
in
mid
1964
and
almost
immediately
within
six
weeks,
Council
considered
their
first
school
crossing
guard
location,
which
was
at
the
intersection
of
herbs
and
La
Granada.
F
Since
about
1977
decisions
in
terms
of
what
to
recommend
for
school
crossing
guard
locations
have
been
handled
internally
at
the
staff
level
and
since
the
traffic
and
transport
excuse
me,
since
the
traffic
and
transportation
advisory
commission
was
formed,
we
do
as
a
routine
process.
I
bring
those
recommendations
to
you
on
almost
an
annual
basis.
F
staff
has
thoroughly
researched
the
minutes
from
all
the
meetings
of
that
year,
and
we
cannot
determine
with
any
certainty.
The
council
actually
took
this
action.
However,
the
earliest
reference
we
have
to
the
crossing
guard
standards
that
are
we
currently
employ
are
from
1999
in
a
community
budget
task
force,
memo
entitled
minimum
Community
standards,
and
then
that
report
noted
that
the
standard
that
has
the
that
was
developed,
which
I
will
be
showing
you
in
just
a
minute,
was
both
Department
practice
and
discretionary.
F
I'd
also
like
to
note
that
this
considering
crossing
guard
locations
is
a
is
a
time-consuming
matter
for
the
council.
They've
considered
almost
a
hundred
separate
requests
since
1964.
So
almost
to
a
year,
the
California
Manual
of
uniformed
traffic
control
devices
is
the
California's
version
of
the
federal
standards
which
govern
traffic
control
devices,
which
include
crossing
guards.
F
It
sets
specific
standards
for
the
placement
of
crossing
guards
depending
upon
the
intersection
type
speed
of
the
roadway
vehicle
and
pedestrian
volumes,
and
quote
from
the
manual
itself.
Standards
exist
to
objectively
evaluate
a
potential
need
for
a
crossing
guard
to
assist
students
to
find
gaps
in
traffic
flow
or
to
cross
the
street.
Most
of
the
municipal
agencies
that
we
surveyed
as
part
of
our
preparation
for
this
report
use
the
mutcd
as
their
basis
for
making
crossing
guard
determinations.
F
F
F
F
F
We
count
all
pedestrians
that
are
in
grades
k
through
eight.
That
also
includes
children
that
might
be
using
skateboards
scooters
and
bicycles.
We
also
count
all
vehicles
that
conflict
or
cross
a
crosswalk,
and
it's
important
to
note
that
when
we
do
these
counts,
we
do
them
to
maximize
the
numbers
that
we
count.
We
do
not
count
during
adverse
weather,
we
do
not
count
near
holiday
school
periods
and
we
also
even
try
to
avoid
counting
on
Mondays
and
Fridays
in
order
to
to
best
represent
what
the
maximum
load
is.
F
F
Using
the
most
recent
counts
conducted
in
March
and
February
of
2022,
so
that
we
have
there
are
10
Elementary
School
locations
that
do
not
meet
the
city's
easier
to
achieve
thresholds
for
crossing
guard
placement.
This
finding
is
also
consistent
with
the
last
counts
done
before
the
pandemic,
which
was
in
the
1819
school
year.
F
If
we
were
to
apply
the
state
minimum
standards
16
locations
that
we
currently
cross
would
not
meet
the
California
mutcd
standards,
so
that
is
sort
of
a
brief
history
of
the
program
going
to
now
transition
our
presentation
into
the
survey
of
other
agencies.
We
did.
We
wanted
to
see
how
they
were
handling
their
crossing
guard
needs
and
to
see
if
we
could
develop
and
see
what
some
of
the
best
practices
are.
F
One
of
the
questions
we
asked
was:
what
are
your
standards
and
if
you
note
on
the
the
chart
in
front
of
you,
that
seven
of
the
municipal
agencies
all
use
the
ca
mutcd
as
their
standard
for
crossing
guard
placements
Ventura
and
the
Ventura
County
Unified
School
District
is
unique.
Among
the
agencies
we
surveyed
in
that
the
city
of
Ventura
pays
for
all
crossing
guard
locations
that
meet
the
the
mutcd.
F
The
school
district
pays
for
any
other
locations
which
they
would
like
to
have
that
don't
meet
the
standard
and
in
the
cases
of
the
Moore
Park,
unified
and
Santa
Paula
unified
school
districts.
They
have
no
set
standard.
Decisions
are
typically
done
at
the
principal
level
and
based
upon
their
interpretation
of
what
their
need
is.
F
Looking
at
the
number
of
crossing
guard
locations
by
agency.
Of
course,
smaller
cities
are
going
to
have
fewer
guards,
but
if
you
compare
Thousand
Oaks
with
24
to
say,
city
of
Simi
Valley,
which
is
approximately
the
same
physical
size,
population
and
number
of
schools,
they
have
half
as
many
cross
locations
and
that
particular
city
does
use
the
mutcd
as
their
standard
for
deciding
where
to
place.
Crossing
guards.
F
We
also
asked
the
agencies
about
their
budgets
for
the
program.
Not
all
agencies
were
able
to
provide
this
information
as
they
sometimes
roll
their
programs
into
other
programs,
but
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
and
the
Ventura
Ventura
Unified
School
District,
are
by
far
the
largest
programs
by
cost
and
Thousand
Oaks
has
the
most
expensive
program
for
one
that's
run
by
an
individual
agency.
F
We
also
asked
the
agencies
who
funds
the
crossing
guard
program
and
the
vast
majority
of
the
municipal
agencies
do
fund
directly
their
crossing
guard
programs,
but
we
would
note
that
Port,
Hueneme
and
Ventura
both
jointly
fund
their
programs
with
their
school
districts
in
Port
Hueneme.
It's
approximately
a
50
50
split
and
in
Venture
it's
approximately
25.75
with
the
city.
Picking
up
to
25
percent
also
note
that
Moore
Park
is
unique
in
that
the
city
and
the
school
district
have
their
own
separate,
distinct
programs.
The
city
pays
for
their
crossing
guards,
which
are
actually
hourly
staff.
F
F
We
also
asked
whether
or
not
these
programs
are
directly
operated
or
contracted
out,
as
is,
for
instance,
our
Transit
program,
Landscape,
Maintenance
and
other
activities.
That's
pretty
much
an
even
split,
though,
generally
speaking,
the
larger
cities
directly
operate
and
the
smaller
cities
contract
out,
Ventura
being
the
one
notable
exception.
They
do
contract
out
their
service
and
then,
lastly,
we
asked
who
makes
the
final
decisions
for
crossing
guards.
F
It
has
been
traditionally
in
this
community
since
incorporation
that
the
city
council
makes
those
decisions
and
in
fact
there
are
five
cities
within
Ventura
County,
where
Council
does
make
that
those
decisions.
However,
noting
in
other
cities
that
could
be
at
the
city
manager
level,
the
school
superintendent
or
in
the
case
of
Oxnard
Terran,
Westlake,
Village
It's,
a
combination
decision
based
upon
City
staff
of
the
local
law
enforcement
and
School
District
officials
to
determine
where
crossing
guards
are
placed.
F
So
that's
a
brief
overview
of
the
sort
of
the
summary
of
the
programs
that
we've
seen
in
other
agencies.
I
did
want
to
also
update
the
commission
on
where
we
are
in
this
year's
crossing
guard
program,
since
we
were
last
here
in
April,
recruitment
for
crossing
guards
continues
to
be
a
high
priority
for
the
program
and
a
difficult
challenge
as
as
many
base,
businesses
and
agencies
are
facing.
F
We
ended
the
21-22
year
school
year,
short
five
crossing
guards
and
we
had
another
six
crossing
guards
that
either
retired
resigned
or
unable
to
complete
their
annual
physical
requirements
over
the
summer,
leaving
us
with
11
vacancies
near
the
start
of
the
school
year.
We
have
been
able
to
fill
seven
of
those
vacancies
as
of
tonight's
meeting,
but
we
continue
to
have
schools
that
do
not
have
crossing
guards,
even
though
they
are
authorized
for
them
and
at
this
time
that
that
is
Aspen,
Elementary,
Banyan,
Elementary
and
Madrona
Elementary
School.
F
F
So,
what's
next
again,
we
as
staff
are
not
seeking
we're,
not
providing
any
specific
recommendations
to
you
this
evening,
but
rather
we
would
like
to
get
feedback
from
you
on
where
you
think
this
program
should
go.
Some
of
the
policy
items
and
best
practices
that
you
may
want
to
consider
include.
Perhaps
whether
or
not
we
want
to
adopt
a
CA
mutcd
as
our
standard
for
crossing
guard
placement,
as
most
public
agencies
do.
F
But
we
also
would
like
to
your
your
input
on
who
should
fund
qualifying
locations
or
whether
and
if
we
should
even
cross
non-qualifying
locations,
and
if
we
are
to
do
so,
who
would
fund
those?
Should
we
make
any
changes
to
the
approval
Authority?
As
I
noted
right
now,
we
do
seek
your
recommendation
and
concurrence
of
Staff
recommendations
first
and
then
we
go
to
council,
but
perhaps
it's
better
left
at
the
traffic
commission
level
or
perhaps
a
combination
of
Staff
or
perhaps
even
automatic
closures
based
upon
counts.
F
You
know:
do
we
go,
for
instance,
one
year
and
bring
the
recommendation
to
the
commission
or
Council
and
then
automatically
close
the
school?
If
say
it
two
consecutive
years,
it
fails
to
meet
the
minimum
criteria
based
upon
whatever
feedback
you
give
us.
This
evening,
we
will
come
back
at
the
next
traffic
commission
meeting,
with
some
draft
policy
recommendations
for
your
consideration
and
refinement,
and
then
sometime
after
the
first
the
year,
we
will
take
your
recommendations
and
present
those
to
city
council
for
their
input
and
with
that
staff
is
available
for
any
questions.
C
A
H
You
Mr
chair
thanks
excellent
presentation.
Thank
you
for
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
discuss
these
items
and
kind
of
have
a
deliberation
about
where
to
go
on
it.
I
do
have
some
questions
just
to
give
me
a
little
bit
more
context
as
to
in
some
ways
why
it
is
coming
to
us
and
what
the
council
might
be.
Looking
for.
H
H
F
When
it
comes
to
new
requests,
they
are
rare
now
and
I.
I
should
have
pointed
out
in
the
original
presentation
that
at
its
peak,
this
program
had
39
cross
locations
in
overtime,
and
it's
been
fairly
steady.
Now,
for
the
last
decade,
the
last
Crossing
we
actually
added
was
Westlake
Elementary
School
back
in
the
1718
school
year,
and
that
was
again
a
request
that
came
via
either
parents
or
principals.
To
do
that.
F
Most
of
you
may
be
familiar
with
the
intersection
of
Orchard
Michael
over
in
Newbury
Park,
and
we
regularly
get
requests
for
a
crossing
at
that
location.
That
is
a
controlled
intersection
lights
crosswalks.
However,
when
we
do
counts,
we
typically
find
two
to
maybe
four
pedestrians
Crossing.
So
that
is
not
a
location.
We
we
even
consider
and
we
we
never
bring
those
types.
F
But
in
the
case
of
what
Westlake
Hills
as
I
recall
the
numbers,
they
were
close,
they
weren't
quite
there,
but
they
were
close,
and
so
that
was
one
that
the
decision
is
made
and
I.
You
asked
you
know.
So
what
sort
of
the
Genesis
is
is
we
have
these
standards
and
the
city
has
standards
which
are
easier
to
meet,
but
we
don't
seem
to
be
consistent
in
how
we
apply
those
standards.
H
Thank
you
and
I
I.
Don't
disagree
with
that.
A
lot
of
times,
I
think
the
history
of
the
city
like
we
have
our
standards
for
it
and
these
forums,
whether
they're
at
a
commission,
level
or
Council
level,
provide
the
opportunity
for
residents
to
voice
how
they
would
like
to
see
the
decisions
made
and
that
one
can
argue
whether
that,
as
is
good
or
bad,
but
it
is,
does
give
the
residents
an
opportunity
to
be
able
to
express
those
things.
H
So
it
sounds
like
if
there
was
a
need
or
desire
to
evaluate
a
new
crossing
guard
location
staff
may
evaluate
it
themselves.
The
residents
may
bring
it
to
staff's
attention
and
it
may
rise
itself
up.
So
there's
a
way
for
that
to
happen,
but
in
most
cases
it's
probably
going
to
be
the
other
direction,
which
is
we're
evaluating
those
that
are
that
were
on
that
had
a
location
before
and
we
may
decide
is
it?
Is
it
worthwhile
to
continue
that
location?
Is
that
a
fair
way
of?
What's
generally
going
very
fair?
H
Yes,
thank
you
and
then
the
process
is
whatever
that
decision
is
Staff
makes
a
recommendation.
It
will
come
to
the
traffic
commission
we'll
make
a
recommendation
because
it
goes
to
the
council
and
the
council
makes
its
its
decision
about
whether
to
keep
it
funded
for
the
next
year
and
it's
sort
of
done
on
an
annual
basis.
F
That's
also
correct.
We
typically
again,
we
do
these
counts
when
Staffing
permits
we
actually
do
fall
and
spring
counts
both
this
past
year,
for
Staffing
reasons,
we
only
did
spring
counts
and
that's
been
the
typical
process
now
for
while
I'm
doing
this
program
now,
I
actually
did
it
back
in.
You
know
2010
and
11,
and
we
were
using
the
same
process
back
then
as
well
and
I
will
say
that
council
is.
You
should
generally
fairly
consistent
with
whatever
recommendations
comes
out
of
this
Commission.
H
H
H
F
That's
correct:
yes,
staff
made
a
determination,
given
the
sheer
number
of
locations
that
we
were
recommending.
We
focused
on
those
locations
that
didn't
meet,
The
Pedestrian
counts.
We
let,
for
this
particular
time
those
locations
that
met
pedestrian
but
didn't
meet
vehicle
counts
because
it
is
a
comprehensive
standard.
You
are
supposed
to
meet
both
in
order
to
qualify,
but
the
decision
was
made
at
the
staff
level
to
only
bring
the
five
that
didn't
meet
on
a
pedestrian
basis
and
to
study
the
other
five
that
met
pedestrian
but
didn't
meet
vehicle
for
one
more
year.
H
F
As
a
commission
I'm
trying
to
remember
right,
yeah
of
the
five
that
we
recommended
for
closure,
all
of
them
failed
to
meet
The
Pedestrian
standards.
Only
two
off
the
top
of
my
head.
Only
to
the
schools
failed
to
also
meet
the
vehicle
standards.
There
were
three
schools
that
met
the
vehicle
volume
numbers.
Okay,.
H
F
H
So
my
and
now
so
my
last
set
of
questions
are
really
kind
of
engaging
from.
If
I
remember,
right,
I
wanted
to
look
to
see
in
the
in
the
minutes
of
the
city
council
meeting
like
where
they
came
up
with
the
discussion
of
it.
It
looked
to
me
like
it
was
a
consent
calendar
item
that
normally
these
things
go
through
everybody's
there's
generally
consent
on
it
through
Council
deliberations.
They
pulled
that
item
and
you
said
through
some
discussion.
They
decided
not
to
take
action
and
that's
why
it's
coming
back
to
us.
H
Do
you
have
any
insight
as
to
what
the
council
was
concerned
about
that
warranted
them,
bringing
it
up
and
not
wanting
to
take
action
and
here's
the
reason
I'm
asking
sort
of
like?
Did
they
because
I
can
imagine
they're
like
wait,
you're
asking
us
to
close
school
girls
I,
don't
want
to
close
school
guards
like
reevaluate
the
policies,
let's
double
check
that
or
it's
like.
No,
we
want
to
close
more
of
them
like
we,
let's
really
reevaluate
these
policies,
I
kind
of
want
to
get
a
sense
of
where
the
council
was
coming
from
there.
F
Based
upon
the
statements
made
in
the
meeting
that
I
attended,
I'll
offer
up,
the
following
is,
first
of
all,
because
the
pandemic,
we
had
gone
several
years
without
making
any
recommendations
for
so
for
some
of
the
council
members.
This
was
a
completely
new
process
that
they
were
unfamiliar
with
and
for
other
council
members
again
that
have
been
seated
on
the
council
for
a
while.
F
One
of
the
reasons
why
we
did
the
survey
to
see
what
other
agencies
are
doing,
I
think
just
in
general
Council
wanted
a
clear
picture
because
it's
been
a
while
on
how
the
program
operates,
what
the
standards
are
and
whether
or
not
we
can
do
the
program
better
and
perhaps
we're
consistent
with.
There
are
sister
agencies
in
the
area.
C
G
You
thank
you
Mr
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
As
I
have
said
many
times,
I
I
appreciate
when
staff
digs
into
the
history
and
really
looks
at
kind
of
the
360
of
what
a
problem
or
an
issue
or
a
topic
that
we're
addressing,
is
just
a
general
question
to
start
off
what,
when
I
think
of
the
traffic
and
Transportation
Commission?
What
what
is
our?
What
is
this
body's
overall
purpose
and
goal.
I
Yeah
well,
I
think
you
know
we
have
our
resolution
that
created
this
traffic
and
transportation
advisor
commission
I.
Think
the
the
general
statement.
That's
in
that
resolution
basically
is
to
take
a
look
at
you,
know:
traffic
and
transportation
issues
and
ultimately
make
recommendations
that
go
to
city
council
for
consideration
and
those
traffic
issues,
traffic
and
transportation
issues.
You
know
they
can
range
from.
You
know
various
matters
that
affect
the
city
entire
city.
G
And
do
you
think
as
a
a
follow-up
to
that,
because
I've
heard
it
come
from
Commissioners?
You
know:
I've
sat
on
this
body
two
separate
occasions.
I've
heard
commission
members
over
time
really
focus
our
discussion
on
safety.
I
mean.
Is
that
a
fair
statement
to
to
you
know
the
the
pair
of
glasses
I
should
be
wearing
when
I
look
at
these
issues
is
safety
and
the
overall
goal
of
increasing
pedestrian
and
Traffic
Safety
in
our
community.
I
G
So
can
I
ask
as
a
as
a
follow-up.
You
had
mentioned
that
previous
previous
councils,
when
this
has
gone
up
for
funding
considerations,
have
taken
either
the
recommendation
of
the
traffic
commission
or
looked
at
the
city
standards,
which
you
mentioned,
were
kind
of
Applied
inconsistently
over
time
and
chose
to
operate
outside
of
those
standards.
For
whatever
reason
do
we
have
an
idea
of
why,
in
the
past,
the
city
council
may
have
deviated
from
standard
from
kind
of
these
numerical
standards
that
we've
we
look
at.
F
I
would
say
globally,
it's
it's
like
many
of
the
things
that
you
do
consider
when
it
comes
to
stop
signs,
speed,
humps
each
each
location
has
its
own
unique,
aesthetic
issues
and
I'll
use
it.
For
example,
you
take
a
school
like
Aspen,
which
is
on
on
the
corner
of
Jans
and
Marlow.
It
has
virtually
no
pedestrian
traffic,
but
is
one
of
the
major
thoroughfares
for
that
part
of
the
community.
F
That
said,
it
is
a
very
difficult
situation
to
be
in.
If
you
have
a
situation
where
you
are
crossing
a
location
where
you
know
you
only
have
a
tenth
of
what
the
minimum
standard
typically
is
is
and
you're
still,
you
know
actively
pursuing
that
and
I'm
sure,
as
in
the
cases
of
these
meetings,
public
input
has
a
lot
of.
It
can
have
a
lot
of
impact
on
the
decision-making
process.
J
As
far
as
the
as
Mike
had
alluded
to
earlier.
At
one
point
we
did
have
up
to
39
locations,
so
it
you
know
it
has.
It
has
dropped.
So
the
council
has
in
many
occasions
you
know,
agreed
to
that
eliminate
locations
which
didn't
meet
the
standards
any
longer
and
whether
that
was
due
to
shifting
of
certain
School
sites
to
from
a
neighborhood
school
to
a
you
know,
more
Regional
type
of
approach
or
declining
enrollment
or
whatever
it
has
been,
or
just
people.
J
I
Excuse
me,
oh
yeah,
sorry,
I'm.
Sorry,
one
thing
I
would
like
to
add
too,
is
just
over
time.
I
think
the
thought
process
of
the
councils
back
in
the
70s
I
think
when
the
program
started
is
probably
different
than
what
it
was
now
just
looking
at
older
records.
It
appears
that
maybe
older
councils,
they
didn't
look
at
the
the
you
know
the
warrants
of
California
mutcd
standards
as
they
do
today.
I
Back
then
I
think
there
may
have
been
more
pressures
from
the
public
to
implement
things
that
were
not
considered
traditional.
For
example,
back
in
those
early
years,
stop
signs
were
used
for
speed
control,
but
over
time
we
found
out
that
stop
signs
are,
should
not
be
used
for
speed
control
because
they're
tools
to
regulate
right
away
and
so
and
then
also
over
time,
cities
and
agencies
have
implemented.
You
know
more
traffic
controls
at
intersections
traffic
signals
traffic,
calming
measures,
things
like
that
to
answer
and
address
many
of
the
concerns
that
the
citizens
had.
I
G
G
We
are
fully
built
out
and
doing
infill
projects
and
turning
our
traffic
focus,
with
the
exception
of
anything
that
made
Sacramento
to
may
or
may
not
do
to
regulate
traffic,
but
we're
kind
of
turning
our
focus
and
attention
to
just
maintenance
of
our
city
streets
and
and
figuring
out
how
to
maintain
and
build
safety
within
our
streets.
We're
not
growing
we're
maintaining
I
mean
you
see
where
I'm
going
out
with
I
mean
so
there
has
been
kind
of
a
shift
in
focus
of
how
we
look
at
these
issues
over
time.
I
mean
is
that
correct.
G
And
then
coming
back
to
the
we
have
our
our
mutc
standards.
We
have
our
city
standards
outside
of
these
numerical
standards
to
determine
the
placement
of
crossing
guards.
Is
there
anything
else
currently
at
the
staff
level
in
terms
of
what
a
standard
is
for
this
issue?
Is
there
anything
else
that
staff's
considering
are
we?
Are
we
just
basing
our
decisions
to
close
on
these
numerical
counts,
be
it
vehicular
or
pedestrian.
F
That
is
our
primary
focus.
Again,
there
may
be
some
extenuating
circumstances
that
are
discussed
at
either
the
staff
or
perhaps
even
the
executive
level,
but
in
the
most
General
sense.
For
instance,
when
I
prepared
that
report
for
you
in
April
my
sole
Focus
was.
This
is
the
standard
that
the
city
has
had
for
at
least
almost
over
40
years,
and
we
these
locations
don't
meet
the
standard
and
even
though
it
was
we
were
coming
out
of
a
pandemic.
G
Thank
you
because
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
hit
on
is
kind
of
that.
First
bullet
point
towards
the
back
end
of
your
report.
The
do
we
adopt
the
mutc
as
the
minimum
of
standard
in
order
to
meet
for
crossing
guard
placement,
because
in
my
mind
it
sounds
like
staff
should
explore
and
really
analyze
other
reasons
that
the
council
has
may
or
may
not
have
made
a
decision
in
the
past
to
close
a
particular
location,
because
it
sounds
like
there's
more
there
than
just
numerical
numbers
be
it.
G
You
know
the
community
has
shown
up
and
advocated
for
one
crossing
guard
location
over
the
other.
There
were
safety
considerations,
speed,
speed,
considerations,
traffic
volume
considerations,
you
know,
or
whatever
else
may
be
present
at
a
particular
location
that
may
be
unique
to
that
area,
to
where
we
can
maybe
modify
that
standard
for
to
to
provide
some
flexibility
there.
Besides
just
hard
and
fast
numbers,
I.
G
G
We
consider
a
lot
of
factors
and
I
think
that
maybe
opening
up
that
flexibility
at
the
staff
level
would
allow
you
know,
would
allow
not
only
staff
to
get
the
most
flexibility
but
would
provide
some
comfort
to
parents
who
may
be
concerned
that,
yes,
there's
only
20
kids
that
may
or
I
should
not
say
20.
Yes,
there's
15
kids
that
use
the
intersection
every
day.
Is
this
intersection
at
risk
of
closing?
G
G
G
G
And
this
may
be
a
question
you
may
not
know,
because
it
really
digs
into
the
details
here
of
how
were
those
mutual
agreements
shared
between
agencies,
so
I
think
it's
Ventura
I
believe
that
shares?
Are
they
doing
it
via
contract?
Are
they
doing
it
via
kind
of
resolution?
How
are
they
kind
of
divvying
up?
Who
takes
what
who
pays
for
what
and
who
shares
kind
of
liability
and
risk
I
mean
do
we?
Do
we
ask
those
details
or
do
we
know
no.
F
We
did
not
get
into
that
level
of
detail.
The
discussions
did
revolve
around.
What
are
you
doing
at
this
point
in
time?
How
are
you
handling
the
program?
We
did
not
get
into
this
the
history,
but
using
Ventura
as
an
example.
It
was
a
very
delineated
if
it
meets
the
standard
we
pay
for
it.
If
it
doesn't
meet
the
standard.
G
Okay,
because,
generally
just
in
terms
of
again
staff
feedback,
I'm
certainly
open
to
exploring
the
potential
of
of
working
with
CVUSD
to
cover
some
of
those
costs.
But
at
the
same
time
you
know
I
guess
have
have
City
staff
reached
out
and
had
discussions
with
CVUSD
staff
about
you
know.
Where
are
we
at
in
that
process?
Just
in
terms
of
having
those
joint
discussions
on
whether
a
partnership
is
even
possible.
G
It's
not
really
two
extremes
but
two
different
guideposts
that
the
city
council
kind
of
gave
staff
and
then
took
back
to
here
of
on
one
hand,
do
we
should
the
city
even
be
paying
for
this,
and
on
the
other
hand,
you
know,
do
we
keep
this
program
running
and
and
kind
of
going,
as
is
I
mean
to
me
without
getting
too
much
into
the
legalities
of
it
all
these
are
City
roads.
These
are
our
roads.
These
are
our
streets.
G
It's
a
it
comes
back
to
the
safety
considerations.
I
raised
earlier
in
the
questions
of
I,
don't
see
how
we
can
push
that
responsibility
onto
the
school
district.
Yes,
they
are
calling
clients
or
customers
of
the
school
but
they're.
Also,
residents
they're,
also
taxpayers,
utilizing
pedestrian
pedestrian
means
of
transportation
to
get
from
point
A
to
point
B,
I
think
it
also
furthers.
G
C
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Pletcher
all
good
good
questions.
I
just
have
a
few
questions
of
my
own
and
observations.
I'll
just
say
when
I
first
read
this
report
and
I
saw
that
the
city's
standard
was
was
more
generous
than
the
state
standard.
It
took
a
lot
of
pride
in
that
because
that's
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
telling
20
people
we
will
give
you
a
benefit
that
other
cities
will
not
give
you
unless
your
number
is
40.,
and
you
know
the
same
goes
for
the
car.
I
F
What
I
can
offer
is
there
is
a
rural
component
to
this
standard.
Of
course
we
are
in
an
urbanized
area
and
that
rural
component
does
have
a
lesser
standard,
so
one
could
perhaps
surmise
again
looking
back
to
the
early
70s
a
much
different
Community,
much
different
traffic
standards
and
traffic
volumes
that
there
may
have
been
some
sense
that
it
was
more
applicable
to
apply
these
rural
standards
in
terms
of
development
of
a
number.
C
When
I
read
the
report,
I
also
saw
that
the
description
of
the
city
council's
consideration
of
the
of
the
recommendation
that
was
made
by
this
commission
to
close
five
crossing
guard
locations,
and
they
have
now.
You
know
in
essence,
kicked
that
back
to
us
and
the
report
says
to
recommend
a
revised
policy
to
city
council,
and
you
know
that
that
kind
of
the
the
message
I
got
there
was
come
up
with
a
revised
standard.
C
C
Because
if
the
standard
were
to
stay
the
same,
we're
still
eliminating
I
mean
you
would
still
be
eliminating.
Like
you
know,
half
of
the
current
locations
which
would
put
us
in
line
with
Simi
Valley.
If
you,
if
we
move
to
the
state
standard,
I
mean
by
my
reading
of
the
report,
we're
going
to
drop
two-thirds
of
the
locations
from
24
to
8,
which
would
then
put
us
below
a
city
of
similar
similar
size
like
Simi,
Valley,
and
so
is
it?
Is
it?
J
I,
don't
think
there
was
a
unified
position
on
that
by
all
council
members.
Some
you
know
had
to
maybe
leaning
one
way
or
the
other
I
think
maybe
updated
standard
is
the
more
appropriate
term.
I,
don't
think
they
were
really
looking
for.
This
thing
has
to
go
one
way
or
the
other.
It's
just
that
it's
it's!
It's
been
a
while
there
is
no
actual
formal
standard,
that's
published
and
written
and
it's
you
know,
there's
just
numerical
standards
which
are
half
of
the
mutcd,
and
but
beyond
that,
it's
it's.
C
If
we
were
to
Simply
apply
the
current
standard,
we
would
drop
from
24
to
10
locations
and
then
it's
and
then
further
on
down
in
the.
In
the
same
paragraph,
it
says
if
we
were
to
adopt
the
state
standards,
16
16
locations
would
be
dropped
and
I
understand
that
the
difference
between
the
10
and
the
16
may
be
that
there
are
four
signalized
locations
that
would
not
qualify.
C
F
That
would
be
two
additional
elementary
schools
where
those
schools
meet
our
standards
but
would
not
meet
the
state
standards
and
I
believe
that
is
for
both
pedestrians
and
vehicles,
in
other
words,
using
as
an
example
theoretical
they
have.
You
know
30
pedestrians
and
350
vehicles,
but
they
don't
have
the
40
pedestrians
and
500
vehicles
that
would
be
required.
A
D
J
Can
pick
up
and
add
more
light,
certain
items
are
required
by
the
state.
You
know
for
the
city
council,
as
the
as
the
governing
body
to
implement
and
put
those
decisions
forward
and
others
don't,
as
we
saw
from
some
of
the
other
agencies
here
on
the
slide,
it's
a
mixed
bag
and
in
some
locations,
staff
is
doing
it.
So
there
is,
the
state
does
not
have
a
requirement
that
of
in
terms
of
which
board
or
body
needs
to
be
the
one
that
is
making
the
decision
for
crossing
guard
locations.
A
C
H
You
so
let
I
just
want
to
for
some
of
the
discussion
that
that
chair
ml
mentioned
I
wanted
to
just
clarify
some
of
the
numbers,
just
so
that
it's
clear
what
the,
if
different
standards
were
applied,
how
many
locations
actually
meet
those
standards
right
now
we
have
24
that
are
currently
on
the
list
as
having
a
crossing
guard.
The.
H
F
H
H
Following
up
on
on
Chairman's
question
about
Authority
I
think
it
sounds
like
obviously
any
Authority
that
we
would
have
would
have
to
be
approved
by
the
city
council
to
Grant,
Authority
and-
and
we
would
have
that
help
me
remember,
like
the
discussion
we
had
it
there
did.
We
go
through
a
process
like
this
with
the
speed,
hump
speed,
lump
speed,
bump
thing
in
which
we
were
talking
about
the
approvals
of
those
things
and
if
they
didn't
meet
them,
then
there
would
be
some
sort
of
appeal
mechanism
to
the
city.
I
I
think
yeah
for
the
speed
hump
the
policy
that
I
think
commission
looked
at
earlier
this
year.
That
was
I
think
strictly
to
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council,
but
I.
Don't
think
this
commission
had
the
approval
Authority
and
then,
if
the
the
location
that
did
not
meet
the
criteria,
the
matter
would
just
end
at
the
traffic
commission
level.
It
would
not
move
forward
unless
it
was
appealed
by
the
by
the
residents.
H
So,
in
some
ways
that
mechanism,
while
we
don't
have
authority
to
Grant
or
not
Grant,
it
just
sort
of
ends,
if
we
don't
recommend
something
to
the
council,
we
it
either
doesn't
go
forward
or
it
does
go
forward
as
a
recommendation.
We
really
still
don't
have
any
authority
of
anything
and
people
could
go
to
the
council
if
they
wanted
to.
Yes,.
H
So
I'm,
assuming
if
if
there
was
a
change
in
policy
and
that
there
would
be
something
needed
to
Grant
or
delegate
authority
to
us
that
they
would
probably
one
they
would
have
to
take,
the
council
would
have
to
take
some
action
to
grant
that
Authority.
But
two
there
would
likely
be
some
appeal
process
because
we
can
have
kind
of
final
Authority,
but
not
real
final
Authority
right.
F
Staff
is
seeking
any
specific
recommendations.
You
want
us
to
perhaps
incorporate
into
a
revised
policy
or
direction
to
leave
things
exactly
the
way
they
are.
We.
We
want
your
feedback
based
upon
that
feedback.
We
will
take
that
and
we
will
work
up
a
specific
policy
for
the
council
to
consider
in
terms
of
crossing
guard
placements,
bring
that
back
to
you
at
your
next
meeting.
F
Allow
you
the
opportunity
to
to
make
revisions
or
changes,
and
then,
on
the
basis
of
that
and
depending
on
on
how
the
vote
goes
here,
we
would
move
that
on
to
the
city
council,
sometime
after
the
first
the
year,
it'll
be
important
for
staff
to
have
a
policy
in
place.
Whatever
that
standard
is
before
we
do
our
accounts
in
March,
so
we
know
what
we're
counting
for
and
so
that
we
will
then
be
ready
in
April
or
May
to,
as
we
typically
do
come
back
to
you
with
based
upon
the
standards
that
exist.
F
H
Okay,
one
one
last
thing,
I
think
just
to
kind
of
kind
of
further
some
of
the
conversation
about
what
the
council's
intent
was.
That
was
one
of
the
questions
I
had
out
of
this,
which
was
why
are
we?
You
know
what
is
the
council
thinking
when,
when
they're
looking
for
something
from
us
and
what
I
thought
I
heard,
I
think
it's
consistent
with
with
what
what
you
were
saying,
which
was
sort
of
there
was
a
mixed
bag
of
comments
like
depending
upon
who
the
council
member
was.
F
J
F
C
G
Yes,
I
do
Mr
chair,
thank
you!
Well,
I!
Guess
I'm
I'm
going
to
ask
questions
and
kind
of
incorporate
comments
again
into
it.
Turning
to
to
the
third
bullet
point
on
page
seven
of
your
staff
report
regarding
future
approval,
Authority
for
the
crossing
guard
placement
and
annual
crossing
guard
program
review
and
changes
to
rest
with
either
this
body
or
staff
level,
rather
than
the
city
council,
I'm,
certainly
open
to
any
direction
that
staff
wishes
to
go
with
it.
G
My
only
concern-
and
this
comes
back
to
the
feedback
is
this-
is
you
know,
I
realize
it's
additional
work
to
take
it
to
multiple
bodies,
I've
sat
in
the
chairs
before
and
done
that
and
I'm,
always
appreciative
that
you
guys
you,
you
show
up
not
only
at
this
meeting
but
then
head
to
council.
You
know
within
the
same
week
sometimes,
but
it's
important,
especially
when
it
comes
to
crossing
guards
and
coming
back
to
my
initial
question
on
what
is
the
purpose
here
is
safety
safety
of
our
residents,
safety
of
our
children.
G
It's
important
to
put
it
this
information
in
a
public
forum
as
much
as
possible
and
get
that
information
out
as
much
as
possible
so
that
it,
you
know
somebody
like
the
Thousand
Oaks
Acorn
isn't
going
to
pick
up
when
our
agenda's
posted,
but
they
will
pick
up
when
city
council
agenda
is
posted
and
help
broadcast
that
information
and
I
think
it's
crucial
again.
Coming
back
to
some
of
my
earlier
comments,
when
you
I
think
there
are
other
factors
besides
counts:
that
we
can
consider
to
keeping
certain
crossing
guards
open,
open
and
operating
and
I.
G
Think
part
of
that
is
crucial
to
get
that
information
out
as
much
as
possible,
whether
one
crossing
guard,
one
Crossing,
intersection
or
another,
is
being
considered
foreclosure
because
it
doesn't
meet
the
current
counts.
Now
how
staff
decides
to
do
that?
Be
it?
You
know,
I
think
it's
appropriate
now
at
the
city
council
level,
because
I
believe,
commissioner
Ferris
mentioned
you
know
this
was
this
was
a
a
consent,
calendar
item
that
normally
buzzes
right
through
and
nobody
bats
an
eye
at
it,
but
it
got
up
to
the
council
level.
G
G
C
F
C
F
And
Mr
chair,
if
I,
could
we
do
keep
very
good
communication
with
the
school
district
on
these
issues?
I
personally
communicate
to
staff
on,
if
not
in
every
other
week,
at
least
monthly
basis,
and
so
we
do
always
make
them
aware
that
these
items
are
coming
up
as
well
as
when
we
make
specific
recommendations.
These
schools
are
always
notified
in
advance,
so
they
can
use
their
tools
to
to
disseminate
that
information
out
to
the
individuals
who
are
enrolled
at
those
particular
locations.
C
F
At
the
district
administrator
level
it
was
now
we
did
not
contact
individual
schools
for
this
particular
meeting,
because
there
is
no
specific
recommendation
for
closure.
However,
for
both
the
April
meeting
here
and
the
June
meeting,
each
individual,
school
and
site
was
contacted
and
provided
information
that
their
school
was
one
of
the
ones
that
was
being
considered,
so
they
did
have
the
opportunity
to
come
at
that
time.
We
also
had
online
as
well.
C
H
H
These
are
still
choices
and
the
choices
of
what
the
council
chooses
to
make
in
the
district
should
be
made
in
Partnership.
For
that,
so
just
want
to
just
call
I
think
that's
it's
obvious,
but
I
wanted
to
call
it
out
and
just
just
state.
It
clearly
I
view
this,
even
though
the
standards
are
more
generous
relative
to
the
California
standards
and
I.
Absolutely
am
thankful
that
we
know
the
survey
of
what
other
cities
around
us
do
and
how
they
use
those
standards.
H
This
is
one
of
those
cases
to
where
it's
might
be
a
benefit
to
the
community
to
keep
the
standards
where
they
are
and
I
I
do
want
to
I
Vice
chair
plus,
are
also
sort
of
described
that
the
nature
of
this
being
a
publicly
open
decision
about
this
I
think
is
a
good
one.
It's
it's
something
that
it
helps
the
com,
the
community
stay
informed.
H
It
gives
them
if
the
decisions
are
made,
whether
it
is
at
that
traffic,
commission
or
ultimately,
at
the
council,
a
low
friction
way
for
them
to
provide
their
input.
The
I
think
the
things
that
frustrate
sometimes
community
members
is
when
they
always
feel
like
they
have
to
go
through
lots
of
Hoops
and
they
don't
know
how
to
do
it
or
it
seems
like
it's
a
very
expensive
appeal,
press
or
whatever
those
things
might
be.
If
there
are
cases
where
it's
a
valued
service,
I
would
like
to
see
it
below
friction.
H
There
may
be
benefits
to
where
the
initial
actual
decisions
at
the
traffic
commission
level,
and
then
you
know
we
can
relieve
the
the
public
decision
making
of
all
crossing
guard
closures
from
the
council,
except
for
times
where
there's
an
appeal.
But
if
that's
the
case,
then
they
may
need
to
really
hear
it
so
I
I
think
those
are
those
are
things
I
want
to
kind
of
make
sure
of
that.
We're
still
baking
into
a
probably
rightly
say
an
updated
version
of
the
policy
in
doing
that.
So
those
are
my
primary
comments.
C
G
H
Yeah
I'm
certainly
I
the
reason
why
I
think
it
should
be
a
public
decision
making.
Is
that
like,
for
example,
if
it's
two
numbers
it
if
the
decision
is
only
made
on
the
basis
of
two
numbers,
whether
it's
a
staff
decision,
a
computer,
algorithm
or
a
commission,
it
seems
really
cold.
So
I
think
that
that's
why
the
commission
evaluates
more
information
and
I
think
it's
important
to
do
that,
because
those
numbers
may
not
accurately
reflect
like
the
situation
right
and
so
I'm
very
open
to
that.
H
There's
something
specific
that
can
help
the
traffic
commission
make
a
more
informed
decision
to
help
guide
them.
That's
great
I,
also
I,
I
wanna.
This
is
my
own
sense.
Is
I,
don't
want
to
be
I,
don't
want
to
feel
like
we've
come
up
with
the
standards,
we're
like
I,
don't
know
those
are
the
standards
we're
just
going
to
go
with
it.
I
think
that
the
decision-making
body
needs
to
have
discretion,
which
I
think
has
been
done
over
time,
but
anything
that's
helpful
in
that
I'm
I'm
in
favor
of
okay.
G
G
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
Fletcher.
So
you
know
my
own
thoughts
about.
This
are
pretty
much
in
alignment
with
with
both
of
my
fellow
Commissioners
here
I
I
think
I
I
I
would
not
like
to
see
at
least
as
far
as
the
standardized
numbers
go.
I
would
not
like
to
see
those
raised
I
like
those
numbers
where
they're
at
and
then
to
commissioner
pletcher's
point
about
having
flexibility,
to
evaluate
other
considerations
or
other
factors
that
should
go
into
whether
a
crossing
guard
location
should
be
opened
or
closed,
I
mean
I.
C
I
think
that
we
we
need
some
type
of
Baseline
standard,
so
I
do
believe
that
the
numbers
play
a
role,
but
I
believe
that
you
know
you
could
provide
something
in
that
standard.
That
says,
you
know
here's
the
standard,
but
you
know
a
bond
upon
good
cause
being
shown,
for
instance,
if
there's
visibility
concerns.
If
there's
you
know
a
track
record
of
speeding
on
a
given
location,
if
there's
a
history
of
accidents-
or
you
know,
God
forbid,
you
know
pedestrian,
you
know
injuries
vehicle.
You
know
pedestrian
injuries
at
a
certain
location.
C
C
I
I
think
now
is
kind
of
the
wrong
time
to
be
going
to
the
schools
and
saying
you
know,
write
a
check
for
your
crossing
guards,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
when
we
come
back
to
revisit
a
revised
policy,
we're
looking
at
closures
and
there's
going
to
be
a
cost
savings
with
that.
So
it
seems
like
all
of
these
Pro.
You
know
some
of
these
problems
may
just
take
care
of
themselves
at
least
the
fiscal
end
of
things
I'm,
just
by
virtue
of
a
revised
policy,
that's
probably
going
to
result
in
in
closure.
C
Okay,
we?
We
have
talked
this
thing
into
the
ground,
so
this
is
an
action
item
where
our
direction
is
to
provide
feedback
to
staff
on
potential
changes
to
the
crossing
guard
program,
and
the
question
really
is
for
staff.
Have
you
received
sufficient
feedback
from
us
to
where
you
you
think
you
can
take
the
information
discussed
this
evening
and
prepare
a
draft
crossing
guard
policy
that
we
can
review
at
the
November
meeting.
C
C
D
Thank
you,
chairman
emmel
good
evening.
My
name
is
Bradley
ackert.
Tonight
we're
going
to
be
asking
the
commission
to
consider
the
removal
of
the
mark
crosswalk
at
the
north
on
the
North
Leg
of
the
intersection
of
Avenue
de
las
plantas
at
Calle,
gladiolo
I'm,
going
to
start
by
providing
an
overview
of
the
crosswalk
I
will
transition
into
the
guidelines
for
installation
of
crosswalks
on
city
streets
and
then
I
will
explain
the
data
from
our
pedestrian
study
and
provide
a
staff
recommendation
all
right.
So,
let's
get
into
it.
D
D
D
Exchange
uses
since
the
mark
crosswalk
was
originally
installed.
Park
Oaks
Elementary
was
a
public
neighborhood
school
that
closed
in
2011
and
reopened.
Several
years
later,
as
Bridges
Charter
School
Bridges
Charter
School
accepts
students
from
across
the
city
and
out
of
District,
both
of
which
are
far
beyond
walking
distance
to
the
school
staff
decided
to
perform
a
pedestrian
volume
count
at
the
crosswalk
to
see
if
it
still
meets
the
guidelines
established
in
resolution.
2002-92.
D
British
charter
school
begins
at
8
20
a.m
and
dismisses
at
2
45
pm.
The
data
collection
for
the
am
Peak
ran
from
750
to
850.
and
the
PM
Peak
from
215
to
3
15..
There
were
zero
pedestrians
in
the
AM
Peak
and
two
pedestrians
in
the
PMP
based
on
this
pedestrian
volume
data.
The
mark
crosswalk
at
this
location,
is
no
longer
warranted.
D
D
Public
Outreach
was
performed
in
advance
of
this
meeting
residents
within
a
500
foot.
Radius
of
the
crosswalk
were
mailed
notices,
inviting
them
to
provide
input
regarding
this
proposed
crosswalk
removal
notice
of
this
proposed
removal
was
also
posted
at
the
crosswalk,
and
a
meeting
notification
was
sent
to
Bridges
Charter
School.
D
D
The
recommendation
is
in
the
staff
report
and
contains
the
following
staff
recommends
the
removal
of
the
marked
crosswalk,
but
leave
all
existing
crosswalk
warning
signs
at
the
intersection
and
in
advance
of
the
intersection
in
place
to
warn
motorists
of
potential
Crossing
activity.
This
is
due
to
The
Pedestrian
volumes.
No
longer
meeting
the
city's
guidelines
for
installation
of
crosswalk
markings,
The
Pedestrian
volume
minimum
is
40.
during
the
peak
hour
of
pedestrian
usage
and
the
highest
pedestrian
count
recorded
was
two.
D
During
the
afternoon
Peak
period,
the
California
vehicle
code
authorizes
pedestrians
to
cross
at
all
intersections
whether
they
are
marked
or
not.
Pedestrians
were
only
prohibited
from
Crossing
at
intersections
that
have
posted
no
pedestrian
crossing
signs
by
a
majority
vote
by
the
traffic
commission
to
support
staff
recommendation.
The
removal
of
the
crosswalk
markings
will
be
considered
Final
on
November
18
2022
as
an
administrative
action
under
the
authority
of
the
city
engineer,
city
council
approval
is
not
required
for
the
removal
of
Mark
crosswalk.
C
G
I
Okay,
well,
you
know
the
this
might
be
very
somewhat
of
a
topic
that
we
discussed
earlier.
California
mutcd
is
a
sets.
The
standards
for
track
control
devices,
one
of
the
things
when
it
comes
to
Mark
crosswalks-
is
that
they
really
don't
have
a
standard.
If
you
look
in
the
manual,
it
doesn't
say
how
many
pads
should
be
Crossing,
how
many
Auto
automobile
conflicts
should
occur.
So
what
happened
in
you
know
2002.
We
adopted
a
policy
because
we
didn't
really
have
anything
to
rely
on
in
the
California
mutcd.
I
G
C
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Pletcher
I
have
a
question
so
I
understand
that
this
location
is
not
meeting
the
warrants
right
for
for
a
a
crosswalk.
But
what's
the
big
deal
about
painting
the
stripes
I
mean
what
is
there
some
cost
prohibition
on
doing
this
or
is
because
I
mean
we
see
from
one
resident.
C
You
know
that
we
we
received
the
email
on.
You
know
he's
expressing
he's
expressing
his
opinion
that
there's
no
there's
no
pedestrian
volume
at
this
particular
location,
because
it's
it's
unsafe
and
people
don't
don't
really
want
to
cross
there.
So
I
don't
understand
the
point
of
not
painting
the
crosswalk,
but
then
leaving
all
the
signs
there.
D
So
one
of
the
reasons
is
when
we
went
out
there
to
Avenida
de
los
plantes
was
on
the
2022
overlay,
so
we
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it.
Take
a
go
out
there
and
take
a
look.
One
of
the
things
was
it's
a
Calle,
gladiola
and
avondale's.
Planus
is
a
T
intersection,
and
this
is
a
picture
from
the
northwest
corner
where
the
T
hits.
D
We
have
we're
never
going
to
be
able
to
make
this
crosswalk
ADA
Compliant,
because
we
have
these
drains
over
here
that
you
can
see
the
little
the
little
curb
cores
here.
We
would
have
to
go
on
private
property
redirect
them.
We
would
have
to
do
a
lot
of
improvements
on
private
property
where
we
don't
want
to.
We
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
work
and
a
lot
of
money
to
make
this
ADA
Compliant.
So
why
keep
going
if
we
can't
make
it
ADA
Compliant.
J
A
J
The
trash
bins
that
was
those
would
be
in
the
middle
of
the
Ada
path
of
travel,
but
I
think
it's
also.
You
know
beyond
that
as
well:
it's
not
appropriate.
We
don't
want
to
put
crosswalks
at
places
that
they
don't
qualify
and
then
motorists
start
ignoring
them.
They
desire
a
crosswalk.
Don't
worry
about!
You
know
it's
the
it's
just
one
of
these,
so
the
ones
that
really
matter
then
don't
stand
out
as
much.
J
We
want
to
really
focus
the
crosswalks
that
do
count
and
make
them
very
visible
and
make
motorists
kind
of
cognizant
and
aware
of
them-
and
it's
you
know
also
having
people
cross
here-
winds
up,
putting
them
in
the
middle
of
the
street
on
gladiolo,
with
no
sidewalks,
so
they're
walking
around
a
street
with
a
curve-
and
you
know
putting
you
know,
people
in
in
the
street
as
opposed
to
the
preferred
path
of
travel,
which
isn't
that
much
farther
which
has
the
continuous
sidewalk.
So
it's
kind
of
a
safety
element
too.
J
Not
only
are
cars
not
expecting
people
to
be
crossing
here,
but
in
addition,
once
they
do
cross
again,
they're
in
the
street
and
there's
a
curve
around
that
street
and
the
street
there's
not
a
substantial
amount
of
Street
Lighting
in
these
neighborhoods
either.
So
it's
kind
of
just
a
combination
of
factors
is
it
appropriate
to
have
a
crosswalk
here
every
time
we
do
the
paving
project
it
allows
us
to
to
reevaluate
each
location,
optimize
and
see
you
know
what's
appropriate
here,
and
sometimes
it's
it's
the
opposite.
We
do
more
strikes
typing.
J
We
do
buffered
bike
Lanes
which,
which
we've
seen
and
talked
about
here
before
and
in
other
cases
we
look
at
a
feature
that
does
exist.
That
isn't
is
no
longer
warranted
and
and
the
main
reason
for
that
is
the
school
as
opposed
to
being
a
neighborhood
walk-up
school
is
now
more
of
a
you
know:
city-wide
school,
with
only
with
zero
pedestrians
in
the
morning
and
two
in
the
afternoon.
C
So
so
is
the
intention
is
the
intention
behind
keeping
the
the
signage,
the
crosswalk
signage
in
place
to
like
a
speed
calming
type
of
and
tension
there,
because
I
mean
someone's
going
to
be
driving
down
the
street.
There's
no
crosswalk
there,
but
there's
going
to
be
the
sign,
as
it
says,
you
know
crosswalk
or
pedestrian
Crossing,
and
maybe
that
may
cause
them
to
slow
down
to
start
looking
for
the
crosswalk,
but
the
crosswalk
isn't
there
is
that
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
reasoning
behind.
I
Well,
not
not
necessarily
we
don't
use.
You
know
the
pedestrian
warning
signs,
it's
a
device
thinking
it's
going
to
make
drivers
drive
slower
on
that
road.
The
general
idea
is
just
to
bring
more
attention
that
okay,
there
could
be
a
pedestrian
Crossing.
So
when
a
driver
is
driving
down,
plantes,
North
or
South,
they
will,
you
know
see
that
sign.
Hopefully
they
pay
attention
to
it
and
realize
okay.
I
This
could
be
a
location
where
someone
could
be
crossing
the
street,
because
signs
to
a
driver
are
definitely
more
visible
than
markings
in
the
roadway
The
Pedestrian
markings
are
intended
strictly
for
the
pedestrians
benefit
to
guide
them
and
direct
them
in
the
path
of
travel
that
that
indicates.
You
know
this
is
the
location
across,
but
to
the
driver,
who's
driving
down
the
road
at
you
know,
40
miles
an
hour.
Those
markings
in
the
road
are
are
invisible,
so
it's
not
really
going
to
create
any
type
of
traffic
calming
benefit.
C
B
I
Yeah,
typically,
you
know
we'll
take
a
a
look
at
one
day
and
generally
traffic
patterns
throughout
the
city.
Whenever
we
we
do
counts,
we
we
do
them,
usually
Tuesday
Wednesday
or
Thursday
midweek.
We
try
to
avoid
holidays
or
non-typical
times
of
the
year,
but
you
know
we
feel
comfortable,
that
okay,
the
patterns
that
we
see
on
a
daily
basis.
If
we
go
out
one
day
during
those
three
days,
it's
going
to
be
pretty
common
any
day
that
we
that
we
go
out
just
one
day.
Yes,.
B
So
I'm
I'm,
familiar
with
the
area,
I
think
there's
a
shopping
center
across
the
street
right.
So
aside
from
I
know,
you
presented
us
with
some
information
on
the
the
school
school
use
Crossing
for
kids,
but
are
there
residents
in
that
that
Community,
if
you're,
coming
from
that
side
of
plantus
and
we're
going
to
remove
the
crosswalk
there,
where,
where
would
we
expect
them
to
cross
then
would
we
expect
them
to
walk
up
to
Arboles
and
then
cross
at
that
light?.
I
The
you
know,
removing
Mark
the
markings
in
the
roadway
does
not
make
it
illegal
to
cross.
The
street
is
still
perfectly
legal.
The
only
way
would
be
illegal
to
cross.
There
would
be
if
we
posted
signs
saying
no
Crossing
use.
You
know
crosswalk
with
an
arrow
indicating
you
know
upwards
towards
arbolus
or
south
towards
tulipan.
B
B
So
if
someone
doesn't
like,
if
enough
being
familiar
with
the
street
and
based
on
the
the
one
email
that
we
got
on
this,
the
speed
on
that
road,
have
we
looked
at
the
speed
on
that
road?
Is
it
I
mean
the
resident
said
it's
over
40
miles
an
hour
like?
Is
that
it's
difficult
to
cross
in
the
middle
of
a
of
a
road
as
it
is
and
then
remove
the
crosswalk
again
I
go
back,
I,
understand
removing
it.
B
I
I
I
You
know
a
gap
opens
up,
so
they
can
cross
the
street.
We
also
have
a
situation
here
where
years
ago,
this
location
used
to
be
a
four-lane
roadway
with
the
center
line
down
the
middle.
But
over
time
we've
implemented
our
sort
of
like
a
road
diet
striping
where
it's
a
center
turn
laying
down
the
middle
and
then
one
lane
in
each
Direction,
so
so
for
a
pedestrian
when
they
cross
the
roadway.
I
B
So
it's
it's
almost
confusing
to
to
some
folks
who
aren't
paying
attention
to
this
conversation,
and
here
and
I
know
as
much
as
the
Outreach
that
we
do.
We
don't
always
you
know,
reach
out
to
everybody
so
I
understand
it
both
ways:
I
just
kind
of
mixed
on
leaving
the
signs
and
get
you
know,
eliminate
the
crosswalk
I'm
thinking.
Maybe
we
should
just
eliminate
the
signs
too,
if
we're
going
to
eliminate
the
crosswalk.
D
I
have
something
to
add:
that's
the
reason
why
we
want
to
leave
the
signs.
That's
a
similar
treatment
that
we
would
put
on
a
different
street
that
doesn't
meet
the
criteria.
An
example
would
be
Pederson
that
has
a
speed
limit
over
40,
so
it
doesn't
meet
2002-92,
but
we
have
these
ped
crossing
signs
on
all
the
corners
back
to
back.
So
drivers
are
still
aware
the
pedestrians
even
know
it
doesn't
meet
the
criteria.
B
J
H
One
one
quick
question:
is
it
just
a
sense
of
if
I'm
reading
this
right
so
resolution
2002-092
says
here's
the
criteria
for
which
we
would
consider
a
pedestrian
crosswalk,
and
one
of
them
is.
We
would
expect
probably
around
40
pedestrian
Crossings
during
the
peak
hour
peak
hours.
Right
expect
that
and
the
measurements
you
got
were
zero
and
two
right
for
for
that
day.
I
just
want
to
know,
like
is
the
40,
that's
kind
of
the
The
Benchmark
that
the
resolution
specifies.
H
The
reason
I
ask
is
that
I
and
as
commissioner
Hayek
mentioned
it's
only
one
day,
but
it's
it's
probably
highly
unlikely
that
if
the
average
pedestrian
traffic
were
40
that
your
one
day
sample
would
give
you
zero
or
give
you
two.
It
would
probably
be
somewhere
close
to
40.
so,
but
even
though
it
is
one
day,
I
am
generally
comfortable
that
that's
a
reasonable
sample
of
low
pedestrian
traffic.
So
thank
you.
C
B
C
C
G
In
my
my
thoughts
on
that,
it's
it's
a
nice
middle
of
the
road
approach,
you're
taking
away
a
crosswalk
because
it
doesn't
meet
standards
you're,
leaving
signage,
which
allows
you
know
as
as
Mr
mushiko
State
I
believe
stated,
allows
the
vehicle
to
you
know
any
vehicular
traffic
to
realize
that
there
are
pedestrians
Crossing,
they
could
be
Crossing
there.
They
could
be
Crossing.
You
know
on
both
sides
of
the
either
side
of
the
street,
the
one
thing
I'll
just
I'll,
throw
to
staff.
G
This
isn't
going
to
be
part
of
any
motion
here
tonight,
but
I
just
would
consider
you
know
whatever
we
decide
here
tonight
to
maybe
you
know,
inform
the
school
and
actually
I,
don't
know.
If
we
do
this,
but
I
just
thought
it
was
really
interesting.
We
had
preferred
walking
path.
That
was
part
of
your
presentation.
G
I,
don't
know
if
we
do
this
generally
for
schools,
but
I
think
it's
a
great
idea.
If
we
don't
already
to
provide
them
with
preferred
walking
paths,
and
maybe
just
something
to
consider
on
the
side
for
safety
reasons,
but
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
to
we
have
considered
the
staff
report,
receive
public
input
and
would
like
to
forward
on
and
make
the
motion
for.
G
Staff
recommends
the
approval
of
the
crosswalk
markings
at
the
North
Leg
of
the
intersection
of
Avenida
De,
Las,
plantas
and
Calle
gladiolo,
but
leave
all
existing
crosswalk
warning
signs
at
the
intersection
and
in
advance
of
the
intersection
in
place
to
warn
motorists
of
potential
Crossing
activity.
So
my
motion,
Mr
chair,
is
to
go
with
the
staff's
recommendation.
As
listed
in
our
staff
report.
H
C
H
H
C
E
E
Any
person
wishing
to
appeal
a
decision
of
the
traffic
commission
shall
file
a
written
appeal
and
pay
an
appeal
fee
with
the
city
clerk
Department
within
14
calendar
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
on
appeal
form
is
available
from
the
recording
secretary.
C
C
I
No
just
an
invitation
for
the
Commissioners.
If
you
have
opportunity
or
you
haven't
driven
out
to
Reno
Road
you'll
notice,
a
change
from
the
two
lane
in
each
Direction
down
to
one
and
then
we
have
now
our
buffered
bike,
lane
striping
that's
out
on
that
roadway.
So
we
received
some.
You
know
positive
comments
by
cyclists
and
how
it's
improved
the
experience
when
they
use
that
road
foreign.
G
C
B
I
just
see
on
here
the
the
last
bullet
of
transport
traffic,
commissioner
orientation,
refresher,
ongoing,
separated,
a
separate
meeting
from
normal
traffic
commission
meeting
date.
I
would
just
say
coming
out
of
the
the
pandemic
and
we
were
virtual
for
a
while
and
me
being
a
new
member.
Maybe
selfishly
speaking
I
would
ask
we'd
just
do
that
sooner
sooner
than
later.
If
we
can,
I
would
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
C
All
right
item
10
any
other
traffic
commission
comments
carrying
none
I,
think
we're
ready
to
go
ahead
and
adjourn
the
meeting
the
next.
The
next
meeting
is
to
be
held
at
six
o'clock,
P.M
on
November
16th
of
2022
in
the
boardroom
of
the
Civic
Arts
Plaza.
On
the
third
floor.
This
meeting
is
now
adjourned.