ATTACHMENT #3
Public Works Department
City of
Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard • Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Phone 805/449.2400 • lax 805/449.2475 • www.toaks.org
APPEAL APPLICATION OF A DECISION BY THE
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
TO: City Engineer
Public Works Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362-2903
In accordance with the provisions of TOMC Section 1-4.02, I hereby appeal the decision of the Traffic and Transportation Advisory Commission as rendered on 01/24/2024 and relates to:
• The denial of the Speed Hump Petition fioHendrix Avenue . (Type of Petition) as set forth in Agenda Item #. 8A _ior
B. The approval of the (Type of Petition)
as set forth in Agenda Item #
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE (attach additional sheet if necessary):
See attached Addendum A.
I request the following action be taken (attach additional sheet if necessary):
That City Council grant this Appeal, to rescind and overturn the 01/24/2024TTAC denial of the Speed Hump Petition for Hendrix Ave., and to instead grant such Petition to install speed humps on Hendrix Ave. between Janss Rd. and Gainsborough Rd., in addition to any and all other such relief the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
Appellant Information: James Misiorowski, _ (Name)
On Behalf of Hendrix Ave. Residents
Hendrix Ave. (Address)
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 _ (City, State, Zip)
-_ (E-Mail Address)
(Home Phone) (Business Phone)
NOTE: This form must be completed by the appellant and filed with the City Clerk Department within 14 For Department Use Only:
This appeal has been received as follows:
At_ (a.m./p.m.) On (date) By:
H: IC OMMONITRAFFICIT raffic-Commission ADMINISTMEETING FORMS/Appeal forms/APPEAL FORM.doc (Rev. 1/25/24) DPW: 823-10lev|Councill2024\111924 Hendrix Avenue Speed Hump Petition Att 3.pdf s.019 ATTACHMENT ADDENDUM "A" TO APPEAL APPLICATION DATED 02/07/2024 As evidenced in the recorded data (even with its small sample size and incomplete data set) outlined in the Public Works Department Engineer's Staff Report dated 01/24/2024, Hendrix Ave is documented with continuous and pervasive high speeds, with the vast majority (84%) of all vehicles traveling over the 25 MPH speed limit at the northern end, including 51% of all vehicles recorded over 30+ MPH, and with 15% of all vehicles recorded over 35+ MPH - even including multiple documented speeds traveling up to 45-55 MH! These are recklessly dangerous speeds for any residential street, particularly one that serves as a frequent, daily pedestrian walking path for numerous young families with small children throughout each and every day and evening, and which is also home to a preschool fronting on this portion of Hendrix Ave. (located at the same northern end of Hendrix Ave. where speeds were recorded as traveling up to 55 MPH!), and where the preschool takes its young children on frequent nature walks along Hendrix Ave. to enjoy the beauty of our street as well. This is in addition to all of our countless other neighborhood young children and students who also use this segment of Hendrix Ave. daily to walk and/or bike ride when going to/from any of the 7 different adjacent schools (Pre-K - 12), which are all located within <1/4 mile of this part of Hendrix Ave. as well.
Put simply, these are critically dangerous road conditions which necessitate a re-review of the City Council's speed humps/speed cushions policy Resolution requirements which are to be considered applicable for this situation.
To be clear, the Traffic and Transportation Advisory Committee ("TTA") dutifully performed their sworn civic oaths and duties when the Commissioners were called upon to apply the strict letter of the City Council's speed humps policy Resolution requirements to the limited information and incomplete data that was collected and provided to the TTAC in regards to Hendrix Ave., when the TTAC was presented and forced to answer the specific limited question whether to grant or deny the resident's Petition for installation of speed humps (only). Thus, the TTAC was ultimately compelled to deny the subject Petition to install speed humps, but without having authority to render any other alternative solutions or recourse options otherwise, and even though issuing such Petition denial was admittedly against their own individual and collective consciences. In fact, during the TTAC public hearing on 01/24/2024, multiple Commission members lamented that their "hands were tied" when ultimately voting (remorsefully) to deny the instant Petition as they felt required to do so here, due to the TTAC's lack of any authority to deviate from the strict application of the letter of the City Council's draconian speed hump policy criteria and requirements in this situation, and even despite the obvious magnitude and gravity of anticipated potential harm resulting from such an undesired outcome.
Therefore WE, the family(ies) of Hendrix Avenue, have banded together to mobilize and fundraise this Appeal to ensure that City Council is made aware of this unacceptable and far-too-perilous of a situation, and for City Council to have the opportunity to take the necessary actions to install speed humps/cushions on Hendrix Ave., before yet another senseless and avoidable tragedy tears through another one of our dear Conjo Valley families due to excess speed.
This Appeal is respectfully submitted based upon the following:
1. The Residents' Original Petition For Speed Humps, As Well As The Instant Appeal Is Supported By An Overwhelming Majority Of Hendrix Avenue Residents.
2. The Engineering Report Summarily And Erroneously Concluded Hendrix Ave Does Not Qualify For The City Council's Reduced Minimum Vehicle Per Day (VPD") Requirement For Speed Humps/Cushions Eligibility.
3. Even Based Upon The Limited And Incomplete Data Sets Collected For The Engineers Report, Hendrix Ave Has Still Documented ~1000 Vehicles Per Day ("VPD"), And Which Constitutes Sufficient Daily Traffic Volume to Qualify For Speed Humps in Other Neighboring Communities (e.g., Westlake Village, Oxnard, County of Ventura).
4. Speed Humps (And Speed Cushions) Have Been Established As The Only Lasting And Substantively Successful Strategy To Meaningfully Decrease Speeding Down To Critically Necessary And Acceptably Safe Speeds In Residential/School Zones.
5. Speed Cushions Were Also Deemed Not To Be A Viable Alternative To Speed Humps On Hendrix Ave., Despite Seemingly Negating All Potential Detrimental Public Impacts Of Speed Humps, Except Only "Driver Inconvenience" Per City Traffic Engineers.
6. Denial Of This Appeal Will Preclude Any Other Petition Or Recourse For Speed Safety To Be Pursued In This Neighborhood For The Next Four Years, During Which Hendrix Will Likely Exceed Current Normal (Unreduced) VPD Speed Hump Requirements, Based Upon Current Growth Trajectory Models.
ADDENDUM A - POINTS & AUTHORITIES
The Residents' Original Petition For Speed Humps, As Well As The Instant Appeal Is Supported By An Overwhelming Majority Of Hendrix Avenue Residents.
According to the Engineer's Report figures ultimately accepted by City Staff, the original subject Petition to install speed humps had obtained signatures in support from 37* of the 49 total properties (76%) that front Hendrix Ave between Janss Rd and Gainsborough Rd.
Preliminarily in this regard, it is important to note that the original Petition to install speed humps had in fact obtained signatures in support from the current residents actually residing at 2 41 out of the potential total 49 properties (84%) considered to "front" Hendrix Ave. between Janss Rd. and Gainsborough Rd
Notably as well, of the 8 other remaining properties (from which signatures had not originally been obtained in support of the Petition for speed humps, in fact only 1 property/resident available to be contacted was actually noted to not be in favor of installing speed humps.
Meanwhile, the 7 other remaining properties were ultimately unreachable and/or otherwise unavailable during all of Petitioner's previous attempts to contact each/every subject property in order to determine all property's/resident's positions regarding the installation of speed humps on Hendrix Ave.
Here and in contrast however, when tabulating the final total number of Petition signatories from the subject properties which were ultimately deemed to be accepted by City Staff (a total of only 37 properties), there were in fact an additional 4 Hendrix Ave. properties from which additional supporting signatures had also been obtained from the current residents actually residing at each of those 4 of additional subject properties. Nonetheless however, these 4 additional properties' signatures were not counted and instead excluded from the City Staff's final tabulation total count (37), because those additional property signatures were obtained from rental tenants, and/or did not otherwise match the individual registered names of the property owners) as documented according to City records. Therefore, if these 4 additional Hendrix Ave. property signatures obtained from actual residents had not been excluded/disregarded by City Staff as "invalid," but which had instead been included among the other valid signatures confirmed to be in support of the original Petition for speed humps, then the actual original total number of Hendrix Ave. resident properties in support of installing speed humps would reflect an even higher total of 41 out of 49 possible properties (84%) in support.
Moreover, at the Traffic and Transportation Commission public hearing held on 01/24/2024, a total of 5 different residents provided public comments and impassioned pleas in support of the Petition. Meanwhile, only one public comment was provided as against speed humps, but which notably was submitted from a community resident who in fact does not reside on this segment of Hendrix Ave., and who also admittedly did not dispute the excessive speeding problem undeniably present on Hendrix Ave.., but instead preferred the implementation of other alternative speed control strategies in order to address this problem in the neighborhood instead.
Furthermore, even during the very limited 14-day window of time permitted to prepare and submit the instant Appeal (further frustrated by torrential inclement weather and other compounding challenges), Hendrix Ave. residents were nonetheless still able to gather contributions from the residents of over 14 different households located along Hendrix Ave. in order to combine to fund the substantial $1,515 filing fee required for the instant Appeal.
Additionally, as of the date of the instant Appeal submission, residents have already gathered additional signatures from 17 different households on this segment of Hendrix Ave. thus far, voicing overwhelming support of this Appeal in the enclosed letter addressed to City Council.' ' Due to the limited 14-day window of allowable time in order to submit this appeal, efforts to gain additional Hendrix Ave. residents' signatures in resounding further support of this Appeal to City Council are still ongoing at 3 II. The Engineering Report Summarily And Erroneously Concluded Hendrix Ave Does Not Qualify For The City Council's Reduced Minimum Vehicle Per Day (VPD") Requirement For Speed Humps/Cushions Eligibility.
As a critical part in reaching its final recommendation against installing speed humps on this segment of Hendrix Ave - in fact the only requirement that Hendrix Ave. was deemed to have failed to satisfy for speed humps eligibility - the Engineer's Report referenced the City Council's Resolution 2022-025, which requires a minimum average volume of 2000 vehicles per day ("VPD") to be eligible for the installation of speed humps on any residential street, unless two (or more) of the following conditions exist, as listed in Section A paragraph 5:
a. A school (grades K-12) is located along or adjacent to the street; b. There are no street lights;
c. There are no sidewalks;
d. The street experiences periods of high pedestrian or bicycle activity; e. Sight distance issues exist at cross street intersections that cannot be resolved by •
other engineering measures;
f. Short cutting from adjacent arterial streets exceeds 35 percent of total vehicle volume during two or more peak hour periods;
g. A park is located along the street;
h. The street width is less than 36 feet curb to curb;
i. The street has a curve radius of less than 300 feet at two or more points along the street.
Here, page 2 of the Engineer's Report summarily (and erroncously) claimed that the foregoing conditions are not present on Hendrix Ave., and as such, Hendrix Ave. should not be considered for any reduced VPD requirement for speed humps, but without providing any further analysis nor explanation for this conclusory and inaccurate assessment.
However, in contrast and in actuality here, Hendrix Ave. does in fact meet and satisfy at least 2 or more of the foregoing criteria as set forth in greater detail below, but all of which were seemingly either ignored, missed entirely, or not at all measured, even more curiously without any discussion or explanation in the Engineer's Report.
First, Hendrix Ave. does in fact have not only one but three different schools which are located on this specific segment of Hendrix Ave. between Janss Rd. and Gainsborough Rd., specifically:
La Reina High School, La Reina Middle School, and Notre Dame Learning Center Preschool present, and which residents intend to submit in advance of any City Council meeting to address this issue in the future.
4 (and with the latter preschool's entrance fronting on this particular portion of Hendrix Ave. at 1776 Hendrix Ave.).
Furthermore, in addition to the portions of all three of the foregoing school properties actually located along this portion of Hendrix Ave., there are also a total of 4 other schools which are additionally all located adjacent to Hendrix Ave (i.e., located within <¼ mile of this portion of Hendrix Ave.): (1) Aspen Elementary School, (2) Bethany Christian School, (3) Acacia Magnet School, and (4) Redwood Middle School. Therefore and in any event, Section A paragraph 5(a) of the City Council's Resolution 2022-025 is clearly and undeniably met here.
Second, while there are admittedly some street lights installed along some of this stretch of Hendrix Ave., however due to overgrown large trees (which neighborhood residents love) and street lights not being present and/or placed consistently throughout the entirety of Hendrix Ave., there some parts of this segment of Hendrix Ave. which are very dark at night, particularly around Donnick Ave. Therefore, Section A paragraph 5(b) of the City Council's Resolution 2022-025 should be deemed satisfied here as well, where street lights are not actually (or functionally) present throughout the entire portion of the street requested for speed humps.
Third, there is in fact also a park which is also located on Hendrix Ave.: Dover Hendrix Park? and with its entrance fronting on Hendrix Avenue (immediately across Gainsborough Rd.) located at 1175 Hendrix Ave., Thousand Oaks, CA 91360. Therefore, the plain and unambiguous language of Section A paragraph 5(g) of the City Council's Resolution 2022-025 (that "A park is located along the street") is also clearly met here as well.
Fourth, and likely one of the most important factors critically at issue here, as noted above this particular segment of Hendrix Ave. serves as a frequent, daily walking path for numerous young families with small children throughout each and every day/evening, including preschool children taking regular walks along Hendrix Ave. during school hours, as well as countless other young children and neighborhood students who walk and/or ride bikes along this segment of Hendrix Ave. each day going to/from any of the 7 different schools (Pre-K - 12) located within <1/4 mile of this stretch of Hendrix Ave.
Inexplicably however, the Engineer's Report submitted to the TTAC contains no mention, nor any collected data of the high volume of pedestrian or bicycle activity on Hendrix Ave. Adding insult to injury, the glaring absence of any of this critical data set of information is matched only 2 Of note, the Conejo Community Center at Dover Hendrix Park also houses additional preschool programs and classes as well, in addition to a variety of other children's and youth classes offered through the Conejo Valley Parks and Recreation Department, but which has not otherwise been included among the other above-listed "official school(s)" located on and/or immediately adjacent to this portion of Hendrix Ave., recognizing that it may not be considered an "official full-time school facility," notwithstanding its frequent and regular use attended by countless children and youths in our community.
5 by the lack of any discussion or explanation why the Engineer's Report is entirely devoid of this additional information which should be one of the most, if not arguably the most, dispositive factors in this final decision analysis.
In stark contrast with the Engineer's Report, and the deafening silence regarding this critically missing pedestrian/bicyclist information, the residents of Hendrix Ave. aver that in actuality, if this pedestrian and bicycle activity data were actually measured by the City, it would clearly evidence high pedestrian and/or bicycle activity on Hendrix Ave., sufficient then to meet criteria Section A paragraph 5(d) of the City Council's Resolution 2022-025 as well.
Fifth, similar to the Engineer's Report's lack of any measured or collected data regarding pedestrian or bicycle activity, the Engineer's Report admittedly also did not at all attempt to measure or collect any data to determine which of the vehicles using Hendrix Ave. constitute short cutting from adjacent arterial streets, nor let alone whether such short cutting traffic exceeds 35 percent of total vehicle volume during two or more peak hour periods per Section A paragraph 5(d).3
Therefore, the conclusory and erroneous determinations made in the Engineer's Report are further highlighted by the fact that City Staff admittedly did not even attempt to gather all of these necessary data points to even be able to make informed and accurate assessments in these additional and most critical aspects. Of note, these deficiencies were specifically raised and discussed at length with City Staff and the Traffic Engineers upon further questioning at the TTAC meeting on 01/24/2024.4
Despite all of the foregoing, the Engineer's Report incorrectly and inexplicably simply concluded that Hendrix Ave. does not meet any of the exception criteria requirements set forth in Section A paragraph 5 of the City Council's Resolution 2022-025, despite clearly satisfying at least 2 or more of the applicable exception factors sufficient in order for Hendrix Ave. to qualify for the reduced total vehicles per day ("VPD") requirement to be eligible for the installation of speed bumps.
Therefore, as further explained and confirmed at the TTA meeting on 01/24/2024, these additional (and arguably most critical sets of material information were not collected by City Staff admittedly because they did not believe that Hendrix Ave. would meet the 1500 minimum VPD threshold, and therefore essentially the remainder of such data and additional information would be rendered irrelevant/moot.
3 See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3JvvEn8dJM at hour/minute 0:36-0:39; see also id. at 0:51-0:56: 1:24--30.
4 See generally Id. at 1:24-1:30.
6 Yet quite to the contrary, here Hendrix Ave. residents continue to vehemently maintain that any particular residential street's total average VPD (whether at ~1000, ~1500, or ~2000+) should not be the end-all dispositive factor for determining these critical final safety decisions, particularly in situations like the one at hand where an excessively rigid application of the minimum VPD threshold (even where close) functionally serves to entirely disregard all of the other criteria which otherwise meets or exceeds all of the other applicable Resolution requirements to be eligible for speed humps, and particularly in this situation where some of the additional (entirely disregarded or ignored) data/information evidences the particularly high risk of danger to the safety of the community.
If anything, the residents of Hendrix Ave. aver that in these types of "very close call" situations, and even where there is only one missing criteria falling slightly below threshold, that this factor must be counterbalanced among all of the multiple other more compelling requirements that are satisfied for speed humps eligibility, and particularly where all of the other satisfied requirements and totality of circumstances actually evidences a compelling and critical need for speed humps to be installed, in order to avoid/mitigate the very serious and legitimate threats to public safety of the community, including up to potential tragedy.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, and most significantly here, as a result of this Engineer's Report critical (flawed) determination that Hendrix Ave. failed to satisfy the minimum VPD requirement, the Engineer's Report then ultimately and summarily determined that Hendrix Ave. does not meet each and every one of the City's speed humps/speed cushions policy Resolution requirements, without so much as an acknowledgment nor attempt to collect adequate data/information to confirm that all other specific City requirement eligibility criteria have otherwise all been met or exceeded.
III. Even Based Upon The Limited And Incomplete Data Sets Collected For The Engineers Report, Hendrix Ave Has Still Documented ~1000 Vehicles Per Day ("VPD"), And Which Constitutes Sufficient Daily Traffic Volume to Qualify For Speed Humps in Other Neighboring Communities (e.g., Westlake Village, Oxnard, County Ventura).
As set forth in its abbreviated summary table contained on page 3 of the Engineer's Report, Hendrix Ave. was documented to have average daily traffic totals of 957 vehicles per day ("VPD"), and with an expected margin for error of +/- 10%.
Additionally, and as further explained at the TAC meeting on 01/24/2024, it is preliminarily worth noting here first that the Staff Report data collected for the Engineer's Report was taken only over a limited single period of assessment, which in actuality consisted of a total span of only 5 business days (excluding weekends) during the first two weeks of November 2023, and specifically on 11/02/2024, 11/03/2024, 11/06/2024, 11/07/2024, and 11/08/2024.5 Second, it is also worth noting that City Traffic Engineers admitted at the TTAC meeting on 01/24/2024 that the vehicle traffic measuring devices are also never calibrated by the Public Works Department, and have never been tested by the City for accuracy.
As such, even assuming for the sake of argument that the data figures collected by the devices utilized by City Staff were accurate during their employed use on Hendrix Ave., and assuming that the limited short window of data collected in early November 2023 was a fair and accurate representation of the normal/regular VPD volume on Hendrix Ave. year-around/historically, at least one measured part of Hendrix Ave. was admittedly still documented to have an average total of 957 vehicles per day ("VPD") according to the Engineer's Report.
Additionally, and as discussed at length at the TTA meeting, even after considering the +/- 100 anticipated margin for error, Hendrix Ave.'s estimated ~1000 VPD average was nonetheless still noted to fall below even the City's reduced minimum VPD threshold requirement of 1500 VPD in order to be eligible for speed humps.
Meanwhile at the same time for comparison, our closest neighbor, the City of Westlake Village, only has a minimum 1000 VPD requirement in order to be considered eligible for the installation of speed humps.? Similarly, the County of Ventura also has a minimum 1000 VPD requirement, and one of our other neighbors, the City of Oxnard only has a minimum 500 VPD requirement.? Accordingly, even accepting for the sake of argument that the City Staff and Traffic Engineer's estimated ~ 1000 VPD average for Hendrix Ave. was/is accurate (after accounting for margin of error +/- 100 vehicles), here Hendrix Ave. would admittedly otherwise qualify to meet or exceed all of the other speed hump/cushion eligibility requirements, including the minimum VPD threshold, in order to be eligible for the installation of speed humps within the City of Westlake Village, and/or in multiple of our other neighboring communities with lower minimum VPD threshold requirements, if this portion of Hendrix Ave. in question was simply located elsewhere nearby instead.
The foregoing is to say that the residents of Hendrix Ave. would expect that the City of Thousand Oaks would not ignore the legitimate and compelling safety concerns of its own 5 See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3/vvEn8dJM at hour/minute 1:14-1:15. • See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?=x3JvvEn8dJM at hour/minute 1:22 - 1:24. " See generally https://www.wlv.org/283/Speed-Humps.
8 See generally https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Brochure_SpeedHumps.pdf. 9 See https://www.oxnard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/City-of-Oxnard-Speed-Hump-Program-12-28-2022.pdf at p. 5, Section 2.2H.
8 community by requiring Thousand Oaks residents to hurdle far more stringent, higher speed humps eligibility threshold requirements than our other neighboring cities, let alone without any explanation or any other stated justification(s).
IV. Speed Humps (And Speed Cushions) Have Been Established As The Only Lasting And Substantively Successful Strategy To Meaningfully Decrease Speeding Down To Critically Necessary And Acceptably Safe Speeds In Residential/School Zones.
During the Traffic Engineer's further explanations provided at the TTA meeting on 01/24/2024, City Staff confirmed that speed humps have been proven to successfully decrease overall average traffic speeds down to 20-25 MPH after installation, and down to 25-30 MPH after installation of speed cushions.'
In contrast, as discussed at the TTAC meeting as well as on pages 5-6 of the Engineer's Report, none of the other alternative strategies proposed to address the clearly evident speeding problem on Hendrix Ave. are reasonably anticipated to have any lasting effect in successfully or significantly decreasing speeds, as compared to or in lieu of installation of speed humps or speed cushions."
Here, while the residents of Hendrix Ave. would certainly not be opposed to implementing additional speed controlling strategies, the reality is that none of these alternative strategy proposals that have been suggested are reasonably anticipated to actually be successful to decrease speeds on any lasting continuous basis, apart from installing speed humps or speed cushions. Most critically, short of increased enforcement up to a required level tantamount to having a law enforcement officer posted on Hendrix Ave. nearly at all times, there are no alternative speed controlling strategies known to successfully decrease or eliminate the excessively high speeds recorded for the top 15% percentile of speeds on Hendrix Ave. (as measured up to 35-55 MPH at the northern end of Hendrix Ave. where the preschool is also located), and which pose the most serious and dangerous risk to the community on this street.
Therefore, the reality is that the installation of speed humps or speed cushions on Hendrix Ave. is critically necessary as being the one and only measure determined to be effective and to ensure the safety of our school children and neighborhood residents from the excessively high speeds currently ongoing at present.
V. Speed Cushions Were Also Deemed Not To Be A Viable Alternative To Speed Humps On Hendrix Ave., Despite Seemingly Negating All Potential Detrimental 10 See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3JvvFn8dJM at hour/minute 0:46-0:48.
See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3JvvFn8dJM at hour/minute 0:31-0:36; see also 1:34-1:36.
9 Public Impacts Of Speed Humps, Except Only "Driver Inconvenience" Per City Traffic Engineers.
In discussions with the Public Works Department Traffic Engineers and City Engineer at the TTAC meeting on 01/24/2024, that potential delays in emergency response times was proffered as one of the only noted potential drawback or downside when considering whether or not to install speed humps, apart from purported (and entirely subjective) "driver inconvenience." Nonetheless however, as detailed on page 4 of the Engineer's Report, "due to a greater emphasis to consider the impact of speed humps on emergency response time, the current City practice is to employ speed cushions." Furthermore, the Engineer's Report also continued on to add on page 4: "The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), other public agencies, and Thousand Oaks' experience with speed cushions confirm these devises are as effective as speed humps in reducing vehicle speeds but with less impact on emergency response time. The use of speed cushions is consistent with the City's Speed Hump Policy (Resolution 2022-025)." However, in response to TAC Commissioner's inquiries to Traffic and City Engineers at the 01/24/2024 meeting, City Staff confirmed that installation of speed cushions are similarly also subject to all of the City's same strict Resolution requirements applicable for the installation of speed humps, despite the seemingly absent/moot negative downsides to installation of speed cushions.!
To be clear, City Traffic Engineers and City Staff provided no explanation or analysis, either in the Engineer's Report or at the TTA meeting on 01/24/2024 regarding why speed humps - or at a minimum/in the alternative speed cushions - should not be installed to abate the clearly evident speed problems on Hendrix Ave., beyond simply claiming that per their (admittedly incomplete and limited scope) assessment, Hendrix Ave. purportedly did not satisfy each and every one of the City Council's strict necessary Resolution requirements for eligibility.!? Nonetheless, relatedly and even though it was admittedly not discussed in the Engineer's Report, nor raised at the TTAC meeting, the residents of Hendrix Ave. do candidly acknowledge that there is always the pragmatic reality of the increased additional costs that are incurred in connection with installing either speed humps or speed cushions, and which is always the case with any municipal road or project. In this regard, here there has been no total projected cost estimate provided to install these few requested speed humps or speed cushions on this mile-long segment of Hendrix Ave., so this is an admittedly unclear anticipated cost unknown to residents.
12 See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3JvvFn8dJM at hour/minute 0:45-0:48. 13 See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3.JvvFn8dJM at hour/minute 0:45-0:48. 10 At the same time, according to the City's Finance Department website, the City's Operating and Capital Improvement Program ("CIP") Budget for 2022-2023 had budgeted a total of $44.8 million for CIP projects within ten different categories, including $14.3 million for Street Projects, and $4.6 million for Transportation/Traffic Projects.4 Thus, while the increased total cost to the City of installing speed humps or cushions on Hendrix Ave currently still remains unknown, as well as which specific portion of the City's Public Works Department or CIP Budgets) from which this type of project would typically be paid for, here the reasonably anticipated range of costs for this relatively small residential street project should, in all likelihood, be nominal in comparison to the City's total planned Public Works and CIP budgets) which seemingly have already earmarked for these exact types of necessary street/traffic improvement projects within our community.
It is also worth noting that if any member of the community's primary focus or opposition to the installation of speed humps or cushions on this segment of Hendrix Ave. is due to the anticipated increased cost to the City, recall that the primary and most preferred alternative strategy recommendation in order to address and mitigate this speeding problem otherwise is to call for increased police enforcement of the 25 MPH speed limit. However, here in order to increase speed enforcement up to a level that would be realistically required in order to even approach the efficacy of installing speed humps or cushions instead, this "increased enforcement" would practically require having a law enforcement officer actually posted on Hendrix Ave. to monitor and enforce the speed limit at nearly all times in perpetuity. Ironically though, not only would such an alternative strategy clearly be infeasible to be considered a realistically viable alternative, even if such a level of increased police enforcement were theoretically actually possible, doing so would ultimately result in a total increased (enforcement) cost to the public that would undoubtedly far exceed the limited one-time cost of simply installing speed humps or cushions instead, if not even potentially eclipsed/exceeded entirely just within the first year of implementation alone.
To be put most simply another way, there has been no explanation provided to residents regarding any potential downsides, or any other compelling reason why speed humps or speed cushions should not be installed on this portion of Hendrix Ave., let alone any legitimate potential detriment to the public which would outweigh the significant and undisputed benefits of doing so.
Moreover, there also has not been any explanation or analysis provided as to why Hendrix Ave. should not be considered for a limited variance exception specifically in regards to the City's minimum VPD requirement, as this is the one and only factor criteria that Hendrix Ave. was determined to have not met, particularly considering that Hendrix Ave. has otherwise met or exceed all other applicable City Resolution requirements which clearly justify - and in fact 14 See generally https://www.tobudget.org/faqs.
11 necessitate - the installation of speed humps or speed cushions to remedy the rampant and excessive speeding problem on this street.
Hendrix Ave. residents acknowledge and appreciate the pragmatic need for general guidelines and parameters in order to have a standard litmus test determine how and where to most prudently to devote and invest City resources for the betterment of the entire Thousand Oaks community. At the same, Hendrix Ave. residents would also vehemently oppose the strict draconian application of any particular set of requirements in every situation, without due consideration to all critical and compelling factors involved, and particularly when the totality of the circumstances far outweighs any one potentially lacking criteria. The compelling need in these types of "totality of the circumstances" situations necessitates a relaxation of the City's general speed humps eligibility guidelines, and where such a strict and stilted approach would ultimately lead to undesired and potentially dangerous outcome for the community otherwise.
To be clear, the undisputedly dangerous speed problems documented here on Hendrix Ave. are a prime example of the perils of employing an inflexible adherence to a laundry list of 'check the box' eligibility requirements, and which is further highlighted by the TTAC's reluctant final decision to deny the Petition for installation of speed humps/cushions, even against their better judgment and contrary to their actual desired outcome to do so here, in order to protect the community's safety, after diligently considering the totality of the circumstances which ultimately and clearly evidence a compelling need
VI. Hendrix Has Experienced Continually Increasing Cut-through Traffic Volume, Due To Spillover From Adjacent Arteries Lynn Road and Moorpark Road, And Which Undoubtedly Will Continue To Grow Without Appropriate Traffic Abatement Measures Enacted Now.
As noted above, the Engineer's Report admittedly did not even attempt to collect data to determine the specific breakdown of volume of vehicles which constitute cut-through or short cutting traffic from the adjacent arteries to Hendrix Ave.'s To be clear however and in contrast, the residents of Hendrix Ave. have witnessed first-hand a historically continuing increase in traffic volume of vehicles in recent years, but which has unfortunately not been measured to be documented over time by the City nor by City Staff, in order to independently verify and confirm this credible (albeit admittedly anecdotal first-hand knowledge shared between residents.
15 See TTAC Meeting 01/24/2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3JvvFn8dJM at hour/minute 0:36-39; see also Id. at 0:51-0:56; 1:24-1:30.
12 Nonetheless in any event, the shared experiences of countless long-time Hendrix Ave. residents cannot be dismissed or discounted entirely out of hand. Furthermore, basic reason would dictate that as the population of total Thousand Oaks residents continues to grow and increase over time, that it will necessarily follow as a result that various smaller cut through streets like Hendrix Ave. will continue to experience even greater shortcut traffic in the future spilling over from the overall greater total volume of motorists seeking alternative routes to avoid the ever-increasing traffic and congestion experienced on the adjacent main arteries of Moorpark Rd. and Lynn Rd. where this volume of traffic is intended.
Accordingly, it is also imperative that speed humps (or speed cushions) be installed on Hendrix Ave., not only to control and decrease the excessive speed dangers existing at present, but also to assist in mitigating Hendrix Ave. from becoming utilized as an even more heavily trafficked pass-through between Janss Rd. and Gainsborough Rd. moving forward in the future, and preventing it from becoming a thoroughfare in a manner that this quiet residential street was never intended nor originally designed to be used by City planners.
VII. Denial Of This Appeal Will Preclude Any Other Petition Or Recourse For Speed Safety To Be Pursued In This Neighborhood For The Next Four Years, During Which Hendrix Will Likely Exceed Current Normal (Unreduced) VPD Speed Hump Requirements Based Upon Current Growth Trajectory Models.
Pursuant to Section A paragraph 10 of the City Council's Resolution 2022-025, a request Petition for Speed Humps can only be submitted by residents when "the subject street has not been considered for speed humps in the previous four years (48 months)" (emphasis added).
Therefore, it is also critically important to note here that if the instant Appeal is denied by City Council at this time, then residents of Hendrix Ave. will presumably be estopped and precluded from requesting any future revisiting or reconsideration of the installation of speed humps/cushions again for the next four years thereafter, but without any procedural recourse to seek the City's intervention to take action to address the ongoing and ever-increasing speeding problems experienced on Hendrix Ave. in the interim.
Relatedly, it is also important to consider that even if Hendrix Ave. does not currently meet or exceed the City's minimum VPD average threshold at present, it is certainly possible that based upon the recent trajectory of ever-increasing vehicle traffic on Hendrix Ave., that without installing speed humps or speed cushions now, Hendrix Ave. may likely otherwise meet or exceed the City's current standard minimum thresholds of 1500 - 2000 VPD within/less than the next four years. As such, it would be a near-sighted decision to deny the Hendrix Ave. resident's Petition and Appeal at this time, meanwhile also reasonably expecting that Hendrix Ave. will 13 meet or exceed all current eligibility requirements in the not-too-distant-future otherwise regardless.
VIII. Conclusion
Wherefore, based upon all of the foregoing considerations, the overwhelming majority of residents on Hendrix Avenue urge the City Council to make the one and only correct decision necessary in this situation to protect the safety of our community and neighborhood children, and to approve this Appeal to install speed humps and/or cushions on Hendrix Avenue between Janss Road and Gainsborough Road.
14 Dear City of Thousand Oaks Council Members:
WE, the residents of Hendrix Avenue between Janss Road and Gainsborough Road, hereby sign in support this Appeal dated February 7, 2024, respectfully submitted following the Traffic and Transportation Advisory Committee's denial of our Petition for Speed Humps on January 24, 2024, and hereby urge City Council to take the necessary action for the safety of our street and our neighborhood, and to grant this Appeal and our Petition to install Speed Humps on this segment of Hendrix Avenue.
Sincerely,
Hendrix Avenue Residents
Signature Name (Printed). Street Address
1. 1715 HENDRIX AVE
SCOTT LEVIN THOLSAND OAKS
2. 731 Hendrille
hesliehentro Thousad Oat
3. 1753 HENDRIX ANE
JAMES MISIDROWAKI THOUSANO DATES CA
4. EVAn Hersit 1643 HenDRIX ALE.
5. Belen DDell Belen O'Dell 1609 Hendrixave
6. albs- ALBeRt ALVAREZ 1594 hendrixave
7. R Rache /A. McDowell 1600 Hendrix Ave
8. JEREMY SHATZER 1797 HENDRIX AVE
9. 162S HENDRIX AUE
BRIAN WILLS THOOSANDOAKS CA
1539 Feather Are.
• Scott Harris T.O. CA
Tara Janes 1512 Fecther Ave TO,
12. GREGORYMIRAGUA 1131 HENRIX AUE
13. Heathere Cosini 1409 Hendrix Ave
14. Christopher Kowalsk 1321 Hendrix Ave
15. RON OATMAN 159W'GAENGROROdEN
16. ей у
michile lachmus 1408 Indrix Ave
Signature Name (Printed) Street Address
17. JEFF i BONNIE HOLLAND 1ITHAMES STREET
T.o. 91360
18. 19.
20. 21.
22. 23.
24. 25.
26.