City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Sunday, October 6, 2024 09:15 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
Meeting Date Wednesday, October 9, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject J. Introduction of Ordinances to Set Reduced Speed Limits on Various Streets in Camarillo as Authorized Under AB 43
Position Support
Comments I support the speed limit reductions as suggested. However, I am disappointed how few locations were deemed worthy of additional reductions. If the city doesn’t intend to review the speed limits for another 7 years, we should take advantage of AB43 now rather than going for the bare minimum and then putting safety on this 7th of the city on the back burner for the next half decade.
Adolfo (Ponderosa to Lewis) is through a residential area along a park with bike lanes but isn't worth making biking along or accessing the park safer.
Adolfo (Flynn to Mission Oaks) includes a section with the Calleguas Creek Bike Path. Making it safer to bike along Adolfo in the section would vastly improve the bike network
connectivity for employees to the light industrial development and the residential developments
Adolfo (Mission Oaks to Santa Rosa) is between a residential development and a school, which seems like a prime spot to make it safer for students to cross.
1 Adolfo (Santa Rosa to Terminus) separates a major shopping center from a residential area. There are very few crosswalks along that portion and it is known and pointed out by the City Council that pedestrians often cross here anyway. This is another prime location to reduce traffic speeds and make walking in our city safer.
Adolfo (Lewis to Flynn) is the only section I didn’t explicitly call out above, but if it is to be a major bike network connection within the city, making is more comfortable to bike along via lowering traffic speeds seems prudent.
Bridgehampton Way (Pleasant Valley to Davenport) is through a residential area separating a large segment of the residents from a pool. This pool is a major draw and thus has many residents crossing. This seems like a valid reason to reduce traffic speeds through this section.
(I don’t know enough about Crestview, but would support lowering the speed limits to promote bikeability and walkability for the nearby residents. Actually, wasn’t there a push from the residents to slow a section where there was a golf cart crossing during a recent Planning Commission meeting related to new developments for the golf course?)
Davenport – I appreciate the recommendation to reduce the posted speed limit and support it wholeheartedly.
Dawson (Dawson to Mission Oaks) separates Village at the Park from Old Town and the Metrolink Station. With the coming Pedestrian Undercrossing at the Metrolink Station, and the existing overpass, this is a major pedestrian and bike
connection between the west and east side of the city. Slowing traffic along Dawson helps remove one of the major barriers. (Lewis should also be made more bike/pedestrian friendly, but that's a CalTrans project, though it would help to have heavy pressure from the city, especially if Lewis is the last major barrier)
Petit is the primary street pedestrians or bikes would use between Village at the Park and Old Town, so all the comments related to Dawson in regards to connecting the city also apply to Petit.
Upland, with its bike lanes, seems like it is intended to be a primary bike route along the north side of the city. Biking along side 45mph vehicles is uncomfortable and making Upland safer to bike along would improve the city’s bike network connectivity, level of comfort, and utilization.
Ventura (Central to Camarillo Center) seems like it is intended to be a primary bike route along the south side of the 101.
Especially noting the major project to add bike lanes along Central. Reducing car traffic speed would make it more 2 comfortable to bike along this route, making Camarillo’s bike network feel more connected and increasing utilization.
Ventura (Camarillo Center to Carmen) – I support the
recommendation to reduce the posted speed limit, though I would much prefer a number of other speed reductions before this section. That just means I think others are higher priority, but also I support safety improvements on even further down on my safe streets wish list.
Ventura (Carmen to Cedar) – I appreciate the recommendation to reduce the posted speed limit and support it wholeheartedly.
Ventura (Cedar to Arneill) is the core of Old Town with an abundance of pedestrian traffic. I would argue that is a valid reason to further reduce the speed limit along this section.
Ventura (Arneill to Lewis) feels like it should still be considered old town (there is a marker at the corner of Lewis and Ventura).
As such, I see no reason not to unify the speed limit on 25mph through this section of old town, as proposed between Carmen and Cedar.
Village Commons cutting through a major residential area feels like a valid reason to reduce the traffic speed. There are pedestrians and bicyclists crossing to the parks and pools, the shopping center, and school. However, I will concede that between the single lane, the parking, and bike lane, the street feels narrow enough but enough space provided for bikes that it doesn’t feel like cars will blow by a bicyclist like they might along Davenport or Bridgehampton. While I would like a speed reduction here, I think it is a lower priority than many other locations (though probably still above Ventura Carment to Cedar).
Village at the Park (VatP) (Petit to Village Commons) – My biggest concern here is west bound cyclists turning west onto Petit and the freeway entrance. This area feels particularly uncomfortable to bicyclists and pedestrians, from VatP or the soccer fields. While I don’t think lowering the speed limit here would be sufficient to make it bike friendly, it would be a step in the right direction.
VatP (Village Commons to easterly terminus) cuts between a residential area, a school, and the soccer fields with a slew of pedestrian traffic. These both seem like the exact case that the law was meant to allow speed limit reductions. That said, simply dropping the limit is insufficient to stop the people who do speed, so it should really have some sort of road diet as well to enforce the speed limit when cops are unavailable to monitor it themselves.
Looking over the list, I think the only road I didn’t support further reducing traffic speeds was Overload road. I think AB43 should 3 have been far far far more broadly applied to make Camarillo safer to vulnerable road users.
Upload Additional Information
IDENTIFICATION
Name Nash Dingman
Address Rockhampton Drive
Camarillo
Telephone
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
4