Planners push for turn lanes at San Vicente and Gem Lane

By Karen Brainard

Ramona Community Planning Group members are not giving up on adding left turn lanes at San Vicente Road and Gem Lane, despite the county’s traffic study that says such turn lanes are not warranted.

At the planning group’s June 6 meeting, staff from the county’s Department of Public Works (DPW) presented its findings regarding two requests from RCPG for the San Vicente Road Improvement Project: left turn lanes at the Gem Lane intersection and increasing the separation between eastbound and westbound lanes on San Vicente Road to help avoid head-on collisions.

Planning group member Torry Brean, center, talks about the need for a left turn lane at San Vicente Road and Gem Lane. Listening, from left, are: Eb Hogervorst, Carl Hickman, Barbara Jensen, Secretary Kristi Mansolf, and Chair Jim Piva. Sentinel photos/Karen Brainard

DPW Project Manager Steve Ron said he looked at the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) traffic study, and other than Warnock and Wildcat Canyon Roads none of the other  streets off San Vicente Road had a traffic volume of over 380 average daily trips (ADT) per day to warrant a turn lane. Plans do call for adding a left turn lane at Deviney Lane into Barnett Ranch Preserve because of vehicles pulling horse trailers in and out, he said.

RCPG member Matt Deskovick still pushed for turn lanes at Gem, noting that the county asks the group to represent the community and what it wants. Chair Jim Piva said the planning group has been proactive from the beginning about a need for left turn lanes at Gem.

The planning group passed a motion that “two-way left turn lanes be pursued in order to provide refuge for vehicles traveling left off Gem Lane onto San Vicente and to provide safe haven for vehicles turning left from San Vicente onto Gem Lane.”  The motion passed 11-1 with planner Carl Hickman opposing. Richard Tomlinson abstained, and Chad Anderson and Dennis Sprong were absent.

erry Rayback explains how rumble strips and reflectors will be added to the center lines. Sentinel photo/Karen Brainard

Hickman, who had pressed for more than two yellow lines between eastbound and westbound lanes, said he was satisfied with DPW’s plans to add rumble strips and reflectors.

Ron said rumble strips, which create a bumpy surface to alert drivers they need to change direction, will be added perpendicular to the two yellow lines, and will be installed between reflectors that will be placed approximately every 24 feet outside the lines.

Construction of the road realignment project is scheduled to begin this fall, but Rayback said it could be delayed  due to difficulties acquiring all the necessary right-of-ways.

Calling two of the properties at issue “very minor acquisitions,” Rayback said the county Board of Supervisors may consider the next step -— eminent domain — at its June 26 meeting. If that happens, Rayback said the supervisors would probably set up the first hearing for eminent domain on July 17, and construction could be delayed until the beginning of 2014.

In other business, Jim  Cooper, who serves as the planning group’s representative on the Ramona Design Review Board, reported that the board approved Chris Anderson to fill its vacant seat.

Cooper, who expressed an interest in serving on the Ramona Village Design Group, was approved as an alternate member by the RCPG. Planners Torry Brean and Paul Stykel are the RCPG’s representatives to the village design group.

Next month’s planning group meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on July 11, instead of the first Thursday of the month, as that is the Fourth of July. The meeting will be in Ramona Community Center, 434 Aqua Lane.

Related posts:

  1. Ramona planners expect San Vicente Road update at April 4 meeting
  2. San Vicente Road update prompts new concerns
  3. Busy intersection remains priority for planners
  4. County updates planning group on San Vicente Road project
  5. Ramona planners want voices heard on Sol Orchard project

Short URL: http://www.ramonasentinel.com/?p=24493

Posted by Staff on Jun 13 2013. Filed under Featured Story, Government, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

7 Comments for “Planners push for turn lanes at San Vicente and Gem Lane”

  1. Ohh Brother!

    Another pointless RCPG meeting making recommendations that the County will continue to ignore.

    People, if you really want to get something done, go down to the County Board of Supervisor's meeting on June 26th and talk directly to the Supervisors.

    When I was on the RCPG many years ago, we actually made a difference. We would coordinate with the town and get people to show up at the County and have their voices heard. The County does not like that, they want to use the local planning groups as a shield and some people on this planning group seems perfectly happy to play along with the County.

    Ramona would be much better off if some of the the current RCPG were less interested in getting their names in the paper and more interested in promoting the interests of Ramona.

    Thank you Sentinel for telling us when the County Board of Supervisor's meeting will be held. Can you also please provide the time in the future?

  2. Herve Auch-Roy

    As many of us claim, the travel speed will increase on the new stretch of San Vicente road, and as the project will go ahead no matter what since "the money is here and must be spent anyway", we might as well plan for turning lanes at every intersection in order to avoid rear endings.
    Increasing the separation between eastbound and westbound lanes is also a good idea, and for the same reason (increased travel speeds).
    We may also want to add the purchase of an additional ambulance …

  3. Mike Loranger

    I think the county would probably pay much more attention if Ramona didn't have so many cranky old crackpots claiming to represent our community. We currently have a crowd claiming an improved San Vicente Road will be LESS safe… How does anyone, the county included, listen and respond to such lunacy?

    The turn lane on Gem Lane is a fabulous idea; though EXTREMELY late in the planning process, I hope it works out.

  4. Lisa Cawyer

    As someone who's always a little confused on exactly where to turn when I visit my sister, I vote YES.

  5. Sandy

    The RCPG is a joke. It is filled with self-interested, biased members. Dennis Sprong lives down Gem Ln. Of course he wants a turn lane there.

  6. This article presents clear idea designed for the new visitors of blogging,
    that truly how to do blogging and site-building.

  7. Hello, of course this article is really good and I have learned lot of things from it about blogging.
    thanks.

Leave a Reply

Facebook

);