254 | CITY OF LA MESA – URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF LA MESA – URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 255 5 Planning Setting Appendix H Appendix H
Grants
General Obligation Bonds
Local governments commonly use General Obligation (GO) bonds to fund the construction and improvement of projects involving real property (e.g., buildings, infrastructure and parks). GO bonds typically carry low interest rates, making them attractive for capital projects, which may include tree planting. However, funding is available for discrete projects, often over a limited time rather than an extended period. In addition, ongoing maintenance is ineligible for GO bond funding pursuant to federal tax law. California cities pay debt service from GO bonds through ad valorem property taxes, where assessments are based on property value. As a result, the issuance of GO bonds requires two-thirds voter approval.
Maintenance Assessment
Districts
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes Maintenance Assessment Districts (MADs), which are closely related to LLADs. The key difference is that charter cities, can create MADs for the provision of services not specifically authorized under state law, thereby broadening their use. MADs may be used to finance street tree care, but as with a LLAD, a MAD intended for street trees alone could also attract the attention of other agencies interested in funding the provision of additional non-related services.
Partnerships
Partnerships are one opportunity to promote on-going collaborations like that with Tree San Diego, while also creating new collaborations with corporate sponsors, individual donors, and utility companies. Other opportunities may exist to partner with additional nonprofit organizations, such as Urban Corps of San Diego, which was recently awarded $1.25 million in Proposition 68 funding. La Mesa also has many opportunities to create partnerships with large corporations that could provide one-time or ongoing support to City urban forest activities. Partnerships with utility companies have proven to be reliable source of funding for tree planting efforts where there is a shared objective. As an example, Los Angeles has an on-going funding partnership with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power that helps support tree planting activities as an energy savings program. Finally, a City-wide tree fund would provide an opportunity for individual donors to support City tree efforts and could be focused on increasing canopy cover in areas most in need of trees.
Joint Powers Authority
Multiple public agencies have an interest in tree management activities in San Diego County. Street trees help mitigate air quality impacts of freeways and other major roadways and retain and divert stormwater runoff from the sewer system.
Overlapping interests in street trees may create an opportunity for a unified urban forestry program, such as a Joint Powers Authority, to coordinate on planting and maintenance and engage in cost-sharing. This requires additional analysis of issues such as feasibility, potential cost savings, the involvement of other agencies and organizations, and fair share contributions that reflect the relative benefits enjoyed by the various parties.
Community Benefit
Districts
Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) are used to finance neighborhood revitalization, commonly in commercial areas.
Special benefits typically include public safety, economic development, beautification, and streetscape improvements.
Formation of a CBD requires property owners to petition the appropriate local agency and demonstrate an interest in paying for additional services. A non-profit Board of Directors typically comprised of property owners, businesses, and government representatives administers a CBD. While CBDs may include street tree planting and maintenance, this is rarely the focus.
References
California Releaf. 2021. Public and Private Funding. https://californiareleaf.org/resources/public-grants/ City of San Francisco. 2013. Financing San Francisco’s Urban Forest 2013 https://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/ urban-forest-plan/UFP_Street_Tree_Report_FINAL_Dec_2013.pdf Voght, J., R.J. Hauer, and B.C. Fischer. 2015. “The Costs of Maintaining and Not Maintaining the Urban Forest: A Review of the Urban Forestry and Arboriculture Literature.” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41(6): 293–323. https://wwv.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/Vogt_ AUFNov2015.pdf.
CITY OF LA MESA – URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 256
Prepared by:
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 14, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement
Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the Park Development Impact Fee Update Study (2022
Study).
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council adopt a resolution revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the 2022 Study? Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the 2022 Study.
Fiscal Impact:
Subject to City Council direction to adopt the updated Park Development Impact Fees, the City would receive additional park improvements revenue dependent on future development activity.
BACKGROUND:
The City establishes Park In-lieu and Park Impact Fees under the authority granted by the Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act. The purpose of these fees is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of capital costs associated with growth. The City
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 14, 2022
Page: 2 of 4
reviews and updates fee amounts periodically to ensure that public amenities such as parks serve current and future generations of residents and businesses. Park fees provide the City with necessary funding to make capital improvements at public parks that include play equipment, courts, facilities, and other needed improvements.
Section 9.20.060 of the La Mesa Municipal Code provides that a revision of the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Fee can be made by the City based on changes in the cost of land acquisition or park improvements (or both). The City has not revised park fees since 2005. Since the last time the City adopted the current fees, costs associated with park improvements, including land acquisition and facility construction, have risen significantly. The City utilizes a variety of funding sources, such as grants, to provide funding for park projects.
However, these grants are often competitive and are not a guaranteed funding source for the City. The proposed changes to park fees discussed below would provide funding more consistent with the current cost of park improvement costs.
DISCUSSION:
At the April 26, 2022, City Council meeting, staff presented the findings from the Park Development Impact Fee Update Study (2022 Study) performed by Willdan Financial Services (Willdan). The 2022 Study recommended increases in the fee amounts for both the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Fee for single and multi-family developments. At the meeting, City Council directed staff to bring back for Council consideration the fees calculated based on a per square foot basis for single family and multi-family developments and to exempt deed restricted affordable units from both fees. Willdan has recalculated the fees to a per square foot fee per dwelling unit as follows:
Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee $5.54 PSF
(Quimby Act)
Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee $2.93 PSF
(Mitigation Fee Act)
Using building permit data from the Community Development Department, Willdan determined that the average size single family unit built over the last five years in La Mesa is 2,065 square feet and the average multi-family unit is 973 square feet. The average size overall unit is 1,552 square feet. A comparison of the cost per dwelling unit of the previously recommended fee amounts and the recalculated per square foot amounts for both fees for an average size single family and multi-family unit is as follows:
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 14, 2022
Page: 3 of 4
Previous Per Square
Recommended Fee Foot Fee
Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee
(for subdivisions only)
Single Family $9,622 $11,440
Multi-family $7,544 $5,390
Park Acquisition and Improvement
Impact Fee
Single Family $5,092 $6,050
Multi-family $3,992 $2,850
With both park impact fees not having been updated since their adoptions in 2005, the 2022 Study recommends a phased fee implementation over a five-year timeframe. The table below shows the 2022 Study’s recommended phased implementation for the recalculated per square foot fees for both fees.
If a phased implementation is approved, Year 1 fee amounts would be added to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Fee Schedule and subsequent year amounts would be added each year through Fiscal Year 2026-2027. Annually thereafter, each fee would be adjusted using the California Construction Cost Index. The fee amounts would be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of the Study (2020).
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 14, 2022
Page: 4 of 4
If approved, staff recommends formalizing the exemption of deed restricted units from both fees by adding the exemption to the Exceptions to the Cost Recovery Policy in Section 3 of the City’s Fee Schedule.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the 2022 Study.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________
Greg Humora Carlo Tomaino
City Manager Assistant City Manager
____________________
Lyn Dedmon
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachment A: Willdan Park Development Impact Fee Update Study Attachment B: City Council Resolution
CITY OF LA MESA
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
UPDATE
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
MAY 20, 2022
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2 Background and Study Objectives 2
Public Facilities Financing in California 2
Organization of the Report 2
Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach 3
2. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................ 4 Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees 4
Land Use Types 4
Growth Projections for City of La Mesa 4
Occupant Density 5
3. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES ................................................ 6 Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 6
City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards 7
Parkland Unit Costs 9
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 10
Parks Facilities Cost per Capita 10
Use of Fee Revenue 11
Fee Schedules 11
4. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 13 Compliance with AB 602 13
5. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 16 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 16
Fee Implementation 16
Fee Accounting 17
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 17
6. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 18 Purpose of Fee 18
Use of Fee Revenues 18
Benefit Relationship 18
Burden Relationship 19
Proportionality 19
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 20
2 1. Introduction
This report summarizes an analysis of the need for parks and recreation facilities and related capital improvements to support future development within the City of La Mesa through 2035. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of these facilities and improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a park development impact fee.
The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the City’s park development impact fee program all fall into the parks and recreation facilities category.
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. To fulfill this objective, public agencies should review and update their fee programs periodically to incorporate the best available information. The primary purpose of this report is to update fees that incorporate current park acquisition and development costs needed to maintain the City’s parkland standards and serve future growth.
The City adopts development impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
Depending on the characteristics of the development project, the City may use the Quimby Act to calculate impact fees. The Quimby Act allows a city to require developers to dedicate at least three acres and up to five acres per 1,000 residents, if the city’s existing park standard as of the last Census justifies the higher level.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide.
Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a development impact fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 3 Chapter 3 is devoted to documenting the maximum justified park development impact fee for based on maintaining the City’s current park standards.
Chapter 5 describes the fee implementation process. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed development impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025) are summarized in Chapter 6.
Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach
A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service demand. Examples of facility standards include building square feet per capita and park acres per capita. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the value of facilities per capita, or the value of improvements per acre or per capita. The adopted facility standard is a critical component in determining development’s need for new facilities and the amount of the fee. Standards determine new development’s fair share of planned facilities and ensure that new development maintains the City’s existing park infrastructure standards.
The parks development impact fees calculated in this report use an existing inventory demand standard translated into facility costs per capita to determine new development’s fair share of planned facility costs. A cost standard provides a reasonable method for converting disparate types of facilities, in this case parkland and special use recreational facilities, into a single measure of demand (capital cost per capita). The cost standard justified is based on the existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities. Under this approach, new development is required to fund new parkland and park facilities at the same level of service as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.
4 2. Land Use Assumptions
This chapter describes the projections of growth used in this study. The existing service population in 2020 is used as the base year of the study and the planning horizon is the year 2035. This chapter also describes the sources of the unit costs for land and buildings used in this study.
Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees
Estimates of the existing service population and projections of growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2020 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • Estimates of total development in 2035 are used to determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate the future service population. • Estimates of existing and new development are used to allocate the fair share of total planned facility costs between existing and new development.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. Fees have been calculated on a per square foot basis for all residential development.
Growth Projections for City of La Mesa
Park and recreation facilities in La Mesa primarily serve residents in the City of La Mesa.
Therefore, residents comprise the park and recreation facilities service population.
The base year for this study is the year 2020. The planning horizon is 2035. Resident growth between 2020 and 2035 comprises the growth increment in this analysis. The projection for 2035 is based on population projections provided by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Table 1 shows estimates of the growth in terms of residents between 2020 and 2035.
Table 1: Parks Service Population
Residents
Census 2020 61,121
Growth (2020 - 2035) 5,378
Total (2035) 66,499
Sources: CA DOF, Table E-5, 2021; SANDAG 2050 Subregional Grow th Forecast; Willdan Financial Services.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 5 Occupant Density
Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The development impact fees in this study are first calculated for a hypothetical dwelling unit occupied by the average number of residents per unit as currently exists in the City. The result is subsequently divided by the average sized dwelling unit in the City to determine a fee per square foot of residential building space.
The average occupant density per dwelling unit used in this report is shown in Table 2. The residential density factor is based on data for La Mesa from the 2019 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available. The factor is derived from Tables B25024 and B25033. Total residents are divided by a count of total dwelling units to determine the average occupants per dwelling unit.
Table 2: Occupant Density
All Dwelling Units 2.36 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 5-Year American Community Survey, Tables B25024 and B25033; Willdan Financial Services.
6 3. Parks & Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new park and recreation facilities demanded by new development. This analysis documents two separate fees based on the Quimby Act and the Mitigation Fee Act. The City would collect the fee in-lieu of land dedication based on a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents if the development was subject to the Quimby Act land dedication requirement. For all other development, the City would collect based on the existing standard through the Mitigation Fee Act. The City would only collect one of the two fees depending on which was appropriate. Fees for the improvement of parkland are calculated at the existing facility standard for all development. Under this approach, new development is required to fund parks at the same level as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of La Mesa maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the City. Table 3 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits.
The City has revised this inventory from the prior impact fee analysis based on the latest information available.
Table 3: Parkland Inventory
Developed
Acreage
Regional Parks
Harry Griffen Regional Park 53.00
Community Parks
MacArthur Park 22.22
Neighborhood Parks
Aztec Park 3.96
Jackson Park 3.68
Sunset Park 6.69
Briercrest 3.00
La Mesita Park/Junior Seau Sports Complex 12.85
Northmont Park 5.05
Highwood Park 8.00
Rolando Park 3.56
Sunshine Park 2.31
Vista La Mesa Park 2.74
Collier Park 7.70
Porter Park 0.83
Subtotal - Neighborhood Parks 60.37
Total - Developed Parkland 135.59
Source: City of La Mesa.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 7 Table 4 displays the City’s park building inventory. The estimates of buildings sizes and replacement costs were provided from the City’s most recent insurance valuation. The total replacement cost of these facilities is divided by the City’ existing park acreage to determine a building cost per acre assumption.
Table 4: Recreation Building Inventory
Description Address
Building
Square Feet
Replacement
Cost
Aztec Park Restrooms 7945 Morocco Dr. 560 $ 124,618
Briercrest Park Restrooms 9000 Wakarusa St. 834 159,791 City Hall 8130 Allison Ave. 14,998 3,178,948
City Hall Annex 1 8130 Allison Ave. 2,400 300,253
City Hall Annex 2 8130 Allison Ave. 960 126,079
Collier Park Restrooms 4401 Palm Ave. 1,288 124,731
Collier Park Storage Bldg. 4401 Palm Ave. 280 55,623
Community Center 4975 Memorial Dr. 11,631 2,323,027
Harry Griffen Regional Park Restrooms & Maintenance Facility 9550 Milden Street 1,152 176,645 Highwood Park Boys & Girls Club Facility 4200 Parks Ave. 3,840 455,661 Highwood Park Restrooms 4200 Parks Ave. 288 57,646
Jackson Park Restrooms 5870 Jackson Dr. 540 127,652
La Mesita Park/Junior Seau Sports Complex Restrooms 1 8855 Dallas St. 616 136,866 La Mesita Park/Junior Seau Sports Complex Restrooms 2 8855 Dallas St. 1,400 203,951 MacArthur Park Community Garden Building 5080 Memorial Dr. 1,152 166,215 MacArthur Park Restrooms 5080 Memorial Dr. 352 13,851
Nan Couts Cottage 5045 Memorial Dr. 2,220 382,733
Northmont Park Restrooms 6030 Severin Dr. 720 160,128
Pool Complex Building 5100 Memorial Dr. 11,653 1,414,065 Porter Hall Center 4910 Memorial Dr. 2,289 469,931
Recreation Center 4975 Memorial Dr. 7,380 1,210,788
Rolando Park Baseball Field Bldg. 1 6600 Vigo Dr. 234 46,072 Rolando Park Baseball Field Bldg. 2 6600 Vigo Dr. 288 30,453 Rolando Park Restrooms 6600 Vigo Dr. 528 14,382
Sunset Gymnasium 5540 Lake Pkwy. 5,200 844,348
Sunset Park Restrooms 5540 Lake Park Way 540 121,585
Sunshine Park Restrooms 4554 70th St. 672 152,374
Vista La Mesa Park Restrooms 3900 King St. 564 107,314
Total 12,685,730 74,579 $
Developed Park Acres 135.59
Building Cost per Acre $ 93,559
Source: City of La Mesa.
City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.
1 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for land acquisition for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act to 1 California Government Code §66477.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 8 require parkland dedication, or a fee in-lieu of dedication for development occurring in subdivisions.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for development impact fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.2 A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facility standard is to use the City’s existing ratio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, new development is required to fund new parkland and park facilities at the same level as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.
The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.
The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities.
City of La Mesa Parkland and Park Facilities Standards
Table 5 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. In total the City had an existing parkland standard of 2.22 acres per 1,000 residents as of the 2020 Census, which allows the City to assess at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents under the Quimby Act.
For development not subject to the Quimby Act, the fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining a standard of 2.22 acres of park improvements per 1,000 residents as new development adds demand for parks in La Mesa.
2 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Chapter 5.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 9 Table 5: Park Facilities Level of Service Standards
Mitigation Fee
Act Standard1
Quimby Act
Standard2
Total - Improved Park Acreage 135.59 135.59
Service Population (Residents) 61,121 61,121
Level of Service Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.22 2.22 Policy Standard 3.00
1 Existing park standard.
Sources: Tables 1 and 3; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Park standard in 2020, as of the last Federal Census. Under the Quimby Act the City can require dedication or the payment of fees in-lieu of dedication at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
Parkland Unit Costs
Table 6 shows the estimated cost per acre for developing parkland, including land acquisition.
The land value assumption of $1.2 million per acre is based on an analysis of land sales comparisons since 2019 in La Mesa. The assumed cost of park improvements is based on a recent City CIP project and includes the typical improvements that the City would include in a standard park, but excludes special use facilities such as pools or recreation centers. Also included in the improvement cost assumption is the per-acre cost of vehicles, equipment, and park buildings.
In total it costs over $2 million to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in La Mesa.
Table 6: Parkland Unit Costs
Item
Cost
Per Acre
Land Acquisition1$1,191,000
Improvements
Park Buildings $ 93,559
Vehicles and Equipment 8,163
Standard Park Improvements2
750,000
Improvements Total $ 851,722
Total $2,042,722
1 Based on analysis of sales w ithin La Mesa in the last tw o years. 2 Based on assumed improvement cost of 1 acre park site.
Source: City of La Mesa; Tables 4 and A.1, Willdan Financial Services.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 10 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 7 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard and park land acquisition at the Quimby standard, respectively. To achieve the standards by the planning horizon, new development must fund the acquisition of up to 16.13 parkland acres, and the improvement of 11.94 acres. Depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, the cost total cost would range between $10.2 million and $29.4 million.
The fee revenue would be higher if all development occurred in subdivisions because then that development would fund land acquisition and park improvements. Infill development is only asked to fund park improvements under the Mitigation Fee Act. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 7 presents the range of total facility costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development occurring in subdivisions.
Table 7: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total Range1
Parkland (charged under Quimby Act), Improvements (charged under Mitigation Fee Act) 2 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 3.00 2.22
Resident Growth (2020-2035) B 5,378 5,378
Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 16.13 11.94
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 1,191,000 851,722
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development E = C x D $ 19,210,830 $ 10,169,561 $ 29,380,391 Improvements - (charged under Mitigation Fee Act) 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) F - 2.22
Resident Growth (2020-2035) G - 5,378
Facility Needs (acres) H = (G / 1,000) / F - 11.94
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ - 851,722
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development I = H x D $ - $ 10,169,561 $ 10,169,561 Note: Totals rounded to the thousands.
Sources: Tables 1, 5 and 6.
2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act and pays the fee in-lieu of land dedication. The City can require the payment of the in-lieu fees for subdivisions containing less than 50 parcels. Subdivisions of 50 or more parcels can dedicate land, or pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. Parkland charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; improvements charged at the existing standard.
3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Fee for park improvements is charged at the existing standard.
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.
Parks Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 8 shows the cost per capita of providing new park land acquisition and park facilities at the Quimby and Mitigation Fee Act standards, respectively. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of two fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 11 • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development. Development occurring in subdivisions pays this fee in addition to the Quimby fee in-lieu of land dedication.
Table 8: Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee1Impact Fee2
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 1,191,000 $ 851,722
Existing Level of Service (acres per 1,000 residents) B 3.00 2.22 Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B $ 3,573,000 $ 1,890,800 Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 3,573 $ 1,891
1 Fee in-lieu of land dedication applicable to subdivisions. 2 Mitigation Fee Act fee for park improvements applicable to all residential development.
Sources: Tables 6 and 7; Willdan Financial Services.
Land
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park development impact fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park and recreation facilities that serves new development.
The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.
Fee revenue collected under the Quimby Act can also be used to rehabilitate park facilities, in addition to acquiring new parkland.
Fee Schedules
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvements. These cost factors (shown in Table 8) are based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.
Table 9 shows the park development impact fee schedules based on the minimum Quimby standard and the existing standard facility, respectively. The City would collect the fee based on only one of the two approaches as appropriate. The Quimby fee in-lieu of land dedication is applicable to development occurring in subdivisions at the Quimby standard. The park improvement fee charged under the Mitigation Fee Act is applicable to all residential development and is based on the City’s existing standard.
The cost per capita from Table 8 is multiplied by the average residents per dwelling unit to determine the base fee. An administrative charge of two percent of the base fee is added to the base fee. The result is then divided by the average sized dwelling unit in the City, 1,552 square feet. This assumption was developed based on new building permit data collected since 2017 for single family and multifamily units in La Mesa. The average sized single family unit and average sized multifamily unit were weighted by the existing quantities of each type of unit to determine the average sized unit, across all unit types.
The administrative charge funds costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 12 Table 9: Park Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 3,573 2.36 $ 8,432 $ 169 $ 8,601 $ 5.54
1,891
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee
(Quimby Act)
Residential Dwelling Unit $
Park Acquisition and Improvement
Impact Fee (Mitigation Fee Act)
Residential Dwelling Unit $
2.36 $ 4,463 $ 89 $ 4,552 $ 2.93
1 Persons per dw elling unit.
3 Total fee per dw elling unit divided by the average sized dw elling unit in La Mesa.
Sources: Tables 2 and 8; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
13 4. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Three key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.
Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service
Since the park impact fees are calculated under the existing standard methodology, the resulting fees ensure that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service and do not fund a level of service that is higher than currently exists. The existing level service in terms of acres per 1,000 residents is calculated in Table 5.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Table 10 reviews the key assumptions from the 2005 study and compares them to the assumptions used in this 2022 fee study. While the City’s parkland standard has decreased overtime, the cost to acquire and improve parkland has increased significantly, which has subsequently increased the resulting maximum justified park impact fees.
Table 10: Review of 2005 Study Assumptions
2005 Study 2022 Study
Existing Facility Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.41 2.22 Cost per Acre Land Acquisition $ 500,750 $ 1,191,000
Park Improvements $ 250,000 $ 851,722
Residents per Single Family Unit 2.53 N/A
Residents per Multifamily Unit 1.84 N/A
Residents per All Residential Units N/A 2.36
Sources: Park Facilities Fee Study, City of La Mesa, 2005; Tables 2, 5, and 6, Willdan Financial Services.
Table 11 displays annual park impact fee revenue collected between 2010 and 2020. The table also displays the average annual revenue during this time period.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 14 Table 11: Annual Park Impact
Fee Revenue
Year Fee Revenue
2010 $ 1,559
2011 3,118
2012 1,559
2013 6,236
2014 148,983
2015 269,206
2016 114,015
2017 14,465
2018 58,645
2019 238,859
2020 274,037
2021 1,559
2022 83,777
Total (2010 - 2022) $ 1,216,018
Annual Average $ 93,540
Source: City of La Mesa.
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised shown below in Table 12.
Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP.
Projects that are rehabbing or retrofitting existing facilities have been excluded from this list. Note that the projects shown in the CIP are not intended to be fully funded with park impact fee revenue; rather, they are capacity expanding projects that are eligible for park impact fee revenue. The exact amount of park impact fee revenue programmed to a given project will be determined annually though the City’s capital planning process.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 15 Table 12: FY 2022 Parks Capital Improvement Plan
Account
Number Description
Reappropriation
Total
306042PF Waite Dr Park Design $ 19,740
306124PF Trail Fitness Equipment at La Mesita Park 15,000 306153PF La Mesita Park Improvements 31,380
306162PF Collier and Vista La Mesa Park Improvements 16 2,320 306171PF Collier Park Improvements 46,260
306181PF Collier and Vista La Mesa Park Improvements 18 6,560 306182PF MacArthur Park Improvements 18 4,820
306190CD Collier Park Improvements 19 122,350
306191PF Collier and MacArthur Park Improvements 125,530 306200CD Collier Park Phase II 20 375,130
306200PF Collier Park Phase II 20 337,870
306202GF MacArthur Park Master Plan 17,860
306210CD Collier Park Improvements 21 419,680
306210PF Collier Park Improvements 21 285,680
306220OT Prop 68 Per Capita - Collier Park Improvements 215,400 306221CD Collier Park Improvements 22 327,690
306222PF Collier Park Improvements 22 1,560
306223OT MacArthur Park EIR (SB 129 Sec 19.55) 150,000
306226OT Waite Drive Park Master Plan (SB 129 Sec 19.55) 100,000 306227OT Collier Park Phase II (SB 129 Sec 19.55) 230,000 306224GF Highwood Park Improvements 100,000
306225GF MacArthur Park Dog Park 25,000
Total $ 2,959,830
Source: La Mesa FY2022 Capital Improvement Program.
16 5. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council follow certain procedures including holding a public meeting. A fourteen-day mailed public notice is required for those registering for such notification. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. Legal counsel should inform the City of any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect; this procedure must also be followed for fee increases.
Fee Implementation
The City may consider different options to implement the maximum justified Quimby Fee and Mitigation Fee outlined in Table 9 that are based on the minimum Quimby standard and the City’s existing standard for park improvements. The recommended fees can be adopted by the La Mesa City Council via resolution at a Council meeting determined by the City. With both park development impact fees not having been updated since their adoption in 2005, a phased-in implementation is recommended. Table 13 shows what this implementation would look like over a five-year timeframe.
Table 13: Five-Year Phase in Fee Schedule
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee
Residential Dwelling Unitsper Square Foot1
$ 0.99 $ 1.90 $ 2.81 $ 3.72 $ 4.63 $ 5.54
Park Improvement Impact Fee
Residential Dwelling Unitsper Square Foot2
0.40$ 0.91$ 1.41$ 1.92$ 2.43$ 2.93$
Sources: City of La Mesa; Table 9, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Fees are currently charged by dw elling unit. Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 1,552 square feet per average dw elling unit and $1,532 cost per capita.
2 Fees are currently charged by dw elling unit. Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 1,552 square feet per average dw elling unit and $615 cost per capita.
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation annually at the conclusion of year five. Such adjustments will ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend the California Construction Cost Index (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-DivisionResources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation. The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California. The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2020).
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 17 While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.
Fee Accounting
The City should deposit fee revenues into separate restricted fee accounts for each of the fee categories identified in this report. Fees collected for a given facility category should only be expended on new park facilities of that same category.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City should commit all projected fee revenues and fund balances to specific projects in its Capital Improvements Program. These should represent the types of facilities needed to serve growth and described in this report. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The CIP also provides the documentation necessary for the City to hold funds in a project account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient monies to complete a project.
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.
18 6. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Fees are assessed and typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on new development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties).
To guide the imposition of facilities fees, the California State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code §§66000 – 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fees. The Act requires local agencies to document five statutory findings when adopting fees.
The five findings in the Act required for adoption of the maximum justified fees documented in this report are: 1) Purpose of fee, 2) Use of fee Revenues, 3) Benefit Relationship, 4) Burden Relationship, and 5) Proportionality. These required findings are each discussed below and are supported throughout this report.
Purpose of Fee
• Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).
We understand that it is the policy of the City that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide capital facilities to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
• Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City. Fees addressed in this report will be used to fund park and recreation facilities.
Descriptions of the planned facilities such as the total acreage and costs needed to maintain existing facility standards are included in Chapter 3 of this report. More thorough descriptions of certain planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are included in master plans, capital improvement plans, or other City planning documents or are available from City staff. The City may change the list of planned facilities to meet changing needs and circumstances of new development, as it deems necessary. The fees should be updated if these amendments result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new development.
Planned facilities to be funded by the fees are described in the City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards, or the Facility Needed to Accommodate New Development sections in Chapter 3 of this report.
Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 19 We expect the City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, and vehicles used to serve new development as described above under the “Use of Fee Revenues” finding. The City will keep fees in segregated accounts. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development paying the fees.
Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For park facilities, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. The demand for parks facilities is based on residential population.
The standards used to identify facility needs are also used to determine if the planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the share of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Land Use Assumptions, provides a description of how service population and growth projections are calculated. Facility standards are described in the City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards section of Chapter 3.
Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated service population that will be generated by the project. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s square footage. New development projects with greater square footage can result in a higher service population, resulting in higher fee revenue than projects with less square footage.
Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Land Use Assumptions for a description of how facility demand factors are determined for residential uses. See the Fee Schedule section of Chapter 3 for a presentation of the maximum justified facilities fees.
20 Appendix
Appendix Table A.1: Park Vehicles and Special Equipment Inventory Div Unit Make Model Year Cost
3108 342 VERMEER 1250 CHIPPER 1993 $ 19,770
3108 340 FREIGHTLINER TREE TRUCK 2014 121,650
3108 343 VERMEER BC1000XL BRUSH CHIPPER 2015 36,301
5150 556 TUCHE 300 GAL. TANK 1989 8,831
5150 308 HYDATEK PRESSURE WASHER - 18HP 1990 7,646
5150 595 DITCH WITCH TRAILER 2001 7,746
5150 520 FORD F150 2001 22,140
5150 519 CHEVROLET 1500 2001 18,034
5150 514 GMC SIERRA 1500 2004 15,231
5150 510 GMC SERRIA 1500 2004 15,231
5150 517 GMC SIERRA 1500-FF 2007 24,367
5150 503 CHEVROLET PK 2008 19,751
5150 504 CHEVROLET PK 2008 19,751
5150 502 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 2008 18,733
5150 505 CHEVROLET PK 2008 19,751
5150 501 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 2008 18,733
5150 541 CHEVROLET DUMP TRUCK 2009 39,849
5150 507 FORD F150 2011 20,172
5150 537 FREIGHTLINER M2106 DUMP BODY 2014 97,456
5150 512 FORD F-350 XL STANDARD CAB UTILITY 2015 40,770 5150 338 PETERBILT 367 DUMP 2016 165,030
5150 508 FORD F-350 2017 48,383
5150 509 FORD F-250 2017 29,183
5150 592 PJ MOWER TRAILER 2017 4,389
5150 593 PJ T6182 TRAILER 2019 7,968
5150 500 FORD F-150 CREW CAB 2020 28,748
5150 515 FORD F-150 REGULAR CAB 2020 29,656
5152 511 GMC SIERRA 1500 2004 15,231
5153 356 HOTSY WATER PRESSURE WASHER 2016 17,059
5150 561 TORO GROUND PRO 2000 2001 13,840
5150 162 DITCH WITCH DWIT2528 1030H 2001 7,746
5150 558 OLATH LAWN SWEEPER 1986 12,879
5150 553 MATE R MATIC TOPDRESSER 1997 7,088
5150 HYDROTEK PR3005 1990 7,646
5150 JOHN DEERE 210LJ 2008 78,968
5150 558 TORO GROUNDSMASTER 3280D 2015 25,323
5150 561 JOHN DEERE TE GATOR 2018 15,707
Total $1,106,760
Developed Park Acres 135.59
Vehicles and Equipment Cost per Acre. $ 8,163
Source: City of La Mesa.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA REVISING
THE QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK
ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE BASED ON THE FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PARK DEVELOMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY (2022 STUDY)
WHEREAS, the City imposes the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee under the authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act;
WHEREAS, the purpose of these fees is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of capital costs related to park development and improvements; WHEREAS, Section 9.20.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code outlines the use of Park In-Lieu and Park Impact Fees;
WHEREAS, at the April 27, 2021, City Council meeting, the City Council authorized City staff to proceed with a study of both fees to determine if a revision to the fees is necessary;
WHEREAS, the City solicited bids from qualified consultants and selected Willdan Financial Services to perform the study;
WHEREAS, the study completed by Willdan justifies and warrants an increase to both fees that is phased in over a five-year timeframe to be adjusted annually thereafter using the California Construction Cost Index;
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby accept and approve the findings and conclusions of the Park Development Impact Fee Update Study (2022 Study); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did hold a public hearing on June 14, 2022 to consider revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Mesa hereby finds the following:
1. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are true and hereby made a part hereof.
2. The City Council resolves to revise the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the recommendation of the 2022 Study, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; the 2022 Study, as of the effective date of this Resolution, shall be kept on file of the Office of the City Clerk.
ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of June 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(Seal of the City)
MARK ARAPOSTATHIS
Mayor
“Dr. A”
June 14, 2022
The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary of Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary Buttigieg:
On behalf of the City of La Mesa, I am writing to express support of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) application for funding from the National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) and the Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA) grant programs as part of the Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Opportunity.
SANDAG and Caltrans are requesting funding for the State Route 94 (SR-94)/State Route 125 (SR-125) Interchange Improvements Project (Project). SR-94 and SR-125 are important routes that connect commuters in east San Diego County to employment centers in west San Diego County and serve as an integral part of the regional, national, and international freight network taking goods to and from the border with Mexico. The Project will provide the missing connection between southbound (SB) SR-125 and eastbound (EB) SR-94. Implementation of the Project will reduce vehicle idling in the area, which will provide greenhouse gas emission reductions and bring environmental justice to the disadvantaged communities. Additionally, vehicular use of local streets and arterials in La Mesa and the County of San Diego will be reduced, preserving the local road network and providing the space necessary for bicycle and pedestrian enhancements.
The Project will improve traffic flow, travel time reliability, and freight movement, and will fulfill the primary MPDG goals of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction, climate change resiliency, environmental justice, and equity for low-income and historically disadvantaged communities.
The City of La Mesa thanks the Office of the Secretary for its consideration of the Project.
Sincerely,
MARK ARAPOSTATHIS
MAYOR
CITY OF LA MESA
DATE: June 14, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmembers Colin Parent and Bill Baber
SUBJECT: Resolution to Support CARE Court Program ("SB-1338") Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Court is a new proposal from Governor Gavin Newsom to get people with mental health and substance use disorders the support and care they need. Legislation was introduced by Senators Umberg and Eggman, San Joaquin County (SB 1338).
CARE Court is aimed at helping the thousands of Californians who are suffering from untreated schizophrenia spectrum or psychotic disorders that too often lead to homelessness, incarceration, institutionalization, or premature death.
CARE Court connects a person struggling with untreated mental illness – and often also substance use challenges – with a court-ordered Care Plan for up to 24 months. Each plan is managed by a care team in the community and can include clinically prescribed, individualized interventions with several supportive services, medication, and a housing plan. The clientcentered approach also includes a public defender and supporter to help make self-directed care decisions in addition to their full clinical team, as well as opportunities for early engagement and settlement agreements for treatment plans.
CARE Court is designed on the evidence that many people can stabilize, begin healing, and exit homelessness in less restrictive, community-based care settings. It's a long-term strategy to positively impact the individual in care and the community around them. The plan advances an upstream diversion from more restrictive conservatorships or incarceration.
The CARE Court response can be initiated by family, county and community-based social services, behavioral health providers, or first responders. Individuals exiting a short-term involuntary hospital hold or a misdemeanor arrest may be especially good candidates for CARE Court. The Care Plan can be ordered for up to 12 months, with periodic review hearings and subsequent renewal for up to another 12 months.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 1338, COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE,
RECOVERY, AND EMPOWERMENT (CARE) COURT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, mental illness and drug addiction are issues that face many individuals and families, and too often lead to homelessness, incarceration, institutionalization, or premature death; WHEREAS, addressing the challenges of homelessness, mental illness, and drug abuse results in significant costs to the residents of the City; WHEREAS, the 2022 Point-in-Time Count of the City of La Mesa (the "City") showed that the City has a modest but meaningful homeless population; WHEAREAS, the City of La Mesa adopted a Homeless Action Plan, after receiving advice from the La Mesa Citizen Task Force on Homelessness; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa entered into a Memorandum of Understanding between cities in east San Diego County and the County of San Diego; WHEREAS, in addition to the shortage of available and affordable homes, mental illness and drug addiction are contributing factors for many people experiencing homelessness; and WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom has presented legislation that will address mental illness and drug use—the legislation is referred to as SB-1338 Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program ("SB-1338"), to get people with mental health and substance use disorders the support and care they need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the La Mesa City Council hereby supports SB-1338, and authorizes staff and individual City Councilmembers to support SB-1338 on behalf of the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of June 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022-xxx, duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
(Seal of the City)
DATE: June 14, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vice Mayor Jack Shu and Councilmember Colin Parent SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ANNUALLY PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF JUNE IN LA MESA AS LGBTQ+ MONTH AND FLYING A
REPRESENTATIVE FLAG DURING THIS TIME FRAM