La Mesa City Council
August 9, 2022

LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

A Regular Meeting

Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022, 6:00 p.m.

Location: City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Elected
Officials:

Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Colin Parent
Councilmember Bill Baber
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Jack Shu
City Treasurer Eldon Vogt
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
In-Person/Virtual Hybrid City Council Meeting Pursuant to AB 361 (Government Code Section 54953(e)(1)-(2))
The City Council meeting may be viewed in-person or live on Cox Cable Channel 24 (within La Mesa City limits), AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 (in the San Diego Region), the City’s website (www.cityoflamesa.us), Facebook Live (www.facebook.com/lamesaca) or using the following Zoom Webinar options:

The public may view the meeting live using the following remote options:

Teleconference Meeting Webinar
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84472650722
Telephone (Audio only)
(669) 900-6833 or (253) 215-8782 Webinar ID: 844 7265 0722 Copy and paste the webinar link into your internet browser if the webinar link does not work directly from the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
In-Person comments during the meeting: Join us for the City Council meeting at the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments. Please complete a “Request to Speak” card and submit it to the Council Hostess. When the Mayor calls your name, step to the podium and state your name for the record. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes.
•
Zoom Audio Comments: To provide oral public comments during the meeting, join the Zoom meeting by computer, mobile phone, or dial in number. On Zoom video conference by computer or mobile phone, use the “Raise Hand” feature. This will notify the moderator that you wish to speak during a specific item on the agenda or during non-agenda Public Comment. Members of the public will not be shown on video but will be able to speak when called upon. If joining the meeting using the Zoom dial-in number, you may raise your hand by pressing *9. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. No further comments will be entertained after the Mayor closes public comment. •
How to submit eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published.

Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until 24 hours prior to the meeting. eComments are limited to 500 words. eComments may be viewed by the City Council and members of the public following the close of the eComment submission period (24 hours prior to the meeting). Email your comment to [email protected] if you have difficulty submitting an eComment. eComments will not be read aloud as a regular meeting item; however any member of the Council or member of the public may do so during their respective comment time. •
Citizens who wish to make an audio/visual presentation pertaining to an item on the agenda, or during Public Comments, should contact the City Clerk’s office at 619.667.1120, no later than 5:00 p.m., the Thursday prior to the meeting day. Advance notification will ensure compatibility with City equipment and allow Council meeting presentations to progress smoothly and in a consistent and equitable manner. Please note that all presentations/digital materials are considered part of the maximum time limit provided to speakers.

Agenda reports for items on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of La Mesa encourages the participation of disabled individuals in the services, activities and programs provided by the City. Individuals with disabilities, who require reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the City Council meetings, should contact the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator, Rida Freeman, Director of Administrative Services, 48 hours prior to the meeting at 619.667.1175, fax 619.667.1163, or [email protected].

Hearing assisted devices are available for the hearing impaired. A City staff member is available to provide these devices upon entry to City Council meetings, commission meetings or public hearings held in the City Council Chambers. A photo i.d. or signature will be required to secure a device for the meeting.

Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

1.1. INVOCATION - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS

1.2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. ANNUAL ROTATION OF THE VICE MAYOR 1

3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

5. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS

6. PRESENTATIONS

6.1. BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2

6.2. CITY TREASURER'S QUARTERLY REPORT 16

7. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
NOTE: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take any action on the item at this meeting.

If appropriate, the item will be referred to Staff or placed on a future agenda.

9. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES

10. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 10.1 through 10.8)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.

Recommended Motion:

Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.8.

10.1. APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT

OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.2. APPROVAL FOR COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN TO ATTEND THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND
EXPO IN LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FROM SEPTEMBER 7, 2022
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
25 Staff Reference: Mr. Humora
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.3. RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, AS AMENDED BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361,

AND RE-AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED USE OF VIRTUAL

AND/OR HYBRID MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES
BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
26 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.4. ACCEPTANCE OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF LA MESA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
30 Staff Reference: Mr. Vogt
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.5. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
61 Staff Reference: Ms. Royales
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.6. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ROESLING

NAKAMURA TERADA ARCHITECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR

THE LA MESA BRANCH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY

AND APPROPRIATION OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES
64 Staff Reference: Mr. Tomaino
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.7. RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID 19-19 RENEWAL OPTION 3, TYPE B

ASPHALT CONCRETE, TO SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE AND

MARTIN MARIETTA
143
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.8. COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PHASE 2 RESOLUTIONS 151
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FISCAL YEAR 2023

COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR THE COLLIER
PARK RENOVATION PROJECT PHASE 2
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.
b. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LOW BIDDER FOR BID 23-
05 AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR
COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT PHASE 2 TO DE
LA FUENTE CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND APPROPRIATION

OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.
c. RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION CONTRACT FOR
COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT PHASE 2 TO

SCHNEIDER CM
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.
d. RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

SERVICES CONTRACT FOR COLLIER PARK RENOVATION
PROJECT PHASE 2 TO NV5 INC.

Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

11. HEARING

11.1. RECONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PROJECT 2017-31 (CUP 17-88)
(HILLSIDE) -
183

A REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED STOREFRONT
RETAIL MEDICINAL CANNABIS USE AT 7901 HILLSIDE DRIVE
Staff Reference: Mr. Kusiak
Recommended Motion:

Rescind the City Council’s decision on February 22, 2022, to honor the appeal and deny the project;

1. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Project 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) based on the findings and subject to conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution PC-2021-17, thus denying the appeal; and

2. 3. Ratify the Design Review Board’s approval of the project.

12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)

13. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))

14. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

15. ADJOURNMENT

16. PLEASE NOTE:

Pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Section 2.08.010, the second Council meeting in the month of August shall serve as a summer recess. The next Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

DATE: August 9, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: Annual Rotation of the Vice Mayor
Section 2.12.080 of the La Mesa Municipal Code reads as follows:

The office of the vice mayor will be rotated among all the members of the city council. The term of each member shall be one year beginning the second Tuesday of August one year and ending on the Monday before the second Tuesday the next August. The vice mayor will be the council member with the most seniority who has not been vice mayor in the last three consecutive years. In the event two or more council members have equal seniority and have not been vice mayor in the last three consecutive years, the council member with the most votes in their last regular election shall serve as vice mayor.

Vice Mayors for the past three consecutive years have been:

Councilmember Baber August 2019 – August 2020
Councilmember Weber August 2020 – April 2021
Councilmember Shu April 2021 – August 2022
Therefore, in accordance with the code section cited above, Councilmember Parent will be the next Vice Mayor.

In addition, at its meeting on August 14, 2007, the Council approved a formalized policy for the rotation of Council seats at the dais based on the order of when each Councilmember would be Vice Mayor. According to this policy, the incoming Vice Mayor will sit next to the Mayor, the outgoing Vice Mayor will occupy the last chair and the other Councilmembers will move up one seat.

The change in seating will occur prior to the August 9th meeting.

DATE: August 9, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tammi Royales, Director of Finance
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: 2021-2022 Quarter 4 Budget Monitoring Report
Please see the attached 2021-2022 Budget Monitoring Report for Quarter ending June 30, 2022.

2021-2022 Budget Monitoring Report
Quarter Ending June 30, 2022
E:\Budget Monitoring Reports-Presentations\2021-2022\2021-2022 Q4 BMR.docx

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 1
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
The Finance Department produces the quarterly Budget Monitoring Report using month-end financial information from the City’s financial system, input from staff in City departments, and relevant information from local, regional, and national sources (e.g., newspapers, economists, League of California Cities, etc.).

If you are new to this report, we suggest that you start by first reviewing the Reader’s Guide located at the end of the document for information on the organization and layout of the report.

Please contact Tammi Royales at (619) 667-1122 if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions.

Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary................................................................................................... 2 Resources .................................................................................................................. 7 Appropriations........................................................................................................... 8 Reserves..................................................................................................................... 9 Reader’s Guide .......................................................................................................... 10

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 2
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Budget Monitoring Report details and analyzes economic indicators and forecasts based on certain assumptions and published projections through the quarter ending June 30, 2022. As a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency declared in early March 2020, the national economy took an immediate decline in most areas. As of the end of the quarter, most economic factors were on the rise but some outlooks still remain uncertain of the long term effects.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND FORECASTS
U.S. Leading Economic Index
The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. decreased by 0.8 percent in June 2022 to 117.1 after declining by 0.6 percent in May. The LEI was down by 1.8 percent over the first half of 2022, a reversal from its 3.3 percent growth over the second half of 2021. "The US LEI declined for a fourth consecutive month suggesting economic growth is likely to slow further in the near term as recession risks grow,” said Ataman Ozyildirim, Senior Director of Economic Research at The Conference Board. “Consumer pessimism about future business conditions, moderating labor market conditions, falling stock prices, and weaker manufacturing new orders drove the LEI’s decline in June. The coincident economic index which rose in June suggests the economy grew through the second quarter. However, the forward-looking LEI points to a US economic downturn ahead. Amid high inflation and rapidly tightening monetary policy, the Conference Board expects economic growth will continue to cool throughout 2022. A US recession around the end of this year and early next is now likely.”

The Conference Board
U.S. Leading Economic Index
(2016 = 100)
Index % Change
Jun 21 115.1 0.70%
Jul 116.4 1.10%
Aug 117.3 0.80%
Sep 117.5 0.20%
Oct 119.1 1.40%
Nov 119.9 0.70%
Dec 120.8 0.80%
Jan 118.8 -1.70%
Feb 119.5 0.60%
Mar 119.8 0.30%
Apr 118.7 -0.90%
May 118.0 -0.60%
Jun 22 117.1 -0.80%

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 3
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
Consumer Price Index
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) increased 1.3 percent
in June on a seasonally adjusted basis
after rising 1.0 percent in May, the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in
June. Over the last 12 months, the all
items index increased 9.1 percent before
seasonal adjustment. The increase was
broad-based, with the indexes for
gasoline, shelter, and food being the
largest contributors. The energy index
rose 7.5 percent over the month and
contributed nearly half of the all items
increase, with the gasoline index rising 11.2 percent and the other major component indexes also rising. The food index rose 1.0 percent in June, as did the food at home index.

The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.7 percent in June, after increasing 0.6 percent in the preceding two months. While almost all major component indexes increased over the month, the largest contributors were the indexes for shelter, used cars and trucks, medical care, motor vehicle insurance, and new vehicles. The indexes for motor vehicle repair, apparel, household furnishings and operations, and recreation also increased in June. Among the few major component indexes to decline in June were lodging away from home and airline fares.

The all items index increased 9.1 percent for the 12 months ending June, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending November 1981.

Municipal Cost Index
The Municipal Cost Index (MCI)
increased 1.7 percent in June after
increasing 1.5 percent in May and 1.1
percent in April. Overall, the MCI has
increased 12.2 percent over the past
twelve months. The MCI reflects the
impact of the costs of labor, materials
and contract services on the actual
inflation experienced by the City. These
costs are all factored into the composite
MCI. Major indicators of these items
used for the MCI include the Consumer
Price Index, the Producer Price Index
and the construction cost indexes
published by the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 4
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
U.S. Unemployment Rate
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose
by 372,000 in June, and the
unemployment rate remained at 3.6
percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported in June. Notable job
gains occurred in professional and
business services, leisure and
hospitality, and health care. The
unemployment rate was 3.6 percent for
the fourth month in a row, and the
number of unemployed persons was
essentially unchanged at 5.9 million in
June. These measures are little different
from their values in February 2020 (3.5 percent and 5.7 million, respectively), prior to the coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic. In June, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 1.3 million. This measure is 215,000 higher than in February 2020. The long-term unemployed accounted for 22.6 percent of all unemployed persons in June
Federal Funds Rate (Discount Rate)
A recent statement issued by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) indicates that inflation remains elevated, reflecting supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic, higher food and energy prices, and broader price pressures. Russia’s war against Ukraine is causing tremendous human and economic hardship. The war and related events are creating additional upward pressure on inflation and are weighing on global economic activity. The Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 percent and anticipates that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate.

STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND FORECASTS
State and Local Unemployment
The state unemployment rate declined
from 4.6 percent in April to 4.3 percent
in May before declining to 4.2 percent
in June. The County of San Diego and
the City of La Mesa unemployment
rates decreased from 3.0 percent and

2.9 percent respectively in April to 2.7
percent and 2.8 percent respectively in
May before each increasing to 3.2
percent and 3.1 percent respectively in
June.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 5
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
Total nonfarm employment in
California expanded modestly in the
latest numbers, growing by 19,900
positions in June, according to an
analysis released jointly with the UCR
School of Business Center for
Economic Forecasting and
Development. May’s employment
estimates were also revised down to
40,800, a 2,100 decrease from the
preliminary estimate of 42,900.
“After an impressive start to the year,
in which the state added jobs at a rate 20% higher than the rest of the nation, we shouldn’t overinterpret a slowdown in one month,” said Taner Osman, Research Manager at Beacon Economics and the Center for Economic Forecasting. “Still, California’s tight labor market has not eased up and will continue to act as a constraint on job growth.” While the state added jobs at a healthy pace in 2021 and 2022, as of June 2022, California has recovered just 93.6% of the jobs that were lost in March and April 2020, the onset of the pandemic. There are still 193,800 fewer people employed in California compared to prepandemic February 2020. With a larger portion of its workforce to be recovered, California increased payrolls by 5.1 percent from June 2021 to June 2022, outpacing the 4.3 percent increase nationally over the same period.

Local Economic Outlook
According to Beacon Economics Fall 2022 Economic Forecast, the labor market in San Diego is close to its pre-pandemic peak and is expected to continue advancing this year. The region has recovered jobs at a slightly faster pace than California as a whole with total nonfarm employment down just 0.5 percent from pre-pandemic levels as of May 2022, compared to being 1.1 percent down in the state overall.

While the local labor market is forecast to grow in the near term, the error bands around Beacon Economics’ forecasts are considerably wider now than they have been in recent editions of this outlook. There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the trajectory of the local economy given the sustained increase in inflation across the nation and an increasingly hawkish Federal Reserve, which is trying to engineer a soft landing to the downturn expected in the not-toodistant future. Beacon Economics expects the San Diego County economy to continue expanding, but labor shortages will hinder job growth, even in the near term.

Rising mortgage rates should help temper the recent double-digit rates of home price appreciation, but real estate will remain a seller’s market in San Diego. Beacon Economics doesn’t foresee a scenario where home prices begin to fall but does expect price growth to moderate substantially over the next two years. Beacon Economics doesn’t foresee a scenario where prices in San Diego County will decline, despite the impressive, over-trend price growth that’s occurred in the last couple of years. Currently, Beacon Economics is forecasting San Diego’s median home price to increase 8.3 percent by the end of 2022.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 6
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
Local Sales Tax Allocations
La Mesa’s receipts from January
through March were 11.6 percent
above the first sales period in 2021,
and place of sale collections soared
almost 13.4 percent. The regional
economy demonstrated strength
during the first three months of the
year. The City’s largest sales tax
group, general consumer goods,
jumped 12 percent as people
shopped at local stores during the
post-holiday period. The City’s
allocations from the countywide use tax pool grew 4.3 percent. The pools remain a solid source of local revenue, bolstered by taxes on e-commerce.

Restaurants, especially casual dining, experienced another sensational sales period as patrons enjoyed the experience of dining out. Cannabis revenues lifted the food-drug group; and higher local gas prices and increased travel pushed up receipts service station receipts. The buildingconstruction group also performed well.

Voter approved Measure L also posted stellar results supported by vehicle, merchandise and restaurant sales.

STATE BUDGET
On June 30, 2022 Governor Gavin Newsom signed a $308 billion state budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Budget provides over $17 billion in relief to millions of Californians to help offset rising costs, and reflects an accelerated minimum wage increase, effective January 1, 2023. The Budget includes substantial investments to address homelessness and behavioral health challenges and includes funding to make neighborhoods safer. It also supports additional protection from the impacts of wildfire and drought.

The Budget also makes a multi-year commitment to the state's infrastructure—funding schools, higher education, broadband infrastructure, and a clean transportation system. Finally, the Budget includes critical actions to maintain energy reliability, creating a strategic reserve, protecting ratepayers, and accelerating clean energy projects.

Staff will continue to closely monitor the State’s budget situation and review any actions by the legislature that might significantly impact the budget.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 7
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022

GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
General Fund Resources
Total General Fund revenues received through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2021-2022 are above budget expectations at 104.5 percent and are at lower levels when compared to the same time period last fiscal year. The General Fund’s major revenue sources, property tax and sales tax (both base sales & use tax and Proposition L transaction tax) are not received at regular intervals throughout the fiscal year, but rather towards the middle and end of the fiscal year with a final accrual received and recorded in mid-August. For this reason, revenue streams received from these sources through the fourth quarter of the fiscal year will not equate to 100 percent of the total annual revenues that are eventually received.  Overall, total general fund revenues are meeting budgetary expectations for the fiscal year but came in below when compared to the same period last fiscal year.  Property tax revenues received through the fourth quarter are above the same time last year and are exceeding budgetary expectations.

General Fund Resouces
Through 99% of Fiscal Year
2021-2022
Budget1
YTD
Collected
(unaudited)
% of
Budget
Collected
YTD
Collected
(unaudited)
% of
Budget
Collected
Revenues:

Taxes
Property Tax $ 15,691,510 $ 16,193,004 103.2% $ 15,578,587 100.4% Former Tax Increment (RDA) 343,600 329,276 95.8% 401,284 98.0% Sales 14,145,000 14,215,900 100.5% 15,921,097 131.6%
Proposition L 9,974,000 10,115,279 101.4% 10,900,549 128.9% Cannabis Business Tax 2,000,000 2,049,394 102.5% 2,349,324 469.9% Other 3,206,700 3,143,880 98.0% 3,444,183 106.1%
Subtotal taxes 45,360,810 46,046,733 101.5% 48,595,024 120.8% Licenses & permits 1,580,500 2,129,567 134.7% 1,576,687 116.0% Fines, forfeitures & penalties 376,100 392,361 104.3% 287,254 67.2% Use of money and property 1,365,920 1,417,134 103.7% 1,814,831 123.7% Revenue from other agencies 1,258,120 1,723,387 137.0% 1,533,165 147.8% Service charges 1,869,100 2,441,718 130.6% 1,616,429 70.5% Other revenue 145,490 139,561 95.9% 197,860 134.4%
Total revenues 51,956,040 54,290,460 104.5% 55,621,250 118.5% Other financing sources:

Interfund transfers in 2,908,200 2,310,476 79.4% 2,929,936 106.4% Interfund transfers out (2,100,390) (1,135,440) 54.1% (1,291,430) 100.0% Total other financing sources 807,810 1,175,036 1,638,506 Plus: Fund Balance at July 1 36,598,856 36,598,856 100.0% 32,051,168 100.0% Total resources $ 89,362,706 $ 92,064,352 103.0% $ 89,310,924 111.0% 1 Budget reflects any amendments approved by the City Council through the end of the quarter Current Fiscal Year Prior Year Comparison

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 8
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
 Sales tax revenues received through the fourth quarter are meeting budgetary expectations but are below the same time last year. Additional sales tax revenue will be recorded in mid-August.
 Proposition L sales tax revenues are meeting budgetary expectations and, consistent with base sales tax but are below the same time last fiscal year. Proposition L sales tax collections have a somewhat different base than the base sales tax collections. These collections include point-of-sale transactions that occur within the City limits of La Mesa.

Proposition L sales tax collections also include transactions that take place outside the City if the items are being delivered into the City (e.g., furniture or large appliances) and autos and other large vehicles purchased that are being registered in La Mesa.  The budget for Cannabis Business Tax revenue was increased from $500,000 in FY 20- 21 to $2,000,000 in FY 21-22. Cannabis Business Tax revenues are meeting budgetary expectations in the fourth quarter and are anticipated to exceed the budgeted revenue by the end of the fiscal year.
 Other General Fund revenues, including licenses and permits, mostly due to building permit fees; revenue from other agencies, and service charge revenue from recreation classes and engineering fees are substantially exceeding budget expectations as a result of reduced COVID-19 restrictions.
 Unrestricted Proposition L proceeds are being utilized to pay for ongoing vital City services that otherwise would have been reduced. As the economy recovers and ongoing revenues begin to stabilize, Proposition L proceeds are being used to preserve General Fund reserve levels.

General Fund Appropriations
Through 99% of Fiscal Year
2021-2022
Budget1
YTD
Encumbered/
Expended2
% of
Budget
General Fund Department Expenditures
Police $ 22,579,200 $ 21,604,845 95.7%
Fire 13,583,020 13,514,923 99.5%
Public Works 10,345,500 8,867,706 85.7%
Administrative Services 8,024,070 7,400,544 92.2%
Community Development 2,875,110 2,279,110 79.3%
Community Services 1,999,410 1,894,906 94.8%
Total General Fund Expenditures $ 59,406,310 $ 55,562,035 93.5% 1 Budget reflects any amendments approved by the City Council through the end of the quarter 2 Includes expenditures encumbered through end of quarter reported General Fund Expenditures

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 9
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
 With 99 percent of the year complete and most expenditures recorded, the General Fund expenditures ended the year at 93.5 percent.
 The Community Development Department is below budget expectations due to a year end budget adjustment of $200,000 for development services which will be accrued back to fiscal year 2021-2022 but have not yet been paid.

General Fund Reserves
The estimated available reserves for the current fiscal year 2021-2022 are $35,917,640.

The City Council’s reserve policies formally establish two General Fund reserve targets: a Rainy Day Reserve target of 15 percent and an additional Cash Flow Reserve target of 25 percent.

Because of the additional Proposition L Sales Tax revenues, a projected small but steady recovery of base sales and property taxes, and continued cost containment measures by departments, the General Fund reserves are projected to meet both the 15 percent Rainy Day Reserve target and the additional Cash Flow Reserve target of 25 percent in fiscal year 2021- 2022.

CONCLUSIONS
After an unprecedented two years, the nation’s economy is in a stage of recovery after the height of the pandemic. Economists are anticipating that this momentum will continue in the coming months and year, but cautious of rising inflation numbers that may have a negative impact. Although La Mesa currently maintains a healthy reserve, we will continue to monitor any continuing impacts of COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, and the supply chain disruptions on revenues and expenditures. Property tax revenues as well as other General Fund revenues remain stable. Overall General Fund expenditures continue to be within budgetary expectations. Finally, projected General Fund reserves remain consistent with the Council’s reserve policies.

FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21
Final Budget
FY 21-22
Revised
Ending Fund
Reserves
(Forecast)
Available Reserves at June 30 31,499,284 32,051,168 36,598,856 26,930,800 35,917,640 Reserves as % of Operating
Expenditures 60.4% 61.5% 69.6% 45.6% 61.6%
Source of Reserves:

Property Sale (Police Station) 3,050,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 Property Sale (Other land) 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Proposition L Revenues 8,940,142 8,741,926 8,673,000 8,673,000 8,673,000 Reserves from Operations 15,509,142 16,259,242 20,875,856 11,207,800 20,194,640 Total Ending General Fund Reserves 31,499,284 32,051,168 36,598,856 26,930,800 35,917,640 Actuals

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 10
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
READER’S GUIDE
Managing a municipality the size of La Mesa is, in many ways, like managing a for profit corporation. Instead of focusing upon bottom-line profits, La Mesa managers must skillfully steward public dollars and ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s operations. They must live within legislatively approved budgets that are reviewed by residents, business leaders, and others interested in the City.

Like private corporations, public entities report their financial condition on a regular basis.

Corporations make reports to stockholders while public entities report to their “stakeholders” -- the individuals and organizations that have a “stake” in the entity’s operations.

In addition to an annual financial report and biennial budget document, the City of La Mesa publishes a quarterly Budget Monitoring Report to provide stakeholders with current information about the City’s financial condition and performance in the essential areas of the City’s operations.

This report is designed to give the reader a sense of how well La Mesa is doing fiscally and what its current successes or challenges might be. It includes a high level overview of the City’s financial condition followed by more detailed information on resources and expenditures for those readers who are interested in going beyond the bottom line.

This Reader’s Guide has been developed to assist you in reviewing the City of La Mesa’s quarterly Budget Monitoring Report. It highlights the type of information contained in each section and presents a glossary of commonly used budget terms.

Please contact Tammi Royales at (619) 667-1122 if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 11
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022

QUARTERLY BUDGET MONITORING REPORT ORGANIZATION
Executive Summary – A broad level overview of the City of La Mesa’s current financial condition. It begins with comments on the economy, followed by a summary financial table and graph along with any comments highlighting resources and expenditures.

Resources – A more detailed discussion of revenue collections and other resources supporting the City’s expenditures. Included in the discussion is a financial table showing the current year’s budget, year-to-date collections, and calculated percent of budget collected. The discussion also includes comments on the significant factors and conditions affecting these items.

Appropriations – A more detailed discussion of expenditures and reserves. Included in the discussion is a financial table showing the current year’s budget by department, year-to-date expenditures, and calculated percent of budget expended. The discussion also includes comments on the significant factors and conditions affecting these items.

Reserves - Commentary on estimated ending fund balance and its relationship to reserve targets. Included is a table displaying historical ending fund balance related to reserve targets.

FUNDS NOT REPORTED ON
This report focuses on the General Fund which provides the majority of government services.

Other funds have been excluded from this report.

GLOSSARY
The following are definitions of some of the more common terms one may encounter in reviewing this document.

Accrual Basis – The basis of accounting under which revenues are recorded when they are earned and expenditures are recorded when they result in liabilities for benefits received.

Accrued Revenue – Revenue earned during the current accounting period but which is not collected until a subsequent accounting period.

Appropriation – Amount authorized for expenditure by the City Council.

Beginning Fund Balance – An account used to record resources available for expenditure in one fiscal year because of revenues collected in excess of the budget and/or expenditures less than the budget in the prior fiscal year.

Budget - A financial operating plan for a given period which displays the expenditures to provide services or to accomplish a purpose during that period together with the estimated sources of revenue (income) to pay for those expenditures. Once the fund totals shown in the budget are appropriated by the City Council, they become maximum spending limits.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 12
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2022
Ending Fund Balance - An account used to record resources available at year end as a result of revenues collected in excess of the budget and/or expenditures less than the budget during the fiscal year. The City’s operating reserves are budgeted in the General Fund ending fund balance.

Expenditure – The payment for City obligations, goods, and services.

Fiscal Year – A twelve-month period designated as the operating year for accounting and budgeting purposes. The City of La Mesa’s fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.

Fund - Governmental accounting systems are organized and operated on a fund basis. A fund is an independent financial and accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts in which financial transactions relating to revenues, expenditures, assets, and liabilities are recorded.

Funds are established to account for the use of restricted revenue sources and, normally, to carry on specific activities or pursue specific objectives.

General Fund – The financial and accounting entity that comprises typical operations of a municipality such as police, fire, public works, and other departments.

Grants – A contribution by a government or other organization to support a particular function.

Grants may be classified as either operational or capital, depending upon the grantor.

M&O (Maintenance and Operating) Costs – Expenditure category that represents amounts paid for supplies and other services and charges.

Proposition L – The La Mesa Vital City Services Measure which was passed by voters on November 4, 2008 authorizing a ¾ cent local transactions and use tax (commonly referred to as a sales tax). This general purpose tax became effective on April 1, 2009.

Reserve – An account used either to set aside budgeted revenues that are not required for expenditure in the current budget or to earmark revenues for a specific future purpose.

Resources - Total dollars available for appropriation, including estimated revenues, interfund transfers, and beginning fund balances.

Revenue - Sources of income received during the fiscal year, operating transfers from other funds, and other financing sources such as the proceeds derived from the sale of fixed assets.

Revenues from Other Agencies – Funds received from federal, state, and other local government sources in the form of grants, shared revenues, and payments in lieu of taxes.

Taxes – Compulsory charges levied by a government for financing services performed for the common benefit of the people. This term does not include specific charges made against particular persons or property for current or permanent benefit, such as special assessments.

Trust Funds – Funds used to account for assets held by a government in a trustee capacity for individuals, private organizations, other governments, and/or other funds. Examples are pension trust funds, nonexpendable trust funds, and expendable trust funds.

DATE: August 9, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, AS AMENDED BY ASSEMBLY
BILL 361, AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED USE OF VIRTUAL

AND/OR HYBRID MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LA MESA FOR THE 30-DAY PERIOD BEGINNING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
The City Council, Board and Commission meetings returned to in-person meetings on April 12, 2022. On February 22, 2022, it was the consensus of the Council to permit hybrid meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La Mesa. A city may meet remotely or use a combination of in-person/virtual (hybrid) platform under AB 361 during a declared state of emergency by the Governor via Government Code § 54953(e) et seq. The attached Resolution (Attachment A) would need to be adopted by Council to allow for hybrid meetings, in which Councilmembers and/or Board and Commission Members may choose to continue to attend meetings virtually while still allowing the public to attend in-person.

On September 28, 2021, the City Council was apprised of the latest Assembly Bill No. 361 (AB 361) signed by Governor Newsom allowing legislative bodies to continue to utilize remote/virtual platforms for meetings as long as one of the following three criteria was met:
 State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or
 For the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or
 The City Council has previously determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

Based on the above criteria, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-115 to allow continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La

Mesa for the month of October 2021 at its September 28, 2021 meeting. Subsequently, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2021-129, 2021-153, 2022-006, and 2022- 018, to allow continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La Mesa for the months of November and December 2021 and January, February, and March 2022. Similarly, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2022- 020, 2022-028, 2022-042, 2022-063, and 2022-083 to allow hybrid meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La Mesa for April, May, June, July and August 2022.

To continue meeting based on the parameters set forth in AB 361, the City Council must adopt subsequent resolutions each month prior to the expiration date of the previously adopted resolutions requesting the same. The adoption of the proposed Resolution is required to allow the City’s legislative bodies to hold hybrid meetings in which Councilmembers, Board Members, and Commissioners may choose to continue to participate virtually. Staff recommends adopting the attached draft resolution this evening to allow the hybrid meeting option for the month of September.

Attachment: A. Draft Resolution

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, AS
AMENDED BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361, AND RE-AUTHORIZING THE

CONTINUED USE OF VIRTUAL AND/OR HYBRID MEETINGS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LA MESA FOR THE 30-DAY PERIOD BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor issued Executive Order Nos. N-08-21, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspended certain provisions of the Ralph M.

Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to conduct public meetings without strict compliance with the teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act;
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 361, which was signed into law on September 16, 2021, amended Government Code section 54953, to provide relief from the teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act under certain circumstances provided the legislative body makes certain findings;
WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, in accordance with the section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act, and the state of emergency remains in effect; and WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Department of Health and County of San Diego Public Health Services continue to recommended measures to promote social distancing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa as follows:

1. That the Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the previously declared and existing state of emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic;

2. That the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the Council to meet safely in person, and further that local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing;

3. That the legislative bodies of the City may continue to conduct public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e); and

4. That the Council will reconsider the above findings within 30-days of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of August 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 CITY)

DATE: August 9, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tammi Royales, Director of Finance
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF LA MESA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Please see the attached Investment Policy of the City of La Mesa, California, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

INVESTMENT POLICY
of the
City of La Mesa, California
FY 2022-2023

INVESTMENT POLICY
of the
City of La Mesa, California
Sections Title Page (s)

1. Policy Statement 1

2. Investment Policy Objectives 1-3

3. Investments 3-7

4. Safekeeping of Securities 7-8

5. Structure and Responsibilities 8-9

6. Reporting 9-10

7. Performance Standards 10

8. Review of Investment Policy 10

9. Definitions 10

10. Adoption of Policy 10

1 City of La Mesa, California
Investment Policy

1. POLICY STATEMENT
La Mesa is a “general law” city that derives its power from California State Law. Founded in 1869, the City was incorporated on February 16, 1912. La Mesa employs a “Council – Manager” form of government under which the Council determines policy and the City Manager assures that the policy is implemented.

All funds of the City of La Mesa shall be invested in accordance with principles of sound treasury management and in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. and this Investment Policy (“Policy”). These funds are defined and detailed in the City’s Basic Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report and includes any new funds created unless specifically excluded by the City Council.

Specifically excluded funds are:
• Funds deposited with the State Public Employees’ Retirement System and; • Bond proceeds that are subject to covenants and restrictions as defined in the Bond’s indenture or are administered under the direct control of the Bond Trustee.

2. INVESTMENT POLICY OBJECTIVES
A. Overall Risk Profile
The objectives of the City of La Mesa’s Investment Program are, in order of priority:

1. Safety of principal of invested funds;

2. Maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow needs; and

3. Attainment of the maximum yield possible consistent with the first two objectives.

To achieve these objectives, The City shall consider the following when making an investment:

1. Safety of Principal of Invested Funds
The City shall mitigate the risk to the principal of invested funds by limiting credit and interest rate risks. Credit Risk is the risk of loss due to the failure of a security’s issuer or backer. Interest Rate Risk is the risk that the market value of the City’s portfolio will fall due to an increase in general interest rates. a) Credit risk will be mitigated by:
(i) Limiting investments to only the most creditworthy types of securities as evaluated “investment grade” by one of the four Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO) as determined by the

2 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including (1) Standard & Poor’s Rating Service, (2) Moody’s Investors Service, (3) Fitch Ratings and (4) Dominion Bond Rating Service.
(ii) By pre-qualifying the financial institutions with which it will do business; and
(iii) By diversifying the investment portfolio so that the potential failure of any one issue or issuer will not place an undue financial burden on the City.
b) Interest rate risk will be mitigated by:
(i) Structuring the City’s portfolio so that securities mature to meet the City’s cash requirements for ongoing obligations, thereby avoiding the possible need to sell securities on the open market at a loss prior to their maturity to meet those requirements; and
(ii) Investing primarily in shorter term securities.
(iii) Not paying a premium for any security which includes a “call feature”, thereby obviating the possibility that the interest realized will be less than anticipated, and/or that the call price will be substantially less than book value, resulting in a potential loss of principal.

2. Liquidity
The City’s investment portfolio shall be structured in a manner which emphasizes that securities mature at the same time the cash is needed to meet anticipated demands (Static Liquidity). Additionally, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should consist of securities with active secondary markets (Dynamic Liquidity). The maximum percentage of different investment instruments and maturities is described in Section 3 of this Policy.

3. Yield
Yield on the City’s investment portfolio is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. Investments are limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. While it may occasionally be necessary or strategically prudent for the City to sell a security prior to maturity to either meet unanticipated cash needs or to restructure the portfolio, this policy specifically prohibits trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates.

B. Basic Investment Strategy
The City shall pursue a “passive” strategy of investment under which investments shall be of “laddered” maturities, facilitating a “buy and hold” process where financial instruments are held until maturity rather than actively bought and sold at various times. An “active” strategy of market timing, sector rotation, indexing to a benchmark and similar strategies are considered inappropriate for the size of the City’s portfolio. It is understood that it may be appropriate to sell a particular

3 security prior to maturity to meet unanticipated cash needs with the approval of the City Treasurer.

The City’s investment portfolio shall be structured to provide that sufficient funds from investments are available each month to meet the City’s anticipated cash needs. Subject to the objectives stated above, the choice in investment instruments and maturities shall be based upon an analysis of future anticipated cash needs, existing and anticipated revenues, interest rate trends and specific market opportunities. No investment may have a maturity of more than five (5) years from its date of purchase without receiving prior City Council approval.

After approval by City Council, reserve funds associated with bond issues may have a maturity of more than five (5) years, up to the earliest date the bonds may be redeemed or mature.

3. INVESTMENTS
This section of the Investment Policy identifies the types of investments in which the City will invest its idle or surplus funds.

A. Standard of Prudence
The City operates its investment portfolio under the Prudent Investor Standard (California Government Code Section 53600.3) which states in essence that:
“When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the Agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Agency”.

This standard shall be applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio.

Investment officers, acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment policy and exercising the above standard of diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

B. Eligible Securities
The City is provided a broad spectrum of eligible investments under California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. The City may choose to restrict its permitted investments to a smaller list of securities that more closely fits the City’s cash flow needs and requirements for liquidity. If a type of investment is added to California State Code 53600, it will not be added to the City’s Authorized Investment List until this policy is amended and approved by the City Council. If a type of investment permitted by the City should be removed from California State Code 53600, it will be deemed concurrently removed from the City’s Authorized Investment List, but existing holdings may be held until they mature.

4 State Government Authorized Investment List
Allowable investment instruments per State Government Code Section 53600 et seq. (as of January 1, 2013)A applicable to all local agenciesB and detailed in the Local Agency Investment Guidelines (version 13.02) as published by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission
Figure 1
See “Table of Notes for Figure 1” on the next page for footnotes related to this exhibit

INVESTMENT TYPE MAXIMUM

MATURITYC

MAXIMUM

SPECIFIED
% OF

PORTFOLIOD

MINIMUM QUALITY

REQUIREMENTS
Local Agency Bonds 5 years None None
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None None
State Obligations - CA and
Others 5 years None None
CA Local Agency Obligations 5 years None None
U.S. Agency Obligations 5 years None None
Bankers' Acceptances 180 days 40%E None
Commercial Paper - Select
AgenciesF 270 days
25% of the
agency's moneyG
"A-1" if the issuer has issued
long-term debt it must be
rated "A" without regard to
modifiersH
Commercial Paper - Other
AgenciesI 270 days
40% of the
agency's moneyJ
"A-1" if the issuer has issued
long-term debt it must be
rated "A" without regard to
modifiersH
Negotiable Certificates of
Deposit 5 years 30%K None
CD Placement Service 5 years 30%K None
Repurchase Agreements 1 year None None
Reverse Repurchase
Agreements and Securities
Lending Agreements
92 daysL
20% of the base
value of the
portfolio
NoneM
Medium-Term NotesN 5 years 30% "A" Rating
Mutual Funds and Money Market
Mutual Funds N/A 20%O MultipleP,Q
Collateralized Bank Deposits 5 years None None
Mortgage Pass-Through
Securities 5 years 20% "AA" RatingR
Bank/Time Deposits 5 years None None
County Pooled Investment Funds N/A None None
Joint Powers Authority Pool N/A None MultipleS
Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF) N/A None None
Voluntary Investment Program
FundT N/A None None

5 TABLE OF NOTES FOR FIGURE 1
A Sources: Government Code Sections 16340, 16429.1, 53601, 53601.8, 53635, 53635.2, and 53638.

B Municipal Utilities Districts have the authority under the Public Utilities Code Section 12871 to invest in certain securities not addressed here.

C Section 53601 provides that the maximum term of any investment authorized under this section, unless otherwise stated, is five years. However, the legislative body may grant express authority to make investments either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the legislative body that exceeds this five year maturity limit. Such approval must be issued no less than three months prior to the purchase of any security exceeding the five-year maturity limit.

D Percentages apply to all portfolio investments regardless of source of funds. For instance, cash from a reverse repurchase agreement would be subject to the restrictions.

E No more than 30 percent of the agency’s money may be in bankers’ acceptances of any one commercial bank.

F
“Select Agencies” are defined as a “city, a district, or other local agency that do[es] not pool money in deposits or investment with other local agencies, other than local agencies that have the same governing body.”
G No more than 10 percent of the agency’s money may be invested in any one issuer’s commercial paper.

H
Issuing corporation must be organized and operating within the U.S. and have assets in excess of $500 million.

I
“Other Agencies” are counties, a city and county, or other local agency “that pools money in deposits or investments with other local agencies, including local agencies that have the same governing body.” Local agencies that pool exclusively with other local agencies that have the same governing body must adhere to the limits set for “Select Agencies,” above.

J No more than 10 percent of the agency’s money may be invested in the commercial paper of any one corporate issuer.

K No more than 30 percent of the agency’s total funds may be invested in CDs authorized under Sections 53601.8, 53635.8, and 53601(i).

L Reverse repurchase agreements or securities lending agreements may exceed the 92-day term if the agreement includes a written codicil guaranteeing a minimum earning or spread for the entire period between the sale of a security using a reverse repurchase agreement or securities lending agreement and the final maturity dates of the same security.

M Reverse repurchase agreements must be made with primary dealers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or with a nationally or state chartered bank that has a significant relationship with the local agency.

The local agency must have held the securities used for the agreements for at least 30 days.

N
“Medium-term notes” are defined in Section 53601 as “all corporate and depository institution debt securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, issued by corporations organized and operating within the U.S. or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S.”
O No more than 10 percent invested in any one mutual fund.

P A mutual fund must receive the highest ranking by not less than two nationally recognized rating agencies or the fund must retain an investment advisor who is registered with the SEC (or exempt from registration), has assets under management in excess of $500 million, and has at least five years experience investing in instruments authorized by Sections 53601 and 53635.

Q A money market mutual fund must receive the highest ranking by not less than two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations or retain an investment advisor registered with the SEC or exempt from registration and who has not less than five years experience investing in money market instruments with assets under management in excess of $500 million.

R
Issuer must have an “A” rating or better for the issuer’s debt as provided by a nationally recognized rating agency.

S A joint powers authority pool must retain an investment advisor who is registered with the SEC (or exempt from registration), has assets under management in excess of $500 million, and has at least five years experience investing in instruments authorized by Section 53601, subdivisions (a) to (o).

T Local entities can deposit between $200 million and $10 billion into the Voluntary Investment Program Fund, upon approval by their governing bodies. Deposits in the fund will be invested in the Pooled Money Investment Account.

Appendix A, “Description of Authorized Investments” is a more detailed description of the authorized investments listed in Figure 1 above.

6 A thorough investigation of any pool or fund is required prior to investing and on a continual basis. The investigation will, at a minimum, obtain the following information:
• A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policies and objectives.
• A description of interest calculations and how it is distributed, and how gains and losses are distributed.
• A description of how securities are safeguarded (including the settlement process) and how often the securities are marked to market and how often an audit is conducted.
• A description of who may invest in the program, how often, what size deposits and withdrawals are permitted.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • Does the pool/fund maintain a reserve or retain earnings or is all income after expenses distributed to participants?
• A fee schedule which also discloses when and how fees are assessed. • Is the pool or fund eligible for bond proceeds and/or will it accept such proceeds?
The purpose of this investigation is to determine the suitability of a pool or fund and evaluate the risk of placing funds with that pool or fund.

One of the purposes of this Investment Policy is to define what investments are permitted. If a type of security is not specifically authorized by this policy, it is not a permitted investment.

C. Qualification of Brokers, Dealers and Financial Institutions The City Treasurer or his/her designee will establish and maintain a list of the financial institutions and broker/dealers authorized to provide investment and depository services to the City, will perform an annual review of the financial condition and registrations of the authorized financial institutions and broker/dealers, and require annual audited financial statements to be on file for each approved entity. The Investment Committee may limit the number of broker/dealers as deemed appropriate. The City shall annually provide its current Investment Policy to all interested parties, including all financial institutions and broker/dealers approved to do business with the City, by posting the Investment Policy on the City’s official website. Upon annual notification of the approved Investment Policy, receipt of the Policy, including confirmation that it has been reviewed by the person(s) handling the City’s account, shall be acknowledged in writing within thirty (30) days of such notification. Audited financial statements as required herein shall be submitted annually within 90 days of such notification.

7 All broker-dealers and financial institutions that desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must submit a “Broker-Dealer Application” and related documents relative to eligibility. This includes a current audited financial statement, proof of state registration, proof of FINRA registration and a certification that all persons handling the City’s account have received and reviewed the City’s Investment Policy and agree to comply with the provisions outlined in the Investment Policy. The City Treasurer or his/her designee may establish any additional criteria deemed appropriate to evaluate and approve any financial services provider. The selection process for broker-dealers shall be open to both “primary dealers” and “secondary/regional dealers” that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c3-1 (Uniform Net Capital Rule). The provider must have an office in California and the provider’s representative must be experienced in institutional trading practices and familiar with the California Government Code as it relates to investments by a City. The current form of the Broker Dealer Questionnaire appears as Appendix B of this policy.

D. Collateralization Requirements
Uninsured Time Deposits with banks and savings and loans shall be collateralized in the manner prescribed by state law for depositories accepting municipal investment funds.

Repurchase Agreements shall be collateralized in accordance with terms specified in the Master Repurchase Agreement. The valuation of collateral securing a Repurchase Agreement will be verified weekly to ensure a minimum of 102% of the value of the transaction being held by the City’s depository agent.

E. Diversification
The City will diversify its investments by security type and investment. With the exception of bond reserve funds, bond escrow funds, and any other specific funds approved by the City Council, the City Treasurer or his/her designee and the City’s Investment Committee will adopt a strategy that combines current market conditions with the City’s cash needs to maintain the maximum degree of safety of principal and liquidity throughout market and budgetary cycles. This strategy will include diversification by investment type and maturity allocations and will be included in the regular quarterly reports to Council. This strategy will be reviewed quarterly and can be changed accordingly.

F. Confirmations
Receipts for confirmation of purchases or sales of authorized securities shall include at a minimum the following information: trade date, settlement date, description of the security, par value, interest rate, price, yield to maturity, City’s name, net amount due and third party custodial information.

4. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES
The City shall contract with a bank or banks for the safekeeping of securities that are owned by the City as a part of its investment portfolio or transferred to the City under the terms of a Repurchase Agreement.

8 All securities owned by the City shall be held in safekeeping by a third party bank trust department acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP) procedures. The third party bank trustee agreement must comply with Section 53608 of the California Government Code.

No outside broker/dealer or advisor may have access to City funds, accounts or investments and any transfer of funds must be approved by the City Treasurer.

The City’s current custodian is:

U.S. Bank
Institutional Trust and Custody
60 Livingston Ave
Saint Paul, MN 55107
ATTN: Katherine G Artishon
Telephone 651.466.6312.

5. STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
This section of the policy defines the overall structure and areas of responsibility within the investment management program.

A. Responsibilities of the City Treasurer
The City Treasurer is charged with responsibility for maintaining custody of all public funds and securities belonging to or under the control of the City, and for the deposit and investment of those funds in accordance with principles of sound treasury management, applicable laws, ordinances and this Investment Policy.

This includes establishing written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this policy. The procedures should include reference to safekeeping, master repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, banking services contracts and depository agreements. Such procedures shall also include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Treasurer and approved by the Investment Committee.

The current delegation of authority, Appendix C hereof, will be provided to all approved financial institutions. They will be notified of any changes to this delegation in a timely fashion and acknowledge receipt.

B. Responsibilities of the Director of Finance
The Director of Finance is responsible for keeping the City Council fully advised as to the financial condition of the City.

C. Responsibilities of the City Council
The City Council shall consider and adopt a written Investment Policy. As provided in that policy, the Council shall receive, review and accept quarterly investment reports.

9 D. Responsibilities of the Investment Committee
There shall be an Investment Committee consisting of the Director of Finance, the City Manager, the City Treasurer and their designees. The Committee shall meet quarterly to discuss cash flow requirements, the quarterly investment reports, investment strategies, investment and banking procedures and significant investment related work projects being undertaken in each department that will affect the cash flow management of the City Treasurer. This will require timely reports from the department heads to the Director of Finance concerning significant future cash flow requirements. The Investment Committee, with the approval of the City Council, may retain an external investment manager on behalf of the City. The investment manager will be required to act in accordance with this investment policy.

E. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
All City officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Those employees and investment officials shall disclose to the appropriate City executive (City Manager, City Attorney, or the Director of Finance) any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business within the City, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City’s investments.

6. REPORTING
The City Treasurer shall prepare a quarterly investment report, including a succinct management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio and transactions made. This management summary shall be prepared in a manner that will allow the Director of Finance and the City Council to ascertain whether investment activities during the reporting period have complied with the City’s Investment Policy.

The quarterly report shall include the following:

A. A list of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period.

B. Unrealized gains or losses resulting from amortization or accretion of principal versus market value changes by listing the cost and market value of securities owned by the City.

C. Dollar weighted yield of the City’s investments.

D. Maturity schedule by type, of each of the City’s investments.

E. Statement of compliance of the City’s Investment Policy with California Government Code Section 53601 et seq.

10 F. Statement as to ability to meet all scheduled expenditure requirements for the next six months.

G. Market value, book value, par value and cost basis of all investments.

7. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the standards established within this Investment Policy and should obtain a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles. The Investment Committee will establish and periodically review the City’s portfolio benchmarks and performance. A benchmark will be selected that compares with the portfolio composition, structure and investment strategy at that time.

8. REVIEW OF INVESTMENT POLICY
A. Policy Review
This Investment Policy shall be reviewed annually by the City Council to ensure its consistency with respect to the overall objectives of safety, liquidity and yield.

Proposed amendments to the policy shall be prepared by the Treasurer and reviewed and approved by the Investment Committee and then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Investment Committee shall annually review the Investment Policy and any proposed amendments and forward to the City Council for its consideration and adoption at a public meeting.

B. Internal Control and Review
The external auditors shall annually review the investments and general activities associated with the investment program to ensure compliance with this Investment Policy. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures established by this Investment Policy.

9. DEFINITIONS
The City has adopted the glossary of terms as published by the State of California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (Appendix A).

10. ADOPTION OF POLICY
This Policy was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of La Mesa on the 9 th day of
August, 2022.

APPENDICES
A. Description of Authorized Investments and Glossary
B. Broker/Dealer Questionnaire
C. Delegation of Authority
D. Quarterly Investment Report Format

APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
The City of La Mesa’s investments may be placed in those securities as outlined below; the allocation between the various investment instruments may change in order to give the City the best combination of safety, liquidity and higher yield. Surplus funds of local agencies may only be invested in certain eligible securities. The City limits its investments to allowable securities under the State of California statutes (Government Code Section 53601, et seq., Section 53356, et seq., and Section 53595, et seq.) and is further limited to those listed below.

Certificates of Deposit
Certificates of deposit allow the City to select the exact amount and day of maturity as well as the exact depository. Certificates of deposit are issued in any amount for periods of time as short as fourteen days and as long as several years. At any given time, the City may have certificates of deposit in numerous financial institutions.

Collateral is not required for that portion of a deposit, which is insured pursuant to federal law.

Currently, the first $250,000 of a deposit is federally insured by FDIC. Non-negotiable CD’s for amounts in excess of federal insurance are not permitted.

Local Agency Investment Fund
The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) of the State of California offers high liquidity because deposits can be wired to the City checking account within twenty-four hours. Interest is computed on a daily basis.

This is a special fund within the State Treasury, which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. There is no minimum investment period and the minimum transaction is $5,000 in multiples of $1,000 above that, with a maximum of $50,000,000 for any city. It offers high liquidity because deposits can be converted to cash within twenty-four hours and no interest is lost. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly by adding it to the principal.

The State charges participants a small fee to cover reasonable costs associated with operating the investment pool, not to exceed one-quarter of one percent of the earnings.

The interest rates received are fairly stable because of the pooling of the State’s surplus cash with the surplus cash deposited by local governments. This creates a well- diversified multibillion dollar money pool.

U.S. Treasury Securities
U.S. Treasury securities are highly liquid and considered the safest of all investments because they are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. • U.S. Treasury Bills are direct obligations of the United States Government. They are issued weekly with maturity dates up to six months. They are issued and traded on a discount basis and the interest is figured on a 360-day basis using the actual number of

days to maturity. They are issued in the minimum amount of $10,000 and in multiples of $5,000 thereafter.
• U.S. Treasury Notes are direct obligations of the United States Government. They are issued throughout the year with maturities up to 30 years. Notes are coupon securities paying a fixed amount every six months. The City will not invest in notes having maturities longer then five years.

Federal Agency Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises Federal Agency securities are highly liquid and considered to be virtually without credit risk.

Federal Agency issues have a partial guarantee directly by the United States Government and are considered “moral” obligations of the U.S. Government (implied guarantee). All Agency obligations that are fixed-rate and meet the maturity restrictions of the State Code and this policy qualify as legal investments and are acceptable as security for public deposits. They usually provide higher yields than regular Treasury issues with all of the same advantages.

Examples are:
• FNMA's (Federal National Mortgage Association) are used to assist the home mortgage market by purchasing mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the Farmers Home Administration, as well as those guaranteed by the Veterans Administration.
• FHLB's (Federal Home Loan Bank Notes and Bonds) are issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank System to help finance the housing industry. The notes and bonds provide liquidity and home mortgage credit to savings and loan associations, mutual savings banks, cooperative banks, insurance companies and mortgage-lending institutions. • Other Federal Agency issues are Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), Federal Farm Credit Bank (FFCB), Small Business Administration Notes (SBA's), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA's) and the Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA's).

Negotiable Certificates of Deposit
Negotiable certificates of deposit are high-grade instruments, generally paying a higher interest rate than regular certificates of deposit. They are liquid because they can be traded in the secondary market.

Local agencies may invest up to 30% of their surplus money in negotiable certificates of deposit.

Negotiable certificates of deposit shall at no time exceed the FDIC insurance limit of $250,000.

Medium-Term Corporate Notes
A City may invest in medium term corporate notes with a maximum maturity of five years issued by a corporation organized and operating within the United States, a depository institution licensed by the United States government or any state government and operating within the United States. The California State Code (53601 et seq.) permits cities to invest in corporations with a rating category of “A” or better, but the City will limit its investments in corporate medium term notes to those issued by corporations that have been rated “AA” or its equivalent by two nationally recognized ratings agencies.

Passbook Savings or Money Market Account
Passbook savings account allows us to transfer money from checking to savings and earn interest on smaller amounts of money, which are not available for a longer-term investment.

The passbook savings account is similar to a CD, except not for a fixed term. The interest rate is much lower than CD's, but the savings account provides daily liquidity and funds can be deposited and withdrawn according to our daily needs.

GLOSSARY
A

ACCRUED INTEREST
Coupon interest accumulated on a
bond or note since the last interest
payment or, for a new issue, from the
dated date to the date of delivery.

ARBITRAGE
Transactions by which securities are
bought and sold in different markets
at the same time for the sake of the
profit arising from a yield difference
in the two markets. The 1986 Tax
Reform Act made this practice by
municipalities illegal solely as a borrowing
tactic, except under certain
safe-harbor conditions.

ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
Securities that are supported by
pools of assets, such as installment
loans or leases, or by pools of revolving
lines of credits. Asset-backed
securities are structured as trusts in
order to perfect a security interest in
the underlying assets.

AVERAGE
An arithmetic mean of selected stocks
intended to represent the behavior of
the market or some component of it.

B

BANK DEPOSITS
To deposit collateral in the form of
currency that may be in the form of
demand accounts (checking) or investments
in accounts that have a fixed
term and negotiated rate of interest.

BANK NOTES
A senior, unsecured, direct obligation
of a bank or U. S. branch of a
foreign bank.

BANKERS’ ACCEPTANCE
A draft or bill or exchange accepted
by a bank or trust company. The
accepting institution, as well as the
issuer, guarantees payment of the bill.

BASIS POINTS
Refers to the yield on bonds. Each
percentage point of yield in bonds
equals 100 basis points (1/100% or

0.01%). If a bond yield changes from

7.25% to 7.39%, that is a rate of 14
basis points.

BENCHMARK
A passive index used to compare the
performance, relative to risk and
return, of an investor’s portfolio.

BOND PROCEEDS
The money paid to the issuer by the
purchaser or underwriter of a new
issue of municipal securities. These
moneys are used to finance the project
or purpose for which the securities
were issued and to pay certain costs
of issuance as may be provided in the
bond contract.

BONDS
A debt obligation of a firm or public
entity. A bond represents the agreement
to repay the debt in principal

and, typically, in interest on the
principal.

BOOK VALUE
The value at which an asset is carried
on a balance sheet.

BROKER
A person or firm that acts as an
intermediary
by purchasing and selling
securities for others rather than for its
own account.

C

CALLABLE SECURITIES
An investment security that contains
an option allowing the issuer to
retire the security prior to its final
maturity date.

CASH FLOW
A comparison of cash receipts (revenues)
to required payments (debt
service, operating expenses, etc.).

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
A short-term, secured deposit in a financial
institution that usually returns
principal and interest to the lender at
the end of the loan period. Certificates
of Deposit (CDs) differ in terms
of collateralization and marketability.

Those appropriate to public agency
investing include:

Negotiable Certificates of Deposit
Generally, short-term debt instrument
that usually pays interest and is
issued by a bank, savings or federal
association, state or federal credit
union, or state-licensed branch of a
foreign bank. The majority of negotiable
CDs mature within six months
while the average maturity is two
weeks. Negotiable CDs are traded in
a secondary market and are payable
upon order to the bearer or initial
depositor (investor).

Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit
CDs that carry a penalty if redeemed
prior to maturity. A secondary market
does exist for these non-negotiable
CDs, but include a transaction cost
that reduces returns to the investor.

Non-negotiable CDs issued by banks
and savings and loans are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
up to the amount of $250,000,
including principal and interest.

Amounts deposited above this amount
may be secured with other forms
of collateral through an agreement
between the investor and the issuer.

Collateral may include other securities
including Treasuries or agency securities
such as those issued by the Federal
National Mortgage Association.

CDARS (CERTIFICATE

OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT

REGISTRY SYSTEM)
A private CD placement service that
allows local agencies to purchase
more than $250,000 in CDs from a
single financial institution (must be a
participating institution of CDARS)
while still maintaining FDIC insur ance
coverage. CDARS is currently
the only entitiy providing this service.

CDARS facilitates the trading
of deposits between the California
institution and other participating
institutions in amounts that are less
than $250,000 each, so that FDIC
coverage is maintained.

CD PLACEMENT SERVICE
A service that allows local agencies to
purchase more than $250,000 in CDs
from a single financial institution
while still maintaining FDIC insurance
coverage. See “CDARS”.

COLLATERALIZATION
Process by which a borrower pledges
securities, property, or other deposits
for the purpose of securing the repayment
of a loan and/or security.

COMMERCIAL PAPER
An unsecured short-term promissory

note issued by corporations, with maturities
ranging from 2 to 270 days.

CORPORATE NOTES AND BONDS
Debt instruments, typically unsecured,
issued by corporations, with
original maturities in most cases
greater than one year and less than
ten years.

COUNTY POOLED

INVESTMENT FUNDS
The aggregate of all funds from public
agencies placed in the custody of the
county treasurer or chief finance officer
for investment and reinvestment.

COUPON
The annual rate of interest that a
bond’s issuer promises to pay the
bondholder on the bond’s face value; a
certificate attached to a bond evidencing
interest due on a payment date.

CREDIT RATING
Various alphabetical and numerical
designations used by institutional
investors, Wall Street underwriters,
and commercial rating companies
to give relative indications of bond
and note creditworthiness. Standard
& Poor’s and Fitch Ratings use the
same system, starting with their highest
rating, of AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB,
B, CCC, CC, C, and D for default.

Moody’s Investors Service uses AAA,
AA, A, BAA, BA, B, CAA, CA, and
D. Each of the services use pluses (+),
minuses (-), or numerical modifiers
to indicate steps within each category.

The top four letter categories are
considered investment grade ratings.

CREDIT RISK
The chance that an issuer will be unable
to make scheduled payments of
interest and principal on an outstanding
obligation. Another concern for
investors is that the market’s perception
of a corporation’s credit will cause
the market value of a security to fall,
even if default is not expected.

CUSIP NUMBER
The Committee on Uniform Security
Information Procedures (CUSIP)
Number refers to a security’s identification
number assigned to each
publicly traded security by the CUSIP
Service Bureau operated by Standard
& Poor’s for the American Bankers
Association. The CUSIP Number is
a nine-character identifier unique to
the issuer, the specific issue and the
maturity, if applicable (the first six
characters identifying the issuer, the
next two identifying the security and
the last digit providing a check digit
to validate the accuracy of the preceding
CUSIP number).

CUSTODIAN
A bank or other financial institution
that keeps custody of stock certificates
and other assets.

D
DEALER
Someone who acts as a principal in all
transactions, including underwriting,
buying, and selling securities, including
from his/her own account.

DEFEASED BOND ISSUES
Issues that have sufficient money to
retire outstanding debt when due so
that the agency is released from the
contracts and covenants in the bond
document.

DERIVATIVE
Securities that are based on, or derived
from, some underlying asset, reference
date, or index.

DISCOUNT
Discount means the difference between
the par value of a security and
the cost of the security, when the
cost is below par. Investors purchase
securities at a discount when return
to the investor (yield) is higher than
the stated coupon (interest rate) on
the investment.

DURATION
A measure of the timing of the cash
flows to be received from a security
that provides the foundation for a
measure of the interest rate sensitivity
of a bond. Duration is an elasticity
measure and represents the percentage
change in price divided by the
percentage change in interest rates.

A high duration measure indicates
that for a given level of movement in
interest rates, prices of securities will
vary considerably.

E

EFFECTIVE DURATION
Duration measures the weighted
average of the present value of the
cash flows of a fixed-income investment.

Effective duration measures
the price sensitivity of fixed-income
investments, especially for those with
embedded option features such as call
options. As yields rise, the effective
duration of a callable investment rises
to reflect the fact that it has become
less likely to be called. The more rates
rise, the longer the effective duration
will become, approaching the duration
to maturity. The converse is true
in a declining interest rate environment
(that is, the more rates fall, the
shorter the effective duration will
become, approaching the duration to
call). For securities without an embedded
option, the duration to call,
maturity, and effective duration are all
the same. The calculation for effective
duration is complicated and involves
averaging the duration under a simulation
of many possible interest rate
scenarios in the future.

EXTENDABLE NOTES
Securities with maturity dates that
can be extended by mutual agreement
between the issuer and investor.

When investing in these types
of securities, the maturity date plus
the stated extendable option must
not exceed the time frames that are
allowed in California Government
Code or the investment policy for
the investment type. F

FIDUCIARY
An individual who holds something
in trust for another and bears liability
for its safekeeping.

FIRST TIER SECURITIES
Securities that have received shortterm
debt ratings in the highest category
from the requisite nationally
recognized statistical-rating organizations
(NRSROs), or are comparable
unrated securities, or are issued by
money market funds, or government
securities. [See SEC Rules: Paragraph
(A)(12) of rule 2A-7.]
G

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING

STANDARDS BOARD (GASB)
A standard-setting body, associated
with the Financial Accounting
Foundation, which prescribes standard
accounting practices for governmental
units.

GUARANTEED INVESTMENT

CONTRACTS (GICS)
An agreement acknowledging receipt
of funds for deposit, specifying terms
for withdrawal, and guaranteeing a
rate of interest to be paid.

I

INTEREST
The amount a borrower pays to a
lender for the use of his or her money.

INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS
Investment agreements are contracts
with respect to funds deposited by an
investor. Investment agreements are
often separated into those offered by
banks and those offered by insurance
companies. In the former case, they
are sometimes referred to as “bank
investment contracts.”

INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE
A committee of three to eleven members
formed under Section 27131 to
monitor and review a county’s investment
policy by causing an annual
audit and discussing its finding at an
open meeting. Although cities and
other local agencies are not required
to compose an investment oversight
committee, the State Legislature
has declared that all local agencies
“should participate in reviewing the
policies that guide the investment of
those funds.”
L

LIQUIDITY
The measure of the ability to convert
an instrument to cash on a given date
at full face or par value.

LIQUIDITY RISK
The chance that a security, sold prior to
maturity, will be sold at a loss of value.

For a local agency, the liquidity risk of
an individual investment may not be as
critical as how the overall liquidity of
the portfolio allows the agency to meet
its cash needs.

LOCAL AGENCY

INVESTMENT FUND
A voluntary investment fund open
to government entities and certain
non-profit organizations in California
that is managed by the State
Treasurer’s Office.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

INVESTMENT POOL (LGIP)
Investment pools that range from the
State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) to county
pools, to Joint Powers Authorities
(JPAs). These funds are not subject
to the same SEC rules applicable to
money market mutual funds.

M

MARKET RISK
The chance that the value of a security
will decline as interest rates rise. In
general, as interest rates fall, prices of
fixed income securities rise. Similarly,
as interest rates rise, prices fall. Market
risk also is referred to as systematic
risk or risk that affects all securities
within an asset class similarly.

MARKET VALUE
The price at which a security is trading
and presumably could be purchased
or sold at a particular point
in time.

MATURITY
The date on which the principal or
stated value of an investment becomes
due and payable.

MEDIUM-TERM NOTE
Corporate or depository institution
debt securities meeting certain minimum
quality standards (as specified
in the California Government Code)
with a remaining maturity of five
years or less.

MONEY MARKET

MUTUAL FUNDS
MMF’s are mutual funds that invest
exclusively in short-term money
market instruments. MMF’s seek the
preservation of capital as a primary
goal while maintaining a high degree
of liquidity and providing income
representative of the market for short
term investments.

MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES
Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) are
created when a mortgagee or a purchaser
of residential real estate mortgages
creates a pool of mortgages and
markets undivided interests or participations
in the pool. MBS owners
receive a prorata share of the interest
and principal cash flows (net of fees)
that are “passed through” from the
pool of mortgages. MBS are complex
securities whose cash flow is determined
by the characteristics of the

mortgages that are pooled together.

Investors in MBS face prepayment
risk associated with the option of the
underlying mortgagors to pre-pay or
payoff their mortgage. Most MBS are
issued and/or guaranteed by federal
agencies and instrumentalities (e.g.,
Government National Mortgage Association
(GNMA), Federal National
Mortgage Association (FNMA), and
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(FHLMC)).

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH

OBLIGATIONS
Securities that are created when
residential mortgages (or other mortgages)
are pooled together and undivided
interests or participations in the
stream of revenues associated with the
mortgages are sold.

MUNICIPAL NOTES, BONDS, AND

OTHER OBLIGATIONS
Obligations issued by state and local
governments to finance capital and
operating expenses.

MUTUAL FUNDS
An investment company that pools
money and can invest in a variety of
securities, including fixed-income securities
and money market instruments.

N

NET ASSET VALUE
Net asset value (NAV) is a term used
in the mutual fund industry to determine
the average price per share of a
pool or mutual fund. How this measure
varies over time provides information
on whether the pool is stable
or variable. NAV is the market value
of all securities in a mutual fund,
less the value of the fund’s liabilities,
divided by the number of shares in
the fund outstanding. Shares of mutual
funds are purchased at the fund’s
offered NAV.

NET PRESENT VALUE
An amount that equates future cash
flows with their value in present terms.

NOTE
A written promise to pay a specified
amount to a certain entity on demand
or on a specified date. Usually bearing
a short-term maturity of a year or less
(though longer maturities are issued—
see “Medium-Term Note”).

O

OPTIONS
An option is a contract that gives
the buyer the right to buy or sell an
obligation at a specified price for
a specified time. Exchange Traded
Options are standardized option
contracts that are actively traded on
the Chicago Board of Exchange on a
daily basis whereas Over-the-Counter
Op¬tions are traded directly between
the buyer and seller at agreed upon
prices and conditions (the former
type of option is therefore more
liquid than the latter).

P

PAR AMOUNT OR PAR VALUE
The principal amount of a note or
bond which must be paid at maturity.

Par, also referred to as the “face
amount” of a security, is the principal
value stated on the face of the security.

A par bond is one sold at a price of
100 percent of its principal amount.

PORTFOLIO
Combined holding of more than one
stock, bond, commodity, real estate
investment, cash equivalent, or other
asset. The purpose of a portfolio is to
reduce risk by diversification.

PREMIUM
Premium means the difference between
the par value of a security and
the cost of the security, when the cost
is above par. Investors pay a premium

to purchase a security when the return
to the investor (yield) is lower than
the stated coupon (interest rate) on
the investment.

PRICE
Price is the amount of monetary
consideration
required by a willing seller
and a willing buyer to sell an investment
on a particular date.

PRINCIPAL
The face value or par value of a debt
instrument, or the amount of capital
invested in a given security. PROSPECTUS
A legal document that must be provided
to any prospective purchaser
of a new securities offering registered
with the SEC that typically includes
information on the issuer, the issuer’s
business, the proposed use of proceeds,
the experience of the issuer’s
management, and certain certified
financial statements (also known as an
“official statement”).

PRUDENT INVESTOR STANDARD
A standard of conduct where a person
acts with care, skill, prudence,
and diligence when investing, reinvesting,
purchasing, acquiring,
exchanging, selling, and managing
funds. The test of whether the standard
is being met is if a prudent person
acting in such a situation would
engage in similar conduct to ensure
that investments safeguard principal
and maintain liquidity.

R

REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS
An agreement of one party (for example,
a financial institution) to sell
securities to a second party (such as a
local agency) and simultaneous agreement
by the first party to repurchase
the securities at a specified price from
the second party on demand or at a
specified date.

REVERSE REPURCHASE

AGREEMENTS
An agreement of one party (for example,
a financial institution) to
purchase securities at a specified price
from a second party (such as a public
agency) and a simultaneous agreement
by the first party to resell the securities
at a specified price to the second party
on demand or at a specified date.

RISK
The uncertainty of maintaining the
principal or interest associated with an
investment due to a variety of factors.

RULE G-37 OF THE

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES

RULEMAKING BOARD
Federal regulations to sever any connection
between the making of political
contributions and the awarding of
municipal securities business.

S

SAFEKEEPING SERVICE
Offers storage and protection of
assets provided by an institution serving
as an agent.

SAFETY
In the context of investing public
funds, safety relates to preserving
the principal of an investment in an
investment portfolio; local agencies
address the concerns of safety by
controlling
exposure to risks.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION (SEC)
The federal agency responsible for
supervising and regulating the securities
industry.

SECURITIES LENDING

AGREEMENT
An agreement of one party (for
example, a local agency) to borrow
securities at a specified price from a
second party (for example, another
local agency) with a simultaneous

agreement by the first party to return
the security at a specified price to the
second party on demand or at a specified
date. These agreements generally
are collateralized and involve a third

CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT

ADVISORY COMMISSION
party custodian to hold the securities
and collateral. Economically similar to
reverse repurchase agreement.

T

TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION

NOTES (TRANS)
Notes issued in anticipation of receiving
tax proceeds or other revenues at a
future date.

TIME DEPOSITS
Time deposits are issued by depository
institutions against funds deposited for
a specified length of time. Time deposits
include instruments such as deposit
notes. They are distinct from certificates
of deposit (CDs) in that interest
payments on time deposits are calculated
in a manner similar to that of
corporate bonds whereas interest payments
on CDs are calculated similar to
that of money market instruments.

TRUSTEE, TRUST COMPANY OR

TRUST DEPARTMENT OF A BANK
A financial institution with powers
to act in a fiduciary capacity for the
benefit of the bondholders in enforcing
the terms of the bond contract.

U

UNDERWRITER
A dealer that purchases a new issue of
municipal securities for resale.

U.S. TREASURY OBLIGATIONS
Debt obligations of the U.S. Government
sold by the Treasury Department
in the forms of bills, notes, and
bonds. Bills are short-term obligations
that mature in one year or less and are
sold at a discount. Notes are obligations
that mature between one year
and ten years. Bonds are long-term
obligations that generally mature in
ten years or more.

W

WEIGHTED AVERAGE

MATURITY (WAM)
The average maturity of all the securities
that comprise a portfolio, typically
expressed in days or years.

Y
YIELD
The current rate of return on an
investment security generally expressed
as a percentage of the securities
current price.

YIELD CURVE
A graphic representation that shows
the relationship at a given point in
time between yields and maturity for
bonds that are identical in every way
except maturity.

Z

ZERO-INTEREST BOND
A bond on which interest is not payable
until maturity (or earlier redemption),
but compounds periodically
to accumulate to a stated maturity
amount. Zero-interest bonds are typically
issued at a discount and repaid at
par upon maturity.

APPENDIX B
Investment Policy
Broker/Dealer Questionnaire

1. Name of Firm:

2. Address:

3. Telephone:

4. Principal(s)/Manager(s)/Partner(s):

Name: Title:

Name: Title:

5. Is Your Firm:

Broker? Yes No (a firm that does not own the securities being offered) Dealer? Yes No (a firm that owns a position in the securities being offered)

6. Year Founded:

7. Firm’s Total Volume of U.S. Government Securities Traded in Most Recent Fiscal Year:
$
Broker/Dealer Questionnaire

8. Financial Instruments Most Regularly Offered:

9. References: (Public sector clients in the local geographical area are preferred):

Name: Title: Telephone:

Address:

Name: Title: Telephone:

Address:

Name: Title: Telephone:

Address:

10. Local Office and Representative assigned to the City of La Mesa account:

NOTE: Your firm must have an office in California (See 3.c of the Policy) Address:

Name: Title: Telephone:

11. Has any client sustained a loss on a securities transaction engendered from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the risk characteristic of the financial instrument?
Yes No
If Yes, please explain:

Broker/Dealer Questionnaire

12. Has your firm, its employees, or local office been the subject of a state or federal investigation for alleged unfair, illegal, or fraudulent activities? Yes No
If Yes, please explain:

13. Please explain your usual custody or delivery process. Who audits these fiduciary systems?

14. Describe the capital line and trading limits imposed on the office that would service the account and conduct business with the City of La Mesa:

15. Please enclose recent audited financial statements and/or other indications of your firm’s capitalization.

16. Please describe the limits of insurance (Securities Investor Protection Corporation, excess SIPC, etc.) available:

17. Please provide proof of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) certification.

18. Please provide proof of registration with the State of California.

19. Please provide proof that your firm is qualified under SEC Rule 15C3-1 (Uniform Net Capital Rule).

Broker/Dealer Questionnaire

20. What information do you require of the City of La Mesa?

21. What transaction documents can the City of La Mesa expect to receive from you?

22. Please confirm that you and your representatives have read and understand the City of La Mesa’s Investment Policy and are familiar with Government Code Sections 53600 et seq by signing below:

Name: Signature:

Title: Date:

Attach resumes of all persons receiving a copy of our investment policy.

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

DATE: August 9, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tammi Royales, Director of Finance
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: 2022-2023 Proposition D Property Tax Levy
Adoption of the attached resolution establishes the City of La Mesa’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2016 (Fire, Police and Emergency Services Measure) property tax levy rate for the fiscal year 2022-2023. This levy is necessary to collect property taxes to be used to make debt service payments on the bonds issued in accordance with the $21.825 million of refunding bonds authorized by the City on October 25, 2016.

These General Obligation Refunding Bonds were used to refund the $25 million of authorization approved by the voters on March 2, 2004 (Proposition D – Fire, Police and Emergency Services Bond Measure).

Local secured assessed valuation in La Mesa has increased about 9.5% in fiscal year 2022-2023 over the prior fiscal year. The increase in secured assessed valuation combined with the savings achieved through the 2016 refunding allows us to maintain the levy rate at $15 per $100,000 of assessed valuation while continuing to meet the established debt service payment amounts and maintain reserves in accordance with the bond covenants.

Once adopted, the resolution must be filed with the County of San Diego by August 31, 2022. The tax rate will be used for calculation of 2022-2023 property taxes. La Mesa property owners should receive their property tax statements from the San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector in late September or early October.

Attachments: A. Calculation of the Property Tax Rate for 2022-2023 B Resolution establishing the property tax rate for bonded indebtedness for fiscal year 2022-2023

1 Row 1. Calculate 2022-23 Net Taxable Assessed Valuations 1 2022-23 taxable secured assessed valuation of the City (a): $8,950,336,972.00 2 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (Non-Teeter City) (b) Delinquency Factor

3.00% $268,510,109.16
3 Equals: 2022-23 net taxable secured assessed valuation of the City (a): $8,681,826,862.84 4 2022-23 taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City (a): $148,817,000.00 5 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (Non-Teeter City) (b) Delinquency Factor

5.00% $7,440,850.00
6 Equals: 2022-23 net taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City: $141,376,150.00

2. Calculate 2022-23 Net Requirement for Secured Property 7 2021-22 secured tax rate (c) $0.015000
8 2022-23 revenue from unsecured taxable property based on 2021-22 secured tax rate $21,206.42 9 2022-23 semi-annual debt service requirements (d):

February 1, 2023: $353,975.00
August 1, 2023: $1,243,975.00
10 Total 2022-23 annual debt service requirement: $1,597,950.00 11 Net requirement for secured taxable property after considering revenues from unsecured property $1,576,743.58

3. Calculate 2022-23 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured Assessed Value 12 Net balance of property tax revenue from 2021-22 levy (Approximate) (a): $3,839,981.18 13 Interest earnings (Approximate) (a): Included in net balance 14 Less: 2016 Refunding debt service payment due on August 1, 2022 (d): ($1,214,975.00) 16 Total (Net balance of funds on-hand including interest earnings) $2,625,006.18 17 Net 2022-23 debt service requirement for secured property after considering 2021-22 balance ($1,048,262.60) 18 Calculated 2022-23 secured tax rate per $100 of secured assessed value $0.000000

4. Determine City's 2022-23 Tax Rate and Resultant Revenue Balance After 8/1/2023 Debt Service Payment 19 City's desired tax rate per $100 of secured assessed value (a): $0.015000 Total property tax levy in 2022-23 for payment of bond debt service 20 Secured property $1,302,274.03
21 Unsecured property $21,206.42
22 Total $1,323,480.45
23 Tax revenues received in December 2022 (1/2 of total levy) $661,740.23 24 Plus funds on hand (from balance and interest earnings) $2,625,006.18 25 Available revenue for debt service payment due February 1, 2023 $3,286,746.41 26 Less: Debt service payment due on February 1, 2023 (d) ($353,975.00) 27 Revenue balance after debt service payment on February 1, 2023 $2,932,771.41 28 Tax revenues received in April 2023 (1/2 of total levy) $661,740.23 29 Plus funds on hand (from revenue balance after February 1, 2023 debt payment) $2,932,771.41 30 Available revenue for debt service payment due August 1, 2023 $3,594,511.63 31 Less: 2016 Refunding debt service payment due on August 1, 2023 (d): ($1,243,975.00) 33 Revenue balance after debt service payment on August 1, 2023 $2,350,536.63 Sources:
(a) City of La Mesa
(b) County of San Diego Assessor's Office & Recorder/County Clerk's Office (c) County of San Diego Auditor & Controller's Office
(d) Official Statement Prepared By:

See Page 2 for disclosures.

CALCULATION OF PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR 2022-23
City of La Mesa
2016 General Obligation Refunding Bonds
August 2, 2022

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa desires to establish the rate of property tax required to generate an amount of revenue from the tax base to provide sufficient moneys to pay debt service on the voter approved bonded indebtedness payable during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the total net taxable secured assessed valuation of the City of La Mesa is now estimated at $8,950,336,972 full value.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa that the property tax rate within the City for the City of La Mesa General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 (Fire, Police, and Emergency Services Measure) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023 be and hereby is established at $0.015000 per $100 assessed value.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and the Director of Finance are each hereby directed and authorized to take any and all actions necessary to ensure that such property tax rate is enrolled with the County of San Diego County Auditor and Controller.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of August 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF 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 CITY)

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: August 9, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving an Agreement with Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects to prepare a Library Needs
Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study for the La
Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library and
Appropriation of General Fund Reserves
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving an agreement with Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects for the development of a Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study for the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library and appropriating General Fund reserves? Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution approving an agreement with Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects for the development of a Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study for the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library and appropriating General Fund Reserves
Fiscal Impact:

The cost for this service is $81,473. There is $55,000 appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget for this project. Funding in the amount of $11,400 is available from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Local Assistance Specified Grant for the parks and recreational needs survey component of the scope of work. Staff is requesting the remaining funding in the amount of $15,080 from unappropriated General Fund reserves.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 2 of 4
City’s Strategic Goals:
 Continue to improve high quality municipal services
BACKGROUND:

At the July 27, 2021, meeting, the City Council formed a Library Task Force for the purpose of reviewing options and recommending a method to expand the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library. The purpose of the Library Task Force was to research options for expanding the La Mesa branch of the San Diego County Library commensurate to the community’s size and needs and recommend a course of action to the City Council. The Library Task Force consisted of three at-large members and members from the San Diego County Library, Friends of the La Mesa Library, a Faith/nonprofit organization, and the education community. In its meetings, the Library Task Force received a presentation regarding the San Diego County Library’s efforts, including needs analysis criteria and operational considerations based on current library standards. Using this information, the Task Force discussed and drafted recommendations which were presented to the City Council. The recommendations included retaining the services of a qualified firm to prepare a Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study to evaluate potential expansion scenarios. Staff has attached the Library Task Force’s recommendations for the City Council’s information (Exhibit A).

DISCUSSION:

Staff issued Request for Proposals (RFP) 22-14 on April 7 th, 2022 soliciting professional
services for the development of a Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study consistent with the Library Task Force recommendations. The scope of work defined in the RFP requested an evaluation of operational needs in conjunction with County Library personnel; assessment of demands and space capacity needs; a statistically valid community survey; and a financial feasibility study. Collectively, the scope of work addresses the need to further evaluate the operating capacity needs of the La Mesa Library based on usage data, community outreach, expansion scenarios, and available funding sources. The goal for this project is to have the consultant prepare a report that identifies and recommends a path toward expanding the library that meets community needs and available resources.

To take advantage of economy of scale, staff expanded the scope of work to include surveying not only the community’s library facility needs but also citywide park and recreational needs. The City’s 2012 Parks Master Plan identifies improvements to the City’s parks system necessary to meet both current and future community needs. Staff believes that incorporating questions into the library survey regarding the parks system will benefit the ongoing development of the park planning process and significantly

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 3 of 4
increase community engagement. The Community Services Department has funding from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Local Assistance Specified Grant that may be used to fund a portion of the survey. The plan is scheduled for an update in Fiscal year 2022-2023 and the survey results will be used to inform the updated plan.

The City received one proposal in response to the RFP from Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc. (RNT Architects). The firm has extensive experience working in the San Diego region and previously collaborated with the County on library projects. RNT Architects has 42 years of municipal project experience, including the recent completion of the San Diego Orchid and the Borrego Springs Library and Community. RNT Architects also completed the County of San Diego Lemon Grove Public Library and the City of Oxnard Public Library, South Oxnard Branch. RNT Architects was also directly engaged in the preparation of the current County Library Master Plan and is therefore substantially familiar with County library operations.

CONCLUSION:

RNT Architects proposes to study the existing facility, quantify space needs based on operational demand, assess community needs, and recommend total square footage of library space based on these criteria. If RNT recommends adding square footage to the facility, it will evaluate a development scenario that includes either expanding the existing space or building a new facility. Each development alternative will be tied to an estimate of probable cost that includes all estimated site preparation work, design, and construction costs. RNT Architects retained a cost estimator consultant and survey consultant to provide the associated scopes of work.

RNT Architects will share its analysis and recommendations in a future report to the City Council that provides a complete understanding associated with the timing and costs associated with each development scenario. This report will provide the City Council with an opportunity to consider the alternatives and provide staff with additional direction as appropriate. RNT Architects estimates the Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study requires between 7 to 9 months to complete all phases of the process; the City Manager’s Office will work with RNT Architects to ensure the work is completed within the proposed schedule.

Based on RNT Architects’ proposal, qualifications, references, and staff interview, staff has concluded that RNT Architects is well qualified to perform the requested scope of work. Staff believes the consultant’s experience and proposed approach to this project is consistent with the recommendations of the Library Task Force and City Council direction. Staff recommends approving an agreement with RNT Architects for the development of a Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study for the La Mesa

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 4 of 4
branch of the San Diego County Library and appropriation of General Fund reserves to fund the project.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:

____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Carlo Tomaino
City Manager Assistant City Manager
Attachments:

A: Library Task Force Recommendations
B: Professional Services Agreement with RNT Architects
C: Fiscal Impact Report Request
D: Resolution 2022-XX

Attachment A – Library Task Force Recommendations
City Council Direction: Research options for expanding the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library commensurate to the community's size and needs and recommend a course of action to the City Council.

Library Task Force Recommendations:

1. Retain a qualified consultant to prepare a Library Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study as a course of action to evaluate the existing library facility, operations, growth potential, and funding options to expand the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library in a four to five year timeframe. The Library Task Force recommends the Facility Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study include the following components:

A. Evaluate overall capacity for children and teen programs, community programs, and space needs for public meetings, computer/printer usage, staff work, quiet study/reading area, and outdoor events.

B. Conduct community engagement that includes various segments of the La Mesa population including children, teens, and non-English speaking residents.

C. Utilize the Needs Assessment completed by the County of San Diego Library in 2020 as a resource and consult with the County of San Diego La Mesa Library to assess facility needs.

2. The Library Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study process would provide additional information regarding the optimum facility size to accommodate current and future growth of library programs and operations and estimate the potential development of two possible scenarios:

A. Expanding the current library by constructing a second-floor mezzanine and/or exploring options to expand into a portion of the existing post office space. Developing potential alternative configurations to the library floor plan to provide additional space for programs and services including the potential use of outdoor space.

B. In partnership with the County of San Diego, exploring the option of constructing a new library facility on the site identified in the 2016 Civic Center Feasibility Study or an offsite location either as a public project or a public-private partnership.

Feasibility Study Elements:
 Identifying potential sources of funding including public financing, corporate and philanthropic grants, and public/private partnerships as well as discussing funding constraints and impediments.
 Developing a financial feasibility analysis based on the two potential development scenarios.

3. Utilizing the results of the Library Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study, the City Council would have the option to allocate funding for a potential future capital project and direct staff to retain a qualified architect and construction contractor to develop the preferred option.

- 1 -

STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA AND ROESLING NAKAMURA
TERADA ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEEDS

ASSESSMENT AND FINANCIAL FEASIBLITY STUDY FOR THE LA

MESA BRANCH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY
This Agreement is entered into by City of La Mesa as of this day of , 2022, by and between the City of La Mesa, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the City", and Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Incl hereinafter referred to as "Contractor." WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, the City has need for professional services for the development of a needs assessment and financial feasibility study for the La Mesa branch of the San Diego County Library and is willing to compensate Contractor for such services; and WHEREAS, the City advertised a Request for Proposals (“RFP 22-14”) for the development a needs assessment and financial feasibility study for the La Mesa branch of the San Diego County Library; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that Contractor is most qualified to perform a needs assessment and financial feasibility study; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is qualified to provide said professional services and the City has allocated funds.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows:

SECTION 1: EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACTOR
The City hereby agrees to engage Contractor and Contractor hereby agrees to perform the services set forth in this Agreement.

SECTION 2: SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR
Contractor shall commence performance of the Project upon execution of this Agreement by both parties. The term “Project” as used in this Agreement shall include all of the tasks and items listed and described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of this Agreement.

SECTION 3: KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL
Contractor agrees to provide the services of professionals employed by Contractor as described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein for the full term of the Agreement. No other substitutions will be made without prior written approval by the City. The City reserves the right to request specific qualifications for personnel substituted under this section.

SECTION 4: SUBCONTRACTING
Contractor shall not utilize the services of any sub-contractors during the course of this Project without the prior written consent of the City Representative.

- 2 -
SECTION 5: CITY REPRESENTATION
The Assistant City Manager for the City of La Mesa, or his designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and shall administer said Agreement on behalf of the City. This person shall hereinafter be referred to as the "City's Representative." SECTION 6: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
The City will provide the Contractor, or cause to be provided with, the following documents, services and site information, at no charge to the Contractor.

A. Any necessary electronic files, documents, information and/or data as needed for Contractor’s performance in carrying out the tasks and items listed and described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of this Agreement.

SECTION 7: PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
This Agreement shall be for an initial term of twelve (12) months from the execution date of the Agreement and may be renewed for one (1) additional twelve (12) month term by written consent the City Manager of City and Contractor.

The Contractor shall not be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Contractor's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, or governmental agencies.

SECTION 8: METHOD OF COMPENSATION
The City shall compensate Contractor for the services performed hereunder within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of Contractor's invoice for the services performed pursuant to Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Contractor shall provide documentation regarding charges sufficient to meet normal auditing practice.

The City shall promptly review invoicing and notify Contractor of any objection thereto in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the invoice; absent such objection the invoice shall be deemed proper and acceptable.

In the event that any undisputed invoice is not paid within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice by the City, it shall commence bearing interest on the date that the invoice was rendered at the rate of 1% per month and the City agrees to pay all accrued interest, together with the charges for services rendered.

The total fee for professional services shall not exceed eighty-one thousand four hundred and seventy-three dollars ($81,473) as described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein.

SECTION 9: RECORDS
Contractor shall maintain adequate records to permit inspection audit of Contractor's charges under this Agreement. Contractor shall make such records available to the City and to other public agencies responsible for approval, funding or auditing the project, during normal business hours

- 3 -
upon reasonable notice. Nothing herein shall convert such records into public records and they will be available only to the City or to public agencies involved with approval, funding or audit functions.

Such records shall be maintained by the Contractor for three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement.

SECTION 10: ITEMS TO BE DELIVERED TO CITY
The items to be delivered by the Contractor to the City are as described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein.

SECTION 11: ADDITIONAL SERVICES OUTSIDE SCOPE
Only after written authorization from the City, additional services that Contractor could provide, or cause to be provided are as follows:

A. Additional administrative services related to the Project but not included in the Scope of Work as described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporatedherein.

B. Additional administrative services caused by changes unrelated to the Scope of Work as described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Changes to the scope of this Agreement shall be negotiated prior to commencement of extra work. Contractor shall be compensated for Contractor’s time and direct personnel expenses as approved by the City.

SECTION 12: INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
Indemnity for Professional Liability:

When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Contractor’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs but only to the extent the Contractor (and its Subcontractors), are responsible for such damages, liabilities and costs on a comparative basis of fault between the Contractor (and its Subcontractors) and the City in the performance of professional services under this agreement.

Indemnity for Other Than Professional Liability:

Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, court costs, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or City for which Contractor is legally liable, including, but not limited to officers, agents, employees, or subcontractors of Contractor, except when caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

If Contractor should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Contractor shall require each subcontractor to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and its members, board members, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers in accordance with the terms of the preceding paragraphs.

- 4 -
This section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.

SECTION 13: INSURANCE
Throughout the life of this Agreement, Contractor shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect all policies of insurance required hereunder with an insurance company(ies) either (i) admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California and rated not less than "A:VII" in Best's Insurance Rating Guide, or (ii) as may be authorized in writing by the City Manager or his/her designee at any time and in his/her sole discretion. The following policies of insurance are required:
(i) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage Form CG 00 01 and include insurance for “bodily injury,” “property damage” and “personal and advertising injury” with coverage for premises and operations (including the use of owned and non-owned equipment), products and completed operations, and contractual liability (including, without limitation, indemnity obligations under the Agreement) with limits of liability of not less than the following:
$1,000,000 per occurrence
$2,000,000 general aggregate
(ii) WORKERS' COMPENSATION insurance as required under the California Labor Code. (iii) EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY insurance with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 disease policy limit and $1,000,000 disease each employee.
(iv) PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY (Errors and Omissions) insurance appropriate to Contractor’s profession, with limits of liability of $2,000,000 per claim/occurrence and $2,000,000 policy aggregate.

In the event Contractor purchases an Umbrella or Excess insurance policy(ies) to meet the minimum limits of insurance set forth above, this insurance policy(ies) shall “follow form” and afford no less coverage than the primary insurance policy(ies).

Contractor shall be responsible for payment of any deductibles contained in any insurance policies required hereunder and Contractor shall also be responsible for payment of any selfinsured retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by, the City Manager or his/her designee in his/her sole discretion. At the option of the City Manager or his/her designee, either (i) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects to City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers; or (ii) Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee, satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee in his/her sole discretion, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. At no time shall City be responsible for the payment of any deductibles or self-insured retentions.

All policies of insurance required hereunder shall be endorsed to provide that the coverage shall not be cancelled, non-renewed, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 calendar day written notice has been given to City. Upon issuance by the insurer, broker, or agent of a notice of cancellation, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage or in limits, Contractor shall furnish City

- 5 -
with a new certificate and applicable endorsements for such policy(ies). In the event any policy is due to expire during the work to be performed for City, Contractor shall provide a new certificate, and applicable endorsements, evidencing renewal of such policy not less than 15 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the expiring policy.

The General Liability insurance policy shall be written on an occurrence form. The General Liability (including ongoing operations and completed operations) policy shall name City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as an additional insured. All such policies of insurance shall be endorsed so Contractor’s insurance shall be primary and no contribution shall be required of City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. The coverage(s) shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Should Contractor maintain insurance with broader coverage and/or limits of liability greater than those shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits of liability maintained by Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available toCity.

If the Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) insurance policy is written on a claims-made coverage form:
(i) The retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the effective date of this Agreement or the commencement of work by Contractor. (ii) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least 5 years after completion of the work or termination of the Agreement, whichever first occurs.
(iii) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claimsmade policy form with a retroactive date prior to the effective date of the Agreement, or work commencement date, Contractor must purchase extended reporting period coverage for a minimum of 5 years after completion of the work or termination of the Agreement, whichever first occurs.
(iv) A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to City forreview. (v) These requirements shall survive expiration or termination of the Agreement.

Contractor shall furnish City with all certificate(s) and applicable endorsements effecting coverage required hereunder. All certificates and applicable endorsements are to be received by City and approved by City Manager or his/her designee in his/her sole discretion prior to City’s execution of the Agreement and before work commences. Upon request of City, Contractor shall immediately furnish City with a complete copy of any insurance policy required under this Agreement, including all endorsements, with said copy certified by the underwriter to be a true and correct copy of the original policy. This requirement shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.

If at any time during the life of the Agreement or any extension, Contractor or any of its subcontractors fail to maintain any required insurance in full force and effect, all work under this Agreement shall be discontinued immediately, until notice is received by City that the required insurance has been restored to full force and effect and that the premiums therefore have been paid for a period satisfactory to City. Any failure to maintain the required insurance shall be sufficient cause for City to terminate this Agreement. No action taken by City hereunder shall in

- 6 -
any way relieve Contractor of its responsibilities under this Agreement.

The fact that insurance is obtained by Contractor shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of Contractor, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. The duty to indemnify City shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Contractor.

Approval or purchase of any insurance contracts or policies shall in no way relieve from liability nor limit the liability of Contractor, its principals, officers, agents, employees, persons under the supervision of Contractor, vendors, suppliers, invitees, subcontractor, or anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them.

If Contractor should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Contractor shall require each subcontractor to provide insurance protection in favor of City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers in accordance with the terms of each of the preceding paragraphs, except that the subcontractor’s certificates and endorsements shall be on file with Contractor and City prior to the commencement of any work by the subcontractor.

SECTION 14: OWNERSHIP OF WORK
All finished or unfinished documents, studies, reports, computer files and materials prepared by Contractor and subcontractors under this Agreement shall be considered the property of the City and will be turned over to the City upon demand, but in any event, upon completion of the Project. The Contractor shall be allowed to retain copies of documents for his permanent records, if desired.

SECTION 15: ASSIGNABILITY
Contractor shall not assign, delegate, or transfer this Agreement or any work hereunder, nor assign any monies due or to become due hereunder, except as expressly stated herein. In no event shall any contractual relation be created between any third party and the City without prior written consent of the City. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment.

SECTION 16: AMENDMENTS
This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no other agreements, expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein. This Agreement may be amended upon written mutual consent of both parties hereto. Amendment requiring changes in compensation shall be subject to the City's change order procedures.

- 7 -
SECTION 17: NOTICES
All communications to either party by the other shall be deemed given when made in writing and delivered or mailed to such party at its respective address as follows:

City: Assistant City Manager
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
(619) 667-1311
[email protected]
Contractor: Raul Diaz
Principal, Architect
RNT Architects, Inc.
363 Fifth Avenue, Suite 202
San Diego CA 92101
(619) 235-7391
[email protected]
The date of notification shall be receipt by the City as evidenced by date stamp affixed to the notice.

SECTION 18: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The City and Contractor shall submit unresolved claims, counterclaims, disputes, controversies and other matters between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof (“disputes”), first to mediation and then if not resolved, to non-binding arbitration prior to initiating suit or judicial proceeding.

The City shall require that all Contractors agree to submit any unresolved claims, counterclaims, disputes, controversies and other matters between them and the City or the Contractor and/or any sub-Contractors of any tier arising out of or relating to their agreement with the City or the breach thereof (“disputes”) first to mediation and then if not resolved, to non-binding arbitration prior to initiating suit or judicial proceeding.

SECTION 19: TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CAUSE OR

CONVENIENCE
If, through any cause, the Contractor shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligations under this Agreement, or if the Contractor shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately by giving written notice to the Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by the Contractor under this Agreement shall, at the option of the City, become its property and the Contractor shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed hereunder.

In addition to termination for cause, the City may terminate this Agreement for City’s convenience upon not less than fifteen (15) day’s written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement unless said notice provides

- 8 -
otherwise. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in this paragraph for City’s convenience, the Contractor shall be required to provide to City all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, services, etc., prepared by the Contractor as may be requested by City and such work shall become City’s property upon payment to Contractor for the value of the work performed, less payments of compensation previously made.

Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the Contractor, and the City may withhold any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Contractor is determined.

SECTION 20: BUSINESS LICENSE
The Contractor, including all subcontractors, shall obtain a business license for work within the City of La Mesa pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Sections 6.08.010 through 6.08.240.

No payments shall be made to any Contractor until such business license has been obtained, and all fees paid therefore, by the Contractor and all subcontractors. Business license applications and information may be obtained from the Finance Department, City Administration Building, 8130 Allison Avenue, P. O. Box 937, La Mesa, CA 91941-0937, (619) 667-1118.

SECTION 21: INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE CITY
No member of the governing body of the City and no other officer, employee, or agent of the City who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the Contractor shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance.

SECTION 22: INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR AND EMPLOYEES;

STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
The Contractor covenants that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of his services hereunder. The Contractor further covenants, that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. City may require Contractor to complete and submit a Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests, in accordance with applicable law, to the City Clerk.

SECTION 23: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all non-City facilities and equipment which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this Agreement.

For purposes of all meetings held in the City Council Chambers itself, the City shall provide the appropriate equipment, broadcast infrastructure and work facilities to produce the Council Meeting broadcasts. The Contractor shall be responsible for any damages to same by their staff. The Contractor’s staff shall be responsible to promptly notify City staff and/or the city’s maintenance provider verbally or in writing of any damages to the equipment or facilities or operational malfunctions of the electronic systems and software.

- 9 -
SECTION 24: INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall be an independent Contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Contractor only insofar as the results of Contractor's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, City shall not have the right to control the means by which Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.

SECTION 25: TIME
Contractor shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

SECTION 26: CONTRACTOR NOT AGENT
Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

SECTION 27: NON-DISCLOSURE
The reports, surveys, data, materials and documents prepared or acquired by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement (including any duplicate copies kept by the Contractor) shall not be shown to any other public or private person or entity, except as authorized by the City. The Contractor shall not disclose to any other public or private person or entity any information regarding the activities of the City except as authorized by the City.

SECTION 28: CHANGES
The City may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Services of the Agreement to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Contractor's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the City and the Contractor shall be incorporated to this Agreement.

SECTION 29: JOB SITE SAFETY
The Contractor who is responsible for means, methods and procedures of the project shall be responsible for job site safety. The Contractor shall:

A. Be responsible for the safety of his employees as required by law.

B. Exercise reasonable care to avoid risk of injury to others as required by the professional standard of care.

SECTION 30: PERS ELIGIBILITY INDEMNIFICATION
In the event that Contractor’s employee providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS of the City, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employer and employee contributions for PERS

- 10 -
benefits on behalf of the employee as well as for payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions which would otherwise be the responsibility of the City.

Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor’s employees providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation and benefit including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contributions to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

SECTION 31: CONFLICT BETWEEN AGREEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and any documents incorporated by reference in this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall supersede those contained in any such document incorporated by reference.
(NEXT PAGE)

- 11 -
SECTION 32: DATE OF AGREEMENT
The date of this Agreement shall be the date it shall have been signed by a duly authorized representative of City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Contractor have executed the Agreement.

RNT Architects, Inc.

Date: _ By:

Raul Diaz, Principal, Architect

CITY OF LA MESA,
A Municipal Corporation
Date: _ By:

Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
Date: _ By:

Greg Humora, City Manager
Date: _ By:

Carlo Tomaino, Assistant City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Glenn Sabine, City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A – Scope of Work and Fee Schedule

Proposal

CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

A NEEDS ASSESSMENT & FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

FOR THE LA MESA BRANCH OF THE

SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY
City of La Mesa,
City Manager's Office
RFP 22-14
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects
May 31, 2022
Exhibit "A"

2 Table of Contents
A. Cover Letter..................................................................Page 5 B. Scope of Work ..............................................................Page 9 C. Experience and Qualifications.................................Page 17 D. Process........................................................................Page 25 E. References ..................................................................Page 32 F. Costs.............................................................................Page 57

Borrego Springs Library Page 82 of 291 Cover Letter
A
Tab A: Cover Letter

5 Dear City Manager and Members of Selection Committee, Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc. (RNT) is pleased to submit our qualifications for to the City of La Mesa for the Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study for the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library. With its unique community setting and demographics, La Mesa deserves a specific Library that reflects the needs of the community. The La Mesa Library serves as major civic and cultural gathering place for education, casual reading, and community activities. This project should result in meaningful architectural interventions that positively affect the library services for the La Mesa community for generations.

RNT, from its downtown San Diego office, brings 42 years of municipal project experience, including the recent completion of the San Diego Orchid and AIA award-winning Borrego Springs Library and Community Park, forming the primary Cultural Campus for the Borrego Springs community. We have also completed the County of San Diego Lemon Grove Public Library and the AIA award winning City of Oxnard Public Library, South Oxnard Branch. Additionally, we have performed district-wide library feasibility studies for the County of San Diego as well as full scope architectural services for various new and renovation public school library projects. With particular relevance to this project, we have recently finished a Master Plan for the County of San Diego’s Library system that includes the needs assessment and recommendations for 13 libraries.

From our recent library master plan experience, we have engaged many communities that have proposed solutions to their requirements of the 21st Century Library. Some of these solutions include:
• Technology integration, iPad check out stations, connected conference rooms, and acoustically sound study spaces;
• Cultural and historic collections and archives related to the region; • Social gathering spaces for smaller groups;
• Designated areas for serving various age groups, especially areas that will entice the younger, digitally savvy audience;
• Flexible spaces that can be used for providing new services to the community, such as hosting events and group meetings, or educational opportunities such as tech classes; • Interpretative sustainability design elements within the Library and the outdoor spaces; • “Makerspace” that merges math, science and robotics programs.

We are enthusiastic about this opportunity to work with the City of La Mesa. We hope you find that our highly qualified and success-driven team brings genuine enthusiasm to your project. Our references will attest to our professionalism and design talent. We look forward to a successful collaboration and to presenting our qualifications and approach in person.

Sincerely,
Ralph Roesling
Kotaro Nakamura
Mun Ying Kung
Chikako Terada
Joe Mansfield
Rommel Olaes
Raúl Díaz
Tyson Cline
Rick España
Chris Bradbury
Gemma Hsiueh
Raúl F. Díaz, AIA
Principal Architect, (person authorized to answer questions about the RFP) [email protected]
619.235.7391
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc.

Our Firm:

RNT’s philosophy is based on providing valuable, creative guidance to our clients and responding directly to their needs. We see ourselves as good listeners. Our vast experience planning and designing college facilities has provided us with proven techniques.

Our Staff:

RNT’s collaborative nature facilitates social interaction, teamwork and open communication.

Our supportive environment enhances talent, diversity, the well-being, and happiness of our employees. We value diversity immensely. Our studio resembles a microcosm of California, and we are proud to have more than 11 languages represented in our office.

Pine Avenue Community Center Page 86 of 291 Scope of Work B
Tab B: Scope of Work

SUMMARY SCOPE
RNT will perform consulting services for a Financial Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment of the La Mesa Branch of the County of San Diego (County), San Diego County Library
(SDCL) and Community Facilities Library and Citywide Parks Survey as outlined below. RNT will work with City of La Mesa (City) and County staff to evaluate the square footage of the La Mesa library, based on assessments and identified needs from the provided Capital Projects Library Master Plan.

RNT will study the existing site and facility, quantify any space deficiencies, determine and define how best to address those deficiencies, gather opinions regarding facility needs from a community survey, recommend total square footage of library space based on technological, service, or program needs identified in the community survey and Master Plan, outline conditions in transitioning to the recommended total square footage, and establish the location of any additional space and /or new library building as alternatives.

Each alternative will be tied to an estimate of probable cost that includes all estimated site preparation work, design, and construction costs. It is anticipated that RNT will engage a cost estimator consultant and survey consultant to provide the associated scopes of work. RNT will share their analysis and recommendation so all stakeholders can fully understand the implications of subsequent decisions that could result.

RNT’s experience with Needs Assessments and Financial
Feasibility Studies requires between 7 – 9 months for
completing all phases of the process due to arranging and seeking participants for information input sessions. The anticipated start date is July 1st of 2022.

SCOPE OF WORK
The methodology RNT will employ is devised to ensure a fair and complete assessment of the La Mesa library as it exists today for the purpose of focusing on its future. A thorough evaluation will lead to well-reasoned facility recommendations and technology considerations - not merely speculative advice. Our plan of work consists of five (5) major tasks (please see the following pages):

ABOVE: RNT'S sketches from the La Mesa
Civic Center Master Plan and Library
Grant Design Study (2001)

10 TASK 1 – INFORMATION GATHERING & LIBRARY ASSESSMENT
(3 – 4 WEEKS)
RNT shall work with the City, County, and SDCL to gather pertinent information about the La Mesa facility, including lease information, usage data, accessibility (ADA) and building assessments. Based on data provided by such documents as the Capital Projects Library Master Plan, RNT will visit the existing library to assess the building, location, condition, and capacity. Comparing the existing library to established best practices, RNT will determine if the current facility meets industry standards in terms of size, functional layout, technology, cultural / educational programs, location within the community, parking, and other relevant criteria.

Tasks include:

1. Participate in a project kickoff meeting with City and County staff

2. Project team site visit to gain a general understanding of the La Mesa operations, layouts, functional areas and technical or other requirements

3. Participate in initial interviews with the County to verify program, space, use and design requirements

4. Evaluate the proposed project sites for ROWs, easements, drainage flow and property lines

5. Develop a baseline occupancy / use narrative for the existing facility

6. Develop a functional space program for the existing facility

7. Create an opportunity and constraint diagram and matrix list

8. Evaluate current facility size in relation to service demands; provide a recommendation regarding the
optimum facility size

9. Develop an Existing Program Report

10. Meet with project team to review stakeholder
comments
Task 1 Deliverables include:
• Existing Program Report
• Stakeholder / Occupants Interview Meeting Notes
• Project Meeting Notes
EXAMPLE: Investment Priority Results from ETC
Institute's Community Engagement Projects

11 TASK 2 – COMMUNITY FACILITIES LIBRARY AND CITYWIDE PARKS SURVEY (12 – 16 WEEKS)
RNT will engage a Survey Sub-Consultant to assist the City’s project manager in distributing a community survey. The survey is to identify community opinions regarding facility needs. Strategies will be selected in collaboration with City staff to encourage citizen and stakeholder participation in the goal setting for the assessment of library and future park services.

Tasks include:

1. Participate in meetings with City and County and survey sub-consultant to determine guidelines for approach, survey timeline, format, sample size, and questionnaire topics that also include other community park amenities as identified

2. Collaborate with City staff and coordinate with sub-consultant to execute required public meeting notification documents and requirements

3. Coordinate with sub-consultant to provide examples of survey to City prior to survey initiation

4. Coordinate with sub-consultant to develop a Final Findings Report Task 2 Deliverables include:
• Final Findings Report
• Project Meeting Notes
EXAMPLE: Survey Results from ETC Institute's
Community Engagement Projects

12 TASK 3 – PROGRAMMING & FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
(6 – 8 WEEKS)
Based on information from Tasks 1 and 2, RNT will study alternatives that achieve the recommended library square footage, incorporating the Library’s mission, vision, community and stakeholder needs and expectations, public library best practices and trends and the fiscal realities of the City. RNT will engage a Cost Estimator as Sub-Consultant to provide general cost estimates and projections for facilities improvements/construction alternatives at the cost-per-square-foot level that includes all estimated site preparation work, design, and construction costs.

Tasks include:

1. Evaluate and note relevant City of La Mesa Code elements

2. Estimate the potential development of the two possible scenarios via various test-fits or alternatives

3. Engage a cost estimating sub-consultant to provide cost estimation of alternatives

4. Identify possible sources of funding and funding constraints or impediments for development scenarios

5. Provide a 5-year development timeframe for development scenarios

6. Develop Programming Alternatives Report
Task 3 Deliverables include:
• Programming Alternatives Report:
• Schematic Site Plans
• Schematic Floor Plans
• Functional Space Programs
• Cost Estimates
• Development Timelines
• Sources of Funding Narrative
• Recommendations
• Project Meeting Notes
EXAMPLE: Programming
Recommendations for Small
Library (5,000 SF)

13 TASK 4 – EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
(2 – 3 WEEKS)
RNT will administer meetings with the City to discuss recommendations alongside alternatives from the previous task.

Tasks include:

1. Identify options within Programming Alternatives Report

2. Provide recommended design criteria
Task 4 Deliverables include:
• Programming Alternatives Report (Revised)
• Alternatives
• Outline Design Criteria
• Project Meeting Notes
TASK 5 – DOCUMENTATION & PUBLIC MEETING
EXAMPLE: Recommendations for
El Cajon Library

(3 – 4 WEEKS)
RNT will assist the City in providing recommendations to City Council based on a final Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study Report. This document is to include all information from Tasks 1 through 4.

Tasks include:

1. Prepare a draft preliminary Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study Report

2. Following stakeholder review, prepare the final Report with appendices and supporting documents (1 hardcopy and PDF copy)

3. Collaborate with staff in preparing presentations for City Council using materials from the Report Task 5 Deliverables include:
• Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study Report • Project Meeting Notes
EXAMPLE: Page from Master Plan
for El Cajon Library Branch

Agoura Hills Recreation Center Experience and Qualifications Page 94 of 291 C Tab C: Experience and Qualifications

17 RNT Personnel
Sub-consultants
Raúl Díaz
• Principal Architect
• Hourly Rate: $205
• Experience:

Please see resume
on page 20
Brandon Martella
• Project Architect
• Hourly Rate: $195
• Experience:

Please see resume
on page 21
Megan Christian
• Project Designer
• Hourly Rate: $110
• Experience:

Please see resume
on page 22
Ryan Murray, ETC
Institute
• Principal, Survey
• Hourly Rate: $142.22
• Experience:

Please see Selected
Experience on page 19
Celia Hunter, Hunter
Pacific Group
• Senior Cost Estimator
• Hourly Rate: $202.43
• Experience:

Please see Selected
Experience on page 19
Esther Cambell, ETC
Institute
• Project Manager,
Survey
• Hourly Rate: $88.53
• Experience:

Please see Selected
Experience on page 19

18 Qualifications of Firm: RNT
For 42 years our firm has earned a national reputation for providing our clients with buildings and environments that surpass expectations and needs. This commitment has resulted in more than 100 regional, state and national design awards and in the publication of our projects in a monograph and numerous design journals.

RNT’s collaborative and interdisciplinary approach toward architectural design, master plans, feasibility studies, programming, urban design, community planning, and industrial design creates meaningful environments that enrich daily life.

We believe and practice in a “studio” environment, meaning that our multi-disciplinary staff members are able to share ideas and work collaboratively, taking full advantage of our resources for creativity and problem solving. Additionally, we practice a Client-Inclusive Design Process, which enables us to quickly build consensus amongst multiple stakeholders. We apply a wealth of experience and knowledge to a fresh, openminded approach. Our focus is to listen and understand our client’s needs, expectations and goals before we embark on the design process. Through this engaged process, RNT continually delivers successful projects that respond to the present and future needs of our clients. With the participation of all stakeholders, we are proud of the meaningful facilities we have created for the greater community.

Please see resumes and project pages in the following
pages.

Core Values
On Making Architecture
We revel in the joy of craft and bringing art to everyday life We listen and respond to tell the story of our clients
We enhance human experience through the nuanced poetry of light, material and space
On Responding to Relevant Cultural Influences
We celebrate the expression of place, culture and traditions We embrace diverse ideas, critique and insightful dialogue We study and apply the principles of sustainability,
resilience and appropriate technology
On supporting and Sustaining Studio
Creativity
We advance creativity through
inspiration, innovation and invention
We mentor our young
professionals and support
their inspired teamwork

19 ETC Institute was founded in 1982 by Dr. Elaine Tatham to help local governments gather data from residents to enhance community planning. The firm has grown from a small oneperson company to a national corporation. Since its founding, ETC Institute has completed research projects for clients in 49 states. This includes thousands of surveys, focus groups, and stakeholder meetings.

ETC will complete several tasks, including designing the Survey Instrument; developing a Sampling Plan; adminstering the Survey (ensuring representation for Non-English-Speaking Populations and allowing for an Internet option); managing data and performing Quality Control; analyzing data and preparing a report; performing priority investment rating analyses; GIS mapping; and more.

ETC is currently supporting (or has supported in the last three years) more than 800 clients, including Cities, Utilities, Universities, DOT's, and more.

Selected Experience:
• City of Tempe, AZ: ETC Institute has conducted the
City of Tempe’s Community Survey annually since
2007. The team assigned to the City’s project were all
assigned to the project. Reference: Rosa Inchausti,
Strategic Management and Diversity Office, Phone:
(480) 350-8999, E-mail: [email protected]
• City of Olathe, KS: ETC Institute has conducted the
City of Olathe’s DirectionFinder® Survey annually since 2000 and a smaller version quarterly since 2014. The
team assigned to the City’s project were all assigned
to the project. Reference: Tim Danneberg, Director
of Communications, Phone: (913) 971-8609, E-mail:

[email protected]
• City of Oklahoma City: ETC Institute has conducted
the City of Oklahoma City’s, DirectionFinder® Surveys
in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and annually since
2014. Reference: Doug Dowler, Budget Director,
Phone: (405) 297-2814, E-mail: Doug.Dowler@okc.
gov The team assigned to the City’s project were all
assigned to the project.

Qualifications of Firm: ETC Institute, Survey Administrator Contact
Esther Campbell
913.254.4528
[email protected]
725 W. Frontier Circle
Olathe, KS 66061
With more than 20 years of experience, Hunter Pacific
speaks the language of their clients and understands your perspectives on a wide range of program issues. To ensure the highest performing team, we leverage collective expertise and experience, incorporating team training, lessons learned, and best management practices.

Hunter Pacific and RNT have worked together on numerous projects.
• Selected Experience (bold = with RNT):
• San Diego County, Library Renovations | San Diego, CA • San Diego Unified School District, Marston Middle
School Modernization Project | San Diego, CA
• San Diego Unified School District, Morse High
School Phases I, II and III | San Diego, CA
• Carlsbad Unified School District, Sage Creek High
School Campus and New Library | Carlsbad, CA
• County of San Diego/ Fallbrook Branch Library –
Feasibility Study | Fallbrook, CA
• Carlsbad City Library, Interior Redesign Services |
Carlsbad, CA
Qualifications of Firm: Hunter Pacific, Cost Estimator
Contact
Celia Hunter, CEP, LEED AP
619.322.2485
[email protected]
160 West Island Ave
San Diego, CA 92101

20 Professional Registration
Licensed Architect, CA, No.C-22987
Licensed Architect, NY, No.024324
Education
Master of Urban Planning
(Urban Design)
CCNY, City University of New York
Bachelor of Architecture
University of Southern California
Years of Industry
Experience
32 years
Raúl is a Principal and has been with the firm since 2003. Over the years the majority of Raúl’s projects have been for public institutions, so he knows how to expedite City approvals and to anticipate issues that are likely to occur. For the Borrego Springs Library project, and several other major projects that Raúl completed with the County, Building Information Modeling (BIM) was extensively utilized to enable early decision-making and to more easily maintain adherence to complicated programs.

As a Project Manager, Raúl will regularly conduct design review meetings with the building users and staff to address project deliverable goals. He will be responsible for establishing and executing a detailed project management schedule with milestones. He has worked on many complex higher educational projects where he has identified creative program and design solutions to address and satisfy the needs of a multitude of user groups.
• San Diego Library Facilities Master Plan | San Diego, CA Role: Principal-in-Charge | Size: 5,000 SF, 15,000 SF, and 30,000 SF spaces | Cost: N/A, Planning & Study only
This facilities master plan identifies San Diego County’s architectural needs, operational and service requirements, The Plan includes the development of three recommended templates based on square footage; one large, one medium and the other small, of library space, and the siting of any replacement and/or new library facilities through 2035.
• County of San Diego, Borrego Springs Library | Borrego Springs, CA
Role: Project Architect | Size: 13,165 SF | Cost:
$10,500,000
• San Diego CCD, Facilities Master Plan | San Diego, CA Role: Project Manager | Size: 60 acres | Cost: N/A
RNT is studying the existing campus, its needs and challenges, and developing planning sensitivities that act as penchants to facilitate the progressive advancement of the College to meet the demands of its rapidly growing community.
• Lemon Grove School District, S.T.E.M. Academy & New
Joint Use Library | San Diego, CA
Role: Project Manager | Size: 13,500 SF | Cost: $8,791,009 • The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego, St. Patrick’s School and Parish Master Plan, including Library | San
Diego, CA
• Carlsbad Unified School District, Sage Creek High School Master Plan and New Campus, including Library (CHPS) |
Carlsbad, CA
Project Experience
Raúl Díaz, AIA
Principal-in-Charge

21 Brandon Martella, AIA, LEED AP
Professional Registration
Licensed Architect, CA, No. C-36275
Education
Bachelor of Architecture, NewSchool
Architecture + Design
Years of Industry
Experience
12 Years
• County of San Diego, Borrego Springs Library | Borrego Springs, CA
Role: Project Architect | Size: 13,165 SF | Cost: $10,500,000 • San Diego CCD, Facilities Master Plan | San Diego, CA Role: Project Architect | Size: 60 acres | Cost: N/A
• San Diego Automotive Museum – Library, Museum and Gift Shop – Balboa Park | San Diego, CA
Role: Project Architect | Size: 50,000 SF | Cost: N/A
RNT is working with the San Diego Automotive Museum to develop a master plan. RNT is currently engaged in the design of a library for the museum.
• San Diego Unified School District, Wilson Middle School Master Plan and New Campus | San Diego, CA
• San Diego Unified School District, Central Elementary School Master Plan and New Campus | San Diego, CA
• San Diego Unified School District, Grant K-8 School Master Plan and Campus Expansion | San Diego, CA
• San Diego City College, Arts & Humanities (AH) + Business & Technology (BT) Quad | San Diego, CA
• San Diego City College, Math & Social Science Building, Parking & Student Health Clinic | San Diego, CA
• North Orange County Community College District, Fullerton College, New Instructional Building | Fullerton, CA
• Long Beach City College, Student Center, Financial Aid & Health Clinic | Long Beach, CA
Project Experience
Project Architect
Brandon is an Associate with the firm and has been at RNT since 2012. He has 12 years of architectural experience, including work on several libraries, public and private school projects, as well as sustainable design for a variety of other project types.

Brandon served as Project Architect and was instrumental in the success of several projects, including the AIA-award winning Borrego Springs Library and Park, as well as RNT’s Fullerton College project with the North Orange County Community College District. Whether engaged in a master planning effort, feasibility study, or developing design and construction documents, Brandon seeks to create meaningful spaces through careful consideration for the craft and the people he works with.

22 Education
Master of Architecture, University of
Michigan
Bachelor of Science, Architecture,
Minor in Civil Engineering, Texas
Tech University
Years of Industry
Experience
5 years
Megan has five years of experience in all phases of architecture, with project experience specifically in residential design, master planning, campus planning, renovation and addition to historic buildings, and educational design, including both charter and public schools.

Megan is successful at allowing the client’s vision to shine through in collaboration with consultants and the internal design team. She has an interest in projects rooted in environmental stewardship and powerful cultural, academic, or historic significance.

Megan has been deeply involved in many of RNT's projects, including the San Diego Countywide Library Facilities Master Plan, San Diego City College Facilities Master Plan, and more.
• San Diego Library Facilities Master Plan | San Diego, CA Role: Project Designer | Size: 5,000 SF, 15,000 SF, and 30,000 SF spaces | Cost: N/A, Planning only
• El Cajon Library Site Search Study | El Cajon, CA
• 4S Ranch Library Site Analysis | 4s Ranch, CA
• Jacumba Library Sign | Jacumba Hot Springs, CA
• San Diego CCD, Facilities Master Plan | San Diego, CA Role: Project Designer | Size: 60 acres | Cost: N/A
• San Diego City College, Housing Grant Writing
• San Diego River Discovery Center | San Diego, CA
• Botanical Building Improvements Project | Balboa Park, San Diego, CA
• San Diego Unified School District, Gompers Athletic Facilities | San Diego, CA
• Palomar College, Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Improvements | San Marcos, CA
• Sweetwater High School Concession Stands | National City, CA
• San Diego Unified School District, Marston Middle School | San Diego, CA
• Confidential Utilities Client, Warehouse | Confidential Project Experience
Megan Christian
Project Designer

Wilson Middle School Page 102 of 291 Process
D
Tab D: Process

25 PROCESS
This project is about need-based planning for meaningful, quality library services in La Mesa with recommendations based on solid data, community and staff input and sound professional judgments that capture the imagination of
all involved. The key to successful planning projects is having strong and clear project goals and expectations, communication, and documentation. The deliverables will reflect this ongoing communication of project goals, objectives and review comments of the planning alternatives and
assumptions.

RNT shall hold regular progress meetings with draft
deliverables, at least once every two weeks until the final document is approved by the City Council. These progress meetings will be documented as meeting notes for the project with action items and responsibilities listed.

An initial project kick-off meeting is suggested to set project goals. Keys efforts to consider for this initial effort are:
• Discuss planning strategy starting with meaningful
outreach, needs assessment, requirements, and
priorities, and establishing service area criteria for
the community survey with the City and other County
operated Libraries in the immediate region.
• A more detailed discussion of providing essential and forward-looking library resources and amenities to
support the service area needs deemed most important
to the City and County Libraries.
• Establish a project schedule with firm dates for major activities, presentations, and submittal of deliverables. • Discuss deliverables and how they will be used. RNT
will propose a “living document” that can be easily read as a hard copy and/or an electronic version that can be easily updated on screen.

The project will begin with the Information Gathering & Library Assessment phase (Task 1), during which RNT will familiarize themselves with County and City Standards by collecting and analyzing existing data sources. RNT will assist the City and County project team in gathering, organizing, and analyzing a large quantity of information. To achieve the best plan for the system and this specific branch, County library administration, staff and local City agencies will need to provide and organize into a readable format requested library data and information in a timely manner, to meet reasonably established deadlines set by the team.

RNT will then engage in an architectural assessment of the existing La Mesa library. This will be performed via site review and drawings analysis. Review of the existing condition will include, but not be limited to fire life safety, code compliance, universal access, security and safety, functionality, energy efficiency, appropriate spaces for future uses, community benefit, and the ability of the facility to express the values of the City and its community. The design team will create an opportunity and constraint diagram and matrix list related to library expansion.

This list will inform Task 3, Programming & Financial Feasibility Study, on the parameters the project will need to work within at the existing site. Items to be studied include but are not limited to seismic resisting components of the building (limit the exposure to full seismic upgrade), mechanical, electrical, and plumbing capacity and flexibility, adaptiveness to technology, wall and partition configuration (flexibility of design), and City sustainability goals. A recommendation for library capacity will be based on what the RNT project team observes in existing documentation and the existing library facility. An Existing Program Report will be formed from the conclusions in Task 1.

ABOVE: Section of South Oxnard Library

26 In collaboration with City staff and a Community Survey SubConsultant (ETC Institute), RNT will develop a public outreach strategy and associated methodologies for citizen participation in a community survey (Task 2). In the past, RNT has used stakeholder interview sessions, special interest focus group meetings and community workshops as a means of community engagement and consensus building. Strategies for this project will be selected in collaboration with City staff to encourage citizen and stakeholder participation in the goal setting for the assessment of the library.

Communication methods such as posters, notices, and
E-mailers could be considered, ensuring that all interested residents are aware of participation opportunities such as the community survey. The questions and/or responses can be categorized by question type (e.g., library, community center, adult enrichment centers, park sites, etc) for ease of evaluation. A Community Survey Report will be formed from the survey input in Task 2. All responses to the survey can be provided digitally and in the appendix of the report. Meetings or workshops to discuss survey results can be coordinated between the City, County, RNT, and ETC Institute.

The RNT design team will work with the City and County to study expansion potential as it relates to the confines of the existing site and the following study areas (Task 3):
a) Expanding the current library by constructing a secondfloor mezzanine and/or exploring options to expand into a portion of the existing post office space, including the potential use of outdoor space.
b) Constructing a new library facility on the site identified in the 2016 Civic Center Feasibility Study or an offsite location either as a public project or a public-private partnership.

The RNT team will evaluate if and in what ways the current facility can be altered to meet the requirements of the planning and vision efforts, including any outcomes of the community survey as deemed relevant in stakeholder meetings. If the existing facility is determined incapable to meet the future needs based on the study performed above, the RNT team will work with the City to perform site evaluations.

EXAMPLE: Sketch illustrating mezzanine
(for Fallbrook Library Feasibility Study) Page 105 of 291 27 A cost benefit analysis can be performed to determine an approach. Once the alternative is selected, design criteria would be developed. It is assumed that the City will study a maximum of three (2) separate sites in constructing
a new library facility. If this “new location” approach is selected, the overall project schedule and cost will need to be adjusted to reflect this additional effort. Based on information gathered, the RNT team will develop site plans, space plans and floor plan arrangement alternatives. Cost opinions will be provided for each alternative. A Programming Alternatives Report will be formed so that assumptions and alternatives from Task 3 are available for comparison in one document.

In Task 4, the RNT team suggests several meetings to review the alternatives and associated costs in the Programming Alternatives Report to best select an alternative. RNT will present one of the alternatives as their professional
recommendation, which would include a synopsis of the
library’s current space/square footage, the cost to implement the projected ideal space/square, and how this relates to funding sources.

We believe a series of up to three (3) meetings will be required to review each alternative and select an alternative, which includes revisions based on stakeholder feedback that allows for the best array of options to choose from.

RNT Architects will prepare the final schematic floor plans, space plans, and other report elements can be identified in the report as such. An outline of design criteria of materials, finishes, and building components is recommended to include along with alternatives. The Programming Alternatives Report will be revised in Task 4 to include these components.

The final report documentation will be performed in Task 5, where Tasks 1-4 are used to create the final Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study Report. RNT will send the report to the County and City for preliminary review. Because the chapters of the report are generated from Tasks 1-4, we foresee only needing one meeting session to address feedback on the document. It is anticipated that the presentation for City Council will use graphics and other materials from the final document.

BELOW: Pages from San Diego Countywide Library Master Plan San Diego County Library - MASTER PLAN 2020 - 2035
15 April 2022
San Diego County Library
25 San Diego County Library Master Plan 2020 - 2035
15 April 2022
24 RNT Architects
Community room at 4S Ranch Branch Library
Existing Facilities
Location Map

SAN MARCOS
15,394 SF
VISTA
30,394 SF
SANTEE
9,300 SF
RANCHO

SAN DIEGO
19,105 SF

EL CAJON
30,166 SF

LA MESA
11,108 SF
POWAY
20,000 SF

POTRERO
2,500 SF

DESCANSO
3,000 SF
4S RANCH
7,214 SF

PINE VALLEY
2,526 SF

JACUMBA
2,400 SF

FLETCHER HILLS
2,356 SF
Existing Facilities
San Diego County Library
5 San Diego County Library Master Plan 2020 - 2035
15 April 2022
4 RNT Architects
Entry to Fletcher Hills Branch Library
Executive Report
Executive Summary
The San Diego County Library Master Plan is an initial planning report that is part of the County of San Diego’s effort to assess and improve library facilities. This document demonstrates need-based planning for meaningful, quality library services in San Diego County.

San Diego County Library is dedicated to supporting its communities and neighbors, enhancing library services, and committed to sustainable solutions as good stewards of tax dollars. Improvements to the existing range of library branches will increase future capacity and address inequities across library spaces. The scope of the Master Plan was narrowed from including the entire building portfolio to thirteen branches based on branch age and available funding. The Master Plan identifies recommended increases to square footage of library space and any replacement and/or new library buildings through 2035 specific to these thirteen branches. Recommendations were fashioned based on library data, the County of San Diego Department of General Services (DGS) and County Library staff input, and professional architectural judgments by Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects (RNT Architects).

The Master Plan includes:
• spatial adjacency diagrams for three library templates:
◦ small (5,000 SF)
◦ medium (15,000 SF)
◦ large (30,000 SF)
• Assessments of thirteen branches including strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, limitations, and statements of recommended future scope:
◦ 4S Ranch
◦ Descanso
◦ El Cajon
◦ Fletcher Hills
◦ Jacumba
◦ La Mesa
◦ Pine Valley
◦ Potrero
◦ Poway
◦ Rancho San Diego
◦ San Marcos
◦ Santee
◦ Vista
• considerations for remodel, expansion and renovation, or new construction of existing libraries in the County’s portfolio • timelines of future design processes, required studies and construction based on the recommendations
• associated high-level cost estimates
Executive Report

Borrego Springs Library Page 108 of 291 References
E
Tab E: References

31 David Timber
Project Manager, Capital Projects, County of San Diego
858.694.2135
[email protected]
Please see additional project information on the
following pages
Reference Name
Title
Telephone
E-mail address
San Diego County Library Master
Plan
San Diego, CA

32 SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY
(BRANCHES ASSESSED IN MASTERPLAN)

SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY

CITY OF SAN DIEGO LIBRARY (SDPL)
DISTRICT 1 BRANCHES:

BONITA-SUNNYSIDE

IMPERIAL BEACH

LINCOLN ACRES

SPRING VALLEY
DISTRICT 2 BRANCHES:
4SRANCH
ALPINE

CAMPO-MORENA VILLAGE
CREST

DESCANSO

EL CAJON

FLETCHER HILLS

JACUMBA
JULIAN

LAKESIDE

PINE VALLEY

POTRERO
POWAY
RAMONA
SANTEE
DISTRICT 3 BRANCHES:

CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA

DEL MAR

ENCINITAS

RANCHO SANTA FE

SOLANA BEACH
DISTRICT 4 BRANCHES:

CASA DE ORO

LA MESA

LEMON GROVE

RANCHO SAN DIEGO
DISTRICT 5 BRANCHES:

BORREGO SPRINGS

FALLBROOK

SAN MARCOS

VALLEY CENTER
VISTA
LEGEND

LIBRARY BRANCH LOCATION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER PLAN 2020-2035
RNT is working with the County of San Diego to develop a district-wide facilities master plan. This facilities master plan will identify San Diego County’s architectural needs, operational and service requirements.

The plan includes the development of three recommended
templates based on square footage; one large, one medium and the other small. It also addresses the siting of any replacement and / or new library facilities through 2035.

The goal of the master plan is to determine needs and wants of current and future residents of San Diego County as related to public library services and facilities for the next 10 years with certain assets such as building systems for the next 20 years.

RNT has engaged in an architectural assessment of existing facilities and is determining needed upgrades to industry best practices and standards. In taking a long-range view of the future, RNT will study projected changes in demographics and county growth along with the way library services are or will be provided.

Snippets of the Facilities Master Plan are pictured above, including programming diagrams, demographics studies, and adjacency diagrams.

33 Project Details
SIZE
5,000 SF, 15,000 SF & 30,000 SF
TYPE
Programming, Master Plan, Feasibility
Study, Needs Assessment, Demographics
Study
OWNER
County of San Diego
David Timber
Project Manager, Capital Projects
858.694.2135
[email protected]
Team
FIRM
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects,
Inc.

STAFF
Principal-In-Charge: Raùl Dίaz
Project Designer: Megan Christian

TIMETABLE
2021 - Present
COST
TBD - planning stage
Project Relevance

TIMETABLE
 Library Needs Assessment
 Library Master Plan
 Located in San Diego County
RIGHT
Programming Example
LEFT
TOP: Floor Plan Examples
BOTTOM LEFT: Demographics Analysis
BOTTOM RIGHT: District Map

35 Migell Acosta
Library Director, Borrego Springs Library
858.694.2389
[email protected]
Please see additional project information on the
following pages
Reference Name
Title
Telephone
E-mail address
Borrego Springs Library, Park, and
Master Plan
Borrego Springs, CA

36 This new 13,165 SF single-story building consists of Library and Community spaces such as bookstack areas for adults, children and teens, Storytime Circle, Living Room, private study rooms, a green room, computer lab, staff support
spaces, Book Nook, Conversation Cafe, conference rooms, community rooms, and adjacent outdoor Poets Patio. The
project was challenged with designing with the 100 Years Flood in mind, as well as designing a sustainable building to withstand the harsh desert environment. The roof serves many functions as an all-encompassing shading strategy for the building, and also reflects the desert floor and accentuates the iconic profiles of the nearby surrounding mountains.

The design theme celebrates the unique environment and
ecology of the desert, dark sky and star-gazing, and the vast history of this desert community, with our primary design goal creating a fluid and comprehensive link between the Library and the desert environment. This Net Zero Energy and LEED Gold project incorporates many energy saving principles, including solar shading, extensive daylight harvesting, energy efficient and durable building envelope, and PV power production.

37 Project Details
SIZE
13,165 SF
TYPE
Master Planning, Programming, Architectural Design Services, Interior Design Services, Construction Observation/Administration
OWNER
County of San Diego
Migell Acosta, Library Director
5560 Overland Avenue.

Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92123
Team
FIRM
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects,
Inc.

STAFF
Project Manager: Brandon Martella

TIMETABLE
2016-2018
COST
$10,500,000
Project Relevance
 Library Needs Assessment
 Library Master Plan
 Community-Based Facility
 Multiple Stakeholders
 Extensive Community Outreach
 Located in San Diego County

39 Vytautas (Vyto) Adomaitis
Community Development Director, City of Oxnard
805.385.7882
[email protected]
Please see additional project information on the
following pages
Reference Name
Title
Telephone
E-mail address
South Oxnard Branch Library
Oxnard, CA

40 RNT designed the 20,000 SF library through a client-inclusive, community-based outreach process with the Friends of the Library, the local community and library staff. The program consisted of design workshops and questionnaires to help create a library design representative of the South Oxnard community. Natural daylighting is maximized in the library’s interior, which reduces the demand for artificial light and energy consumption. Interior spaces include a children’s reading area, adult and teen reading sections, media room and an area for the library’s Spanish Collection. Material selection such as paint, furniture and carpeting were chosen for its low VOC content and benefit to indoor air quality.

To improve circulation and allow for outdoor fresh air, an economizer was included in the mechanical systems to reduce heating and cooling loads. RNT designed plans and produced documents for the State of California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. The library is used daily for community events and also after hours adult education. There is a mulitcultural mezzanine on the second level with a mural and reference material in honor of Hispanic history and the large local Hispanic community.

41 Project Details
SIZE
20,000 SF
TYPE
Programming, Community Workshop,
Architectural Design
OWNER
City of Oxnard
Vytautas (Vyto) Adomaitis
Community Development Director, City of
Oxnard
805.385.7882
[email protected]
Team
FIRM
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects,
Inc.

STAFF
Principal In Charge - Ralph Roesling

TIMETABLE
2007
COST
$7,224,000
Project Relevance
 Library Needs Assessment
 Community Based Outreach

4343
Joanne Branch
San Diego County Office of Education
619.929.6334
[email protected]
Please see additional project information on the
following pages
Reference Name
Title
Telephone
E-mail address
Lemon Grove STEM Academy and
Library
Lemon Grove, CA

44 RNT and Legacy Building Services, Inc. led the design and construction of the new joint- use library and modernization of the Lemon Grove Academy middle school campus. The library is designed for joint-use, replacing the Lemon Grove Library on Broadway, between the Lemon Grove School District and the San Diego County Library system. The new 13,500 SF library building includes a main reading room, teen area, children’s space, computer labs, public bookstore and community room.

The project also included an attached public plaza, upgraded parking, and relocation of the Academy’s main office and entrance. The modernization included upgrades of facilities to meet the program to support STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) school with a brand new, high-tech science laboratory, new locker rooms and a fitness lab with weight training and cardiovascular equipment as part of the District’s health and wellness initiative. Sustainable and energy efficiency features incorporated operable windows with large glazed openings facing to the North, utilization of highly efficient HVAC economizers and extensive use of wood and laminated wood beams. STEM schools emphasize the importance of accelerated learning in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math.

45 Project Details
SIZE
13,500 SF
TYPE
Stakeholder Workshops, Project
Entitlements, Programming, Architectural
Design Services, Interior Design Services
OWNER
San Diego County Office
of Education
Joanne Branch
619.929.6334
[email protected]
Team
FIRM
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects,
Inc.

STAFF
Project Manager - Raúl Díaz, AIA

TIMETABLE
2011-2013
COST
$8,791,009
Project Relevance
 Library Needs Assessment
 Joint Use Library
 Located in San Diego County

4747
Lance Lareau
District Architect
619.388.6546
[email protected]
Please see additional project information on the
following pages
Reference Name
Title
Telephone
E-mail address
San Diego City College Facilities
Master Plan
San Diego, CA

48 RNT Architects was selected to complete a new San Diego City College Facilities Master Plan (FMP). San Diego City College has served students for more than 100 years with student learning and success as its highest priority. As part of the FMP Facilities Master Plan, RNT is studying the existing campus, its needs and challenges, and developing planning sensitivities that act as penchants to facilitate the progressive advancement of the College to meet the demands of its rapidly growing community. RNT has completed several major projects on the City College campus in addition to the East Village South Focus Plan, providing the master plan team with deep knowledge of the campus and its immediate context.

The master planning process began with information gathering.

This included several site walks with faculty members and department heads to gather information regarding the efficacy of existing facilities. Recurring themes about campus facilities, concerns, and opportunities were revealed by questionnaires distributed to a wide array of staff and faculty in addition to several virtual meetings and open forums arranged with different stakeholder groups.

RNT is almost done with the FMP development, and is proposing an amphitheater to serve the campus and community. Further, RNT supported the district in writing a grant to study a potential housing development for the Community College, providing muchneeded affordable housing for students. The grant application was successful and SDCC is engaged in the study.

49 Project Details
SIZE
60 Acres
TYPE
Master Planning, Design Guideline
Development, Workshopping /
Engagement, Needs Assessment,
Grant Research / Writing
OWNER
San Diego City College
Lance Lareau
District Architect
619.388.6546
[email protected]
Team
FIRM
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects,
Inc.

STAFF
Project Manager - Raúl Díaz, AIA
Project Designer - Megan Christian

TIMETABLE
2021-2022
COST
N/A, Planning
Project Relevance
 Needs Assessment
 Surveys and In-Depth Outreach
 Multiple Stakeholders
 Located in San Diego County

51 Rick King
President, RDK Consulting
858.699.1600
Please see additional project information on the following pages Reference Name
Title
Telephone
Fallbrook Library Feasibility Study
Fallbrook, CA

52 RNT conducted community outreach programs with the local community, the Fallbrook School District, Friends of the Library and County Staff, to develop a new 20,000 SF San Diego
County Branch library for the community of Fallbrook. The new library is a key component of community’s downtown village, establishing pedestrian links to the core commercial district and other community facilities.

Design issues included enhancing pedestrian accessibility, limited site acquisition of parcels and joint-use possibilities with local schools. The scope of work includes the design of plans and documents for the State of California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000.

53 Project Details
SIZE
N/A
TYPE
Programming, Master Plan, Feasibility
Study, Needs Assessment, Demographics
Study
OWNER
Rick King, President of RDK Consulting
858.699.1600
Team
FIRM
Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects,
Inc.

STAFF
Principal In Charge - Ralph Roesling

TIMETABLE
2001-2002
COST
$1,600,000
Project Relevance
 Library Needs Assessment
 Library Feasibility Study
 Located in San Diego County

Borrego Springs Library Page 134 of 291 Costs
F
Tab F: Costs

City of La Mesa
Date: May 31, 2022, revised 6 July 2022
Bidder Name: Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc.

Proposal Amount: $81,473
EXHIBIT A: FEE SCHEDULE Principal/PA PM Designer RNT
RNT Architects $205.00 $195.00 $110.00 Subtotal
Task 1.0 - Information Gathering & Library Assessment
1 2 1 $ 705
2 2 2 $ 1,020
1 1 1 $ 510
0 4 4 $ 1,220
0 4 4 $ 1,220
0 4 10 $ 1,880
1 2 4 $ 1,035
2 6 6 $ 2,240
2 6 8 $ 2,460
· Participate in a project kickoff meeting
· Project team site visit to gain a general understanding of the La Mesa operations, layouts, functional areas and technical or other requirements
· Participate in initial interview with the County to verify program, space, use and design requirements
· Evaluate the proposed project sites for ROWs, easements, drainage flow and property lines · Develop a baseline occupancy / use narrative for the existing facility · Develop a functional space program for the existing facility · Create an opportunity and constraint diagram and matrix list · Evaluate current facility size in relation to service demands; provide a recommendation regarding the optimum facility size
· Develop an Existing Program Report
· Meet with project team to review stakeholder comments 1 1 1 $ 510 Task 1.0 Subtotal $ 12,800
Task 2.0 - Community Facilities Library and Citywide Parks 2 2 2 $ 1,020
0 1 1 $ 305
· Participate in meetings with City and survey sub-consultant to determine guidelines for approach, survey timeline, format, sample size, and questionnaire topics that also include other community park amenities as identified
· Collaborate with City staff and coordinate with sub-consultant to execute required public meeting notification documents and requirements
· Coordinate with sub-consultant to provide examples of survey prior to survey initiation · Coordinate with sub-consultant to develop Community Survey Report 0 1 2 $ 415 0 0 0 $ -
1 2 4 $ 1,035
Task 2.0 Subtotal $ 2,775
Task 3.0 - Programming & Financial Feasibility Study
· Evaluate and note relevant City of La Mesa Code elements 1 2 2 $ 835 · Estimate the potential development of the two possible scenarios via various test-fits or alternatives 4 15 30 $ 7,045 · Coordinate with a cost estimating sub-consultant to provide cost estimation of alternatives 2 4 2 $ 1,410 · Identify possible sources of funding and funding constraints or impediments for development scenarios 3 3 1 $ 1,310
· Provide a 5-year development timeframe for development scenarios 2 6 8 $ 2,460 · Develop Programming Alternatives Report 4 12 30 $ 6,460 Task 3.0 Subtotal $ 19,520
Task 4.0 - Evaluation of Alternatives
2 2 4 $ 1,240
2 4 8 $ 2,070
· Identify alternatives within Programming Alternatives Report · Provide recommended design criteria for the alternatives 2 4 8 $ 2,070
Task 4.0 Subtotal $ 5,380
Standard Hourly Billing Rates 2022
Financial Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment of the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library and Community Facilities Library and Citywide Parks Survey Exhibit "A"

Task 5.0 - Documentation & Public Meeting
· Prepare a draft preliminary Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study Report 2 8 20 $ 4,170 · Following stakeholder review, prepare the final Report with appendices and supporting documents (1 hardcopy and PDF copy)
2 8 20 $ 4,170
·

Prepare presentations for City Council using materials from the Report 6 8 16 $ 4,550
Task 5.0 Subtotal $ 12,890
RNT architects Total $ 53,365

SUB-CONSULTANT TEAM FEES
Survey Consultant, see attached proposal $ 15,000
Cost Estimating, see attached proposal $ 13,108
Total Project Team $ 81,473
Excluded Services
Research on State Funding opportunities, including AB300 seismic evaluation for state funding program.

Capacity studies of existing public utility systems offsite.

Traffic engineering.

EIR, Environmental Studies, Documentation and Approvals beyond the coordination, meetings and reviews with the District CEQA staff.

LEED Certifications.

Photovoltaic (PV) system design.

Building card access system design.

Interim Housing Design.

Materials testing, destructive testing or investigations, and advanced investigations such as locating rebar in walls.

Hazardous materials testing and abatement oversight.

Plan check and permitting fees

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ROESLING NAKAMURA TERADA

ARCHITECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND

FINANCIAL FEASIBLITY STUDY FOR THE LA MESA BRANCH OF THE SAN

DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY AND APPROPRIATION OF GENERAL FUND

RESERVES
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City identified a need to evaluate the current operational needs of the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library relative to current space available for library operations and community programs;
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the City Council formed a Library Task Force to research options for expanding the La Mesa Branch of the San Diego County Library commensurate to the community’s size and needs and recommend a course of action to the City Council; WHEREAS, the Library Task Force convened to discuss challenges and opportunities associated with expansion and development opportunities; WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the Library Task Force presented the City Council with recommendations to advance efforts including retaining a qualified firm to prepare a needs assessment and financial feasibility study;
WHEREAS, the City prepared and issued RFP 22-14 soliciting proposals for a library needs assessment and financial feasibility study and received a proposal from Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc. (“RNT Architects”);
WHEREAS, the City evaluated RNT Architect’s proposal, conducted an interview pursuant to the City’s purchasing process, and found RNT Architects to be qualified to perform the requested scope of work;
WHEREAS, at this time, both parties mutually agree to the project scope of work described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of the Agreement; WHEREAS, the total fee for professional services shall be amended to an amount not to exceed Eighty-One Thousand and Four-Hundred and Seventy-three Dollars ($81,473); and WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of fifteen thousand eighty dollars ($15,080) is needed from General Fund unappropriated reserves to assist with funding the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to approve a Resolution approving an agreement with RNT Architects for the development of a Needs Assessment and Financial Feasibility Study for the La Mesa branch of the San Diego County Library and appropriation of fifteen thousand eighty dollars from General Fund reserves.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of August 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF 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 CITY)

Fiscal Impact:

Date:
08/01/22
Fund Account Amount Requested Amount Available
1309 6430 $55,000.00 $55,000.00
306223OT 6830 $11,400.00 $11,400.00
101 3900 $15,080.00
TOTAL $81,480.00 $66,400.00
Fiscal Impact Report Request
It's actuall both Unappropriated Reserves and Unencumbered Bal.

Unappropriated Reserves
Funds from:

Yes
Department:

Administrative Services
Amount Not to Exceed:

Purpose of Expense (enter below):

Staff Member Presenting:

Carlo Tomaino
The City advertised a Request for Proposals for Library Needs Assessment and Financial Feasiblity Study Consultant Services and selected RNT Architects as the firm best able to meet the needs of the City. Funding was added at the mid-biennium to 1309-6430 in the amount of $55,000; however, the proposal from RNT came in higher. Therefore, $15,080 is needed from General Fund Reserves to make up the difference. Community Services is contributing $11,400 for the parks faciltiy survey component that is part of the scope of work.

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: August 9, 2022
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID 19-19 RENEWAL
OPTION 3, TYPE B ASPHALT CONCRETE, TO

SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE AND MARTIN

MARIETTA
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt the resolution to award Bid 19-19 Renewal Option 3, Type B Asphalt Concrete, to Superior Ready Mix Concrete and Martin Marietta?
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt the resolution to award Bid 19-19 Renewal Option 3, Type B Asphalt Concrete, to Superior Ready Mix Concrete and Martin Marietta.

Fiscal Impact:

The service may cost up to $418,345.84 annually. Funds are budgeted in fiscal year 2022/2023 in accounts 3102-6420 and 5150-6420.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Continue to improve high quality municipal services
BACKGROUND:

Asphalt is utilized for the City’s in-house street resurfacing and repair patching programs. Bid 19-19 was issued in 2019 as a cooperative bid lead by the City of La Mesa, which combined the quantities of nine agencies to obtain savings with volume bidding and fixed pricing on an annual basis. The nine agencies were the Cities of La Mesa, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, El Cajon, National City, San Marcos and Santee, the San Diego Unified School District and the San Dieguito Water District. Superior Ready Mix

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 2 of 3
Concrete and California Commercial Asphalt (now Martin Marietta) had the lowest responsive bids that included materials in each of the three sections in the bid.

Evaluation of the bids was based on the total cost of each material in each section and a haul distance penalty for materials to be picked up. The penalty allows staff to include consideration of expenses incurred by the round trip haul distance from their respective Public Works Facilities to the vendors’ plants. To assure a continuous product supply, due to the possibility that one firm may not have the items available when required, the bid award is issued to two vendors.

DISCUSSION:

The bid allowed for four one-year renewal options and required that pricing changes each option year were limited to the Producer Price Index (PPI) for the commodities as determined by the US Department of Labor. That rate is currently 19% from June 2021 to June of this year. Both vendors were contacted and requested to submit pricing for FY2022/2023. Each vendor requested increases to their pricing in excess of the PPI for reasons primarily related to material shortages in the region. The pricing summary for each vendor is attached.

The bid award for each agency, including sales tax, would be: La Mesa, $418,345.84; Carlsbad, $87,175.14; Chula Vista, $254,866.46; El Cajon, $63,642.54; National City, $25,375.13; the San Diego Unified School District, $247,248.54; the San Dieguito Water District, $3,017.00; San Marcos, $84,772.31; and Santee, $26,398.75.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution to award Bid 19-19 Renewal Option 3, Type B Asphalt Concrete, to Superior Ready Mix Concrete and California Commercial Asphalt.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne
City Manager Director of Public Works/

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 3 of 3
________________________
Scott Munzenmaier
Purchasing Officer
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Renewal Option 3 Pricing

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA TO AWARD BID 19-19 RENEWAL OPTION 3, TYPE B ASPHALT

CONCRETE, TO SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE AND MARTIN

MARIETTA
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, asphalt is utilized for the City’s in-house street resurfacing and repair patching programs and to assure a continuous product supply, due to the possibility that one firm may not have the items available when required, the bid award is issued to two vendors; WHEREAS, Bid 19-19 was a cooperative bid lead by the City of La Mesa, which combined the quantities of nine agencies to obtain savings with volume bidding and fixed pricing on an annual basis;
WHEREAS, Superior Ready Mix Concrete and California Commercial Asphalt (now Martin Marietta) had the lowest responsive bids that included materials in each of the three sections in the bid; and
WHEREAS, the bid allowed for four one-year renewal options and each vendor requested increases to their prices.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council intends to award Bid 19-19 Renewal Option 3 to Superior Ready Mix Concrete and Martin Marietta. The bid award for each agency, including sales tax, would be: La Mesa, $418,345.84; Carlsbad, $87,175.14; Chula Vista, $254,866.46; El Cajon, $63,642.54; National City, $25,375.13; the San Diego Unified School District, $247,248.54; the San Dieguito Water District, $3,017.00; San Marcos, $84,772.31; and Santee, $26,398.75.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9th day of August 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF 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 CITY)

ANNUAL TYPE "B" ASPHALT CONCRETE BID
BID 19-19, Option 3JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2023BID SCHEDULESECTION I: PICKUP (FOB VENDOR PLANT)1. 3/4" Max. Top (tons)2. 1/2" Max Top (tons)3. 3/8" Max. Top (tons)4. School Mix (tons)5. Sheet Mix A/C (tons)6. Cold Mix A/C (tons)7. Berm Mix A/C (tons)8. 3/4" Class II Base (tons)9. 3/4" Class II Base- Recycled (tons)10. SS1H Oil (gallons)11. RS-1 Oil (ALT offer SSH-1 ) (gallons)Sub-TotalSales TaxHaul Location (starting)Haul Distance (miles)Haul Penalty per Ton @ $0.23/mileTotal with Sales Tax and Haul PenaltySECTION II: DELIVERY (FOB DESTINATION)12. 1/2" Max. Top (tons)13. Cold Mix A/C (tons)14. RS-I Oil for Sealing (gallons)Sub-TotalSales TaxMaximum Allowable Unloading Time (minutes)Standby Time Cost per MinuteDelivery Notice Required (hours)SECTION III: OTHER15. Hauling Asphalt Spoil from Jobsites (cost per hour)Clean Asphalt Dump Fees (<10%) Drop-Off by Agencies 16. Bobtail Load (8 tons) 17. 10 Wheeler Load (13 tons) 18. Tri Axle Load (16 tons)Mixed-Load Dump Fees (>10%) Drop-Off by Agencies 19. Bobtail Load (8 tons) 20. 10 Wheeler Load (13 tons) 21. Tri Axle Load (16 tons)22. Warranty period for materialsSection I AwardSection II Award LA MESA CARLSBAD CHULA VISTA EL CAJON NATIONAL CITY SAN DIEGO UNIFIED S.D. SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT SAN MARCOS SANTEE BID EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST $ $ 30,020.00 $ 3,160.00 $ 7,900.00 $ 11,850.00 79.00$ $ 280,000.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 160,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 20 80.00 ,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ $ 30,600.00 $ 44,625.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 85.00 68,000.00 $ 21,250.00 $ 12,750.00 $ $ 15,840.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 52,800.00 $ 4,400.00 88.00$ $ 8,820.00 $ 6,860.00 $ 29,400.00 $ 5,880.00 $ 2,450.00 $ 98.00 58,800.00 $ 4,900.00 $ $ 2,862.00 $ 31,800.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 4,240.00 $ 5,300.00 106.00$ $ 1,764.00 $ 2,450.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 2,450.00 98.00$ $ 10,250.00 $ 4,100.00 20.50$ 6.50 $ 2,275.00 $ $ 8,100.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 4,875.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 5,625.00 $ 7.50 2,250.00 $ 3,750.00 No Bid $ -
$ 388,256.00 $ 72,420.00 $ 236,535.00 $ 59,065.00 $ 23,550.00 $ 229,465.00 $ 2,275.00 $ 72,400.00 $ 24,500.00 $ 30,089.84 $ 5,612.55 $ 18,331.46 $ 4,577.54 $ 1,825.13 $ 17,783.54 $ 176.31 $ 5,611.00 $ 1,898.75 8152
Commercial
Street
405 Oak Avenue 1800 Maxwell Road 1050 Vernon Way 1237 McKinley 4860 Ruffner Street 160 Calle Magdalena, Encinitas 201 Mata Way 9534 Via Zapador 18 70 38 18 24 20 52 70 14
$ 20,927.70 $ 16,019.50 $ 23,772.80 $ 2,815.20 $ 2,346.00 $ 13,869.00 $ 10,764.00 $ 13,282.50 $ 805.00 $ 439,273.54 $ 94,052.05 $ 278,639.26 $ 66,457.74 $ 27,721.13 $ 261,117.54 $ 13,215.31 $ 91,293.50 $ 27,203.75 No Bid $ - $ - No Bid $ - $ - No Bid $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
No BidNo BidNo Bid
No Bid
$ 50.00$ 50.00$ 50.00$ 275.00$ 325.00$ 350.00
1 Year
$ 418,345.84 $ 254,866.46 $ 63,642.54 $ 25,375.13 $ 247,248.54 $ 26,398.75

SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, MISSION GORGE

ANNUAL TYPE "B" ASPHALT CONCRETE BID
BID 19-19, Option 3JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2023BID SCHEDULESECTION I: PICKUP (FOB VENDOR PLANT)1. 3/4" Max. Top (tons)2. 1/2" Max Top (tons)3. 3/8" Max. Top (tons)4. School Mix (tons)5. Sheet Mix A/C (tons)6. Cold Mix A/C (tons)7. Berm Mix A/C (tons)8. 3/4" Class II Base (tons)9. 3/4" Class II Base- Recycled (tons)10. SS1H Oil (gallons)11. RS-1 Oil (ALT offer SSH-1 ) (gallons)Sub-TotalSales TaxHaul Location (starting)Haul Distance (miles)Haul Penalty per Ton @ $0.23/mileTotal with Sales Tax and Haul PenaltySECTION II: DELIVERY (FOB DESTINATION)12. 1/2" Max. Top (tons)13. Cold Mix A/C (tons)14. RS-I Oil for Sealing (gallons)Sub-TotalSales TaxMaximum Allowable Unloading Time (minutes)Standby Time Cost per MinuteDelivery Notice Required (hours)SECTION III: OTHER15. Hauling Asphalt Spoil from Jobsites (cost per hour)Clean Asphalt Dump Fees (<10%) Drop-Off by Agencies 16. Bobtail Load (8 tons) 17. 10 Wheeler Load (13 tons) 18. Tri Axle Load (16 tons)Mixed-Load Dump Fees (>10%) Drop-Off by Agencies 19. Bobtail Load (8 tons) 20. 10 Wheeler Load (13 tons) 21. Tri Axle Load (16 tons)22. Warranty period for materialsSection I AwardSection II Award LA MESA CARLSBAD CHULA VISTA EL CAJON NATIONAL CITY SAN DIEGO UNIFIED S.D. SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT SAN MARCOS SANTEE BID EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST $ $ 3,360.00 84.00 $ 12,600.00
$ $ 11,900.00 85.00 $ 21,250.00
$ $ 47,250.00 90.00 $ 22,500.00
$ 93.00 $ 4,650.00 $ $ 7,070.00 101.00 $ 5,050.00
$ 106.00 $ 10,600.00 $ 5,300.00
$ $ 2,525.00 101.00 $ 2,525.00
No BidNo Bid
$ $ 8,800.00 16.00 $ 4,800.00
No Bid
$ - $ 80,905.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,600.00 $ 78,675.00 $ - $ - $ 6,270.14 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 821.50 $ 6,097.31 $ -
8152
Commercial
Street
405 Oak Avenue 1800 Maxwell Road 1050 Vernon Way 1237 McKinley 4860 Ruffner Street 160 Calle Magdalena, Encinitas 201 Mata Way 9534 Via Zapador 0 40 0 0 0 0 34 9 0
$ - $ 9,154.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 782.00 $ 1,707.75 $ - $ - $ 90,059.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,382.00 $ 80,382.75 $ - No Bid $ - $ - No Bid $ - $ - No Bid $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
No BidNo BidNo BidNo Bid
$ 50.00$ 50.00$ 50.00
No BidNo BidNo Bid
1 Year
$ 87,175.14 $ 84,772.31

SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, ESCONDIDO

ANNUAL TYPE "B" ASPHALT CONCRETE BID
BID 19-19, Option 3JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2023BID SCHEDULE LA MESA CARLSBAD CHULA VISTA EL CAJON NATIONAL CITY SAN DIEGO UNIFIED S.D. SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT SAN MARCOS SANTEE SECTION I: PICKUP (FOB VENDOR PLANT) BID EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST EXT. COST1. 3/4" Max. Top (tons) 85.00 $ $ 32,300.00 $ 3,400.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 12,750.00 2. 1/2" Max Top (tons) 85.00 $ $ 297,500.00 $ 11,900.00 $ 170,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 42,500.00 $ 21,250.00 $ 8,500.00

3. 3/8" Max. Top (tons) 95.00 $ $ 34,200.00 $ 49,875.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 76,000.00 $ 23,750.00 $ 14,250.00 4. School Mix (tons) 105.00 $ $ 18,900.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 63,000.00 $ 5,250.00 5. Sheet Mix A/C (tons) 105.00 $ $ 9,450.00 $ 7,350.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 2,625.00 $ 63,000.00 $ 5,250.00 6. Cold Mix A/C (tons) 105.00 $ $ 2,835.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 5,250.00 7. Berm Mix A/C (tons) 105.00 $ $ 1,890.00 $ 2,625.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 2,625.00 8. 3/4" Class II Base (tons) 18.00 $ $ 9,000.00 $ 3,600.00 9. 3/4" Class II Base- Recycled (tons) 8.00 $ $ 2,800.00 10. SS1H Oil (gallons) 3.50 $ $ 3,780.00 $ 1,925.00 $ 2,275.00 $ 525.00 $ 2,625.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 1,750.00

11. RS-1 Oil (ALT offer SSH-1 ) (gallons) No Bid $ - Sub-Total $ 409,855.00 $ 77,075.00 $ 246,875.00 $ 62,925.00 $ 25,225.00 $ 251,325.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 77,175.00 $ 24,500.00 Sales Tax $ 31,763.76 $ 5,973.31 $ 19,132.81 $ 4,876.69 $ 1,954.94 $ 19,477.69 $ 217.00 $ 5,981.06 $ 1,898.75 Haul Location (starting) 8152
Commercial
Street
405 Oak Avenue 1800 Maxwell Road 1050 Vernon Way 1237 McKinley 4860 Ruffner Street 160 Calle Magdalena, Encinitas 201 Mata Way 9534 Via Zapador Haul Distance (miles) 30 58 46 26 32 10 40 48 24Haul Penalty per Ton @ $0.23/mile $ 34,879.50 $ 13,273.30 $ 28,777.60 $ 4,066.40 $ 3,128.00 $ 6,934.50 $ 8,280.00 $ 9,108.00 $ 1,380.00 Total with Sales Tax and Haul Penalty $ 476,498.26 $ 96,321.61 $ 294,785.41 $ 71,868.09 $ 30,307.94 $ 277,737.19 $ 11,297.00 $ 92,264.06 $ 27,778.75 SECTION II: DELIVERY (FOB DESTINATION)12. 1/2" Max. Top (tons) No Bid $ - $ - 13. Cold Mix A/C (tons) No Bid $ - $ - 14. RS-I Oil for Sealing (gallons) No Bid $ - Sub-Total $ - $ - $ - $ - Sales Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - Maximum Allowable Unloading Time (minutes) No BidStandby Time Cost per Minute No BidDelivery Notice Required (hours) No BidSECTION III: OTHER15. Hauling Asphalt Spoil from Jobsites (cost per hour) No BidClean Asphalt Dump Fees (<10%) Drop-Off by Agencies 16. Bobtail Load (8 tons) $ 375.00 17. 10 Wheeler Load (13 tons) $ 425.00 18. Tri Axle Load (16 tons) $ 450.00Mixed-Load Dump Fees (>10%) Drop-Off by Agencies 19. Bobtail Load (8 tons) $ 725.00 20. 10 Wheeler Load (13 tons) $ 1,325.00

21. Tri Axle Load (16 tons) $ 1,725.00

22. Warranty period for materials 12 month Section I Award $ 3,017.00 Section II Award Martin Marietta

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: August 9, 2022
SUBJECT: COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PHASE 2
DESCRIPTION: 1. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FISCAL YEAR
2023 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK FUNDS
FOR COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PHASE 2

2. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LOW BID FOR BID
23-05 AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT FOR COLLIER PARK RENOVATION
PHASE 2 TO DE LA FUENTE CONSTRUCTION, INC.

AND APPROPRIATING $103,418 OF GENERL FUND

RESERVES

3. RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION CONTRACT TO

SCHNEIDER CM FOR COLLIER PARK RENOVATION
PHASE 2

4. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES TO NV5 FOR
COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PHASE 2
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City of La Mesa approve resolutions to:

1. Appropriate Fiscal Year 2023 Community Development Block Funds for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2?

2. Accept the low bid for Bid 23-05 and award a Construction Contract for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 to De La Fuente Construction, Inc for

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 2 of 4
$4,677,144.24 and appropriate $103,418 in general fund reserves?

3. Award a construction management and inspection contract to Schneider CM for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 for $257,616?

4. Approve a contract for construction support services for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 to NV5 for $72,445?
Recommendation:

Adopt the attached resolutions:

1. Appropriate Fiscal Year 2023 Community Development Block Funds for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2.

2. Accept the low bid for Bid 23-05 and award a Construction Contract for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 to De La Fuente Construction, Inc for $4,677,144.24 and appropriate $103,418 in general fund reserves

3. Award a construction management and inspection contract to Schneider CM for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 for $253,986.

4. Approve a contract for construction support services for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 to NV5 for $72,445.

Fiscal Impact:

Funding for the project will be provided partially through a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), including an appropriation of fiscal year 2023 CDBG funds to a new CIP account. In addition, funding will also be provided by a State Department of Parks and Recreation Local Assistance Specified Grant, Prop 68 Per Capita Grant, Park Fees, and General Fund Reserves. See attachment E for a breakdown of project funds and accounts.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Continue to improve high quality municipal services
 Enhanced recreation and quality of life opportunities  Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors
Environmental Review:

A final Environmental Impact Report for the Collier Park Renovations Project Master Plan was certified by the City Council on February 24, 2015.

BACKGROUND:

The City has been actively working to improve City parks. Collier Park, located at 4401 Palm Avenue, is the City’s oldest park (circa 1912) which consists of 7.7 acres of

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 3 of 4
recreational space, including a playground, restroom, parking lot, tennis court, and the Spring House.

Improving Collier Park has been a City Council goal since 2008. The City has held public workshops and discussed the future of this park at City Council, Community Services and Historic Preservation Commission meetings and adopter a project Master Plan in 2014.

Collier Park renovation is being constructed in phases as funds have come available.

Phase 1 was completed in 2017, and focused on improvements to the northerly portion of the park, including installation of new sidewalk, lighting, parking, irrigation, landscaping, and a new sign near the intersection of Palm Avenue and Pasadena Avenue.

Phase 2 of the park improvements, will complete the majority of improvements outlined in the master plan. Improvements will include regrading the southerly portion of the park, and the installation of a new restroom, tennis/pickleball court, gazebo, and playground. In addition, new sidewalk, lighting, parking, irrigation, landscaping, walking trails, and park furniture, such as benches and tables will be installed.

DISCUSSION:

A notice inviting bids was advertised on June 30, 2022 and the bid documents were downloaded by 35 vendors. Eight bids were received electronically on the bid opening date of July 28, 2022. Selection was based off the lowest base bid. The low bidder was De La Fuente Construction, Inc. with a base bid of $3,835,246.42. A summary of the bid results is listed in Attachment F. The engineering estimate for the base bid was $3 million.

Staff is recommending that the City award the base bid plus all additives, as indicated in Attachment G. The cost of the base bid plus all additives is $4,677,144.24.

RFP 22-15, was advertised, on April 5, 2022 for Construction Management Services for Collier Park. Four proposals were received. Schneider CM was selected as the most qualified firm to provide Construction Management and Inspection Services for the project. NV5, was selected from the City’s as-needed engineering services to complete the design of Collier Park, and was selected to provide engineering support services during the project construction phase. Not included in this contract is the playground and fitness equipment previously purchased by the La Mesa Park and Recreation Foundation in the amount of $126,660. The equipment will be provided to De La Fuente Construction, Inc. who will install it under this construction contract.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9, 2022
Page: 4 of 4
Contract time for completion of the project, including all bid additives is 264 working days. The work is expected to begin in September 2022 and be completed by October 2023.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions:

1. Appropriate Fiscal Year 2023 Community Development Block Funds for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2.

2. Accept the low bid for Bid 23-05 and award a Construction Contract for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 to De La Fuente Construction, Inc for $4,677,144.24 and appropriating $103,418 in General Fund Reserves.

3. Awarding a construction management and inspection contract to Schneider CM for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 for $253,986

4. Approving a contract for construction support services for Collier Park Renovation Phase 2 to NV5 for $72,445
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:

______________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution (CDBG Appropriation)
B. Resolution (De La Fuente Construction, Construction Contract Award and appropriation of general fund reserves)
C. Resolution (Schneider CM, Contract Award Collier Park) D. Resolution (NV5, Support Services Contract Award)
E. Project Funds and Account Breakdown
F. Bid Tabulation/Results
G. Additives Summary and Description
H. Park Map and Visualizations

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROPRIATING FISCAL YEAR 2023 COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS FOR THE COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT PHASE 2
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to improve high quality municipal services and revitalize neighborhoods and corridors;
WHEREAS, The Collier Park Improvement Project Phase 2 is located within a Community Development Block Grant eligible zone; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Block Grant funds must be appropriated to the CIP Budget prior to use.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that Fiscal Year 2023 Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $339,060 are appropriated to a new Capital Improvement Project Account, for the Collier Park Renovation Project Phase 2.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9th day of August 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF 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 CITY)

ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ACCEPTING THE LOW BIDDER FOR BID 23-05 AND AWARDING A

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR COLLIER PARK RENOVATION
PROJECT PHASE 2 TO DE LA FUENTE CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND

APPROPRIATION OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to improve high quality municipal services and revitalize neighborhoods and corridors;
WHEREAS, the City advertised a notice inviting bids on June 30, 2022; WHEREAS, the City received eight bids on the bid opening date of July 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, based on the base bid, the low bidder, De La Fuente Construction, Inc. was found to be a responsive and responsible bidder.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that:

The base bid, including ten additives from De La Fuente Construction, Inc in an amount of $4,677,144.24 for Bid 23-03, Collier Park Renovation Project Phase 2, was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid. Said bid is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to accept and execute a contract with De La Fuente Construction, Inc. to perform the work at the prices set forth in said bid.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the $103,418 in Unallocated General Fund reserves shall be allocated to the project CIP account.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve the substitution of subcontractors.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9th day of August 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTACHMENT B

CERTIFICATE OF 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 CITY)

ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
CONTRACT FOR COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT PHASE 2

TO SCHNEIDER CM
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to improve high quality municipal services and revitalize neighborhoods and corridors;
WHEREAS, in 2022, the City issued a request for qualifications RFQ 22-15 for Construction Management and Inspection Services for Collier Park Improvement Project Phase 2; and
WHEREAS, Schneider CM was chosen to provide Construction Management and Inspection Services for Collier Park Improvement Project Phase 2.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a contract with Schneider CM to provide construction management and inspection for the Collier Park Renovation Project Phase 2 for $257,616.
.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve the substitution of subcontractors.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9th day of August 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF 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 CITY)

ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT
FOR COLLIER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT PHASE 2 TO NV5 INC.

WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to improve high quality municipal services and revitalize neighborhoods and corridors;
WHEREAS, in 2018, the City issued a request for qualifications RFQ 18-15 for On-Call Services and NV5, Inc. was selected to provide roadway and site design services; WHEREAS, in 2021 NV5, Inc. was chosen to provide design services for Collier Park Renovation Project Phase 2; and
WHEREAS, NV5, Inc. shall provide construction support services during the construction of the Collier Park Renovation Project Phase 2.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a contract with NV5, Inc. to provide construction support services for the Collier Park Renovation Project Phase 2 for $72,445.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9th day of August 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF 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 CITY)

Funding Source CIP Account FY22 CIP
Budget Encumbrances Current
Available Balance
2018/19 CDBG Collier 306190CD $84,529 $41,364 $0
2019/20 CDBG Collier 306200CD $375,133 $56,666 $22,476
2020/21 CDBG Collier 306210CD $419,680 $0 $419,680
2021/22 CDBG Collier Park 306221CD $344,233 $0 $327,690 2022/23 CDBG Collier 306231CD $339,060 $0 $339,060
CDBG Funding Subtotal $1,562,635 $158,509 $1,108,906
2016 Park Fees Collier/Vista LM 306162PF $2,315 $0 $0
2017 Park Fees Collier 306171PF $46,260 $0 $0
2018 Park Fees Collier 306181PF $6,560 $0 $0
2019 Park Fees Collier/MacArthur Park 306191PF $125,530 $0 $79,377 2020 Park Fees Collier 306200PF $337,870 $0 $337,870
2021 Park Fees Collier 306210PF $285,680 $0 $285,680
2022 Park Fees Collier 306222PF $1,560 $0 $1,560
Park Fees Funding Subtotal $805,775 $0 $704,487
2022 SB 129 Sec 272 Sec 19.55 (49)
State Parks Grant 306227OT $230,000 $0 $230,000
2022 SB 129 Sec 272 Sec 19.55 (49)
State Parks Grant 306227OT $2,770,000 $0 $2,770,000
Other Funding Subtotal 306227OT $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 Prop 68 Per Capita $215,394 $0 $215,394
General Fund Reserves $103,418
Grand Total Collier Park Funding $5,583,804 $158,509 $5,132,205 Playground and Fitness Equipment
La Mesa Park and Recreaction Foundation $126,660
Total Costs
$3,835,246
$841,898
$257,616
$72,445
$5,007,205
$125,000
$5,132,205
Subtotal
Contingency (2.5%)
Total Expenses
Collier Park Funding - Attachment E
Description (Project Expenses)
Construction Contract (De La Fuente Construction, Inc. - Base Bid) Construction Contract (De La Fuente Construction Inc - additive alternates A thru H ) Construction Management Contract (Schneider CM for Collier Park) Construction Support Services (NV5 and RE Services)

BID 23-05 Collier Park Renovation Project, Phase 2
Bidders Base Bid
1 De la Fuente Construction, Inc. $ 3,835,246.42
2 Entenman Development Group $ 3,861,558.36
3 Western Rim Constructors, Inc. $ 4,037,808.46
4 Marcon Engineering $ 4,197,469.10
5 Palm Engineering Construction Co. $ 4,422,268.00
6 Blue Pacific Engineering and Construction $ 4,588,060.00 7 PUB Construction Inc. $ 4,618,895.00
8 Fordyce Construction, Inc. $ 4,820,246.00
Engineer's Estimate $ 3,000,000.00
Bid Tabulation
All bids will be compared on the basis of the base bid.

ATTACHMENT F

Bid Additive Summary and Description – Attachment G
Bid Additive Alternate A: Installation of a Historical Fountain Reconstruction at Railroad Depot, at a cost of $66,368.33.

Bid Additive Alternate B1: Curb and Sidewalk Improvements along Pasadena near Upland at a cost of $201,264.03
Bid Additive Alternate B2: Installation of East Trail Improvements at a cost of $123,685.03.

Bid Additive Alternate B3: Hummingbird and Butterfly Garden, Mini Amphitheater, at a cost of $102,216.03
Bid Additive Alternate C: Installation of Nature Exploration Area including timber milling at a cost of $103,118.05.

Bid Additive Alternate D: Installation of Drainage Channel Enhancements at a cost of $48,633.35.

Bid Additive Alternate E: Installation of Masonry Colum Bases at Picnic Shelter at a cost of $27,036.80.

Bid Additive Alternate F: Installation of offsite fiber optic cable and conduit along Palm Ave to provide communication with Park at a cost of $129,073.83.

Bid Additive Alternate G: Installation of a Historical Interpretive Walk and Treasure Trail, at a cost of $24,300.85.

Bid Additive Alternate H: Furnish and Install Bosch Starlight 8000i Camera or approved equal, at a cost of $16,201.52
See Attachment H for Park Map and Visualizations

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
Key Visualization Locations
1 9 10 12 11
4 8 7
5 6
3 2

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Bird's Eye Facing Northeast
1

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Upper Plaza Area Facing South 2

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Upper Plaza Area Facing East
3

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Playground EntryFacing Northwest
4

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Picnic Area Facing Northeast
5

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Playground Entry Facing West
6

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Spring House Plaza Entry 7

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Pickle Ball Plaza & TurfArea Facing Southwest
8

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Tennis Court Facing Northeast
9

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: East Trail Park Entry 10

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Mini-amphitheater Facing Southwest 11

Phase 2 Improvements Visualizations
Collier Park
View: Nature Exploration AreaFacing Northeast
12

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: August 9, 2022
SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF PROJECT 2017-31 (CUP
17-88) (HILLSIDE), A REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED

COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED STOREFRONT RETAIL
MEDICINAL CANNABIS USE AT 7901 HILLSIDE DRIVE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:

Issues:

1. Should the City Council rescind the decision on February 22, 2022, to honor the appeal and deny the project?

2. Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a proposed commercial building and a conditional use permit for a proposed storefront retail medicinal cannabis use at 7901 Hillside Drive, APN 470-200-27- 00 in the C-D-MU (General Commercial / Urban Design Overlay / Mixed Use Overlay) zone, thus denying the appeal?

3. Should the City Council ratify the Design Review Board’s approval of the project? Recommendation:

1. Rescind the City Council’s decision on February 22, 2022, to honor the appeal and deny the project.

2. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Project 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) based on the findings and subject to conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution PC-2021-17 (Attachment A), thus denying the appeal (Attachment C).

3. Ratify the Design Review Board’s approval of the project.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 2 of 11
Fiscal Impact:

There would be no impact to the General Fund related to this project. City of La Mesa policy is to recover 100% of the cost of staff time through application processing fees.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors
Environmental Review:

This project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301, 15303, and 15332.

City Council Appeal Hearing
The City Council initially considered an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Project 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) on February 8, 2022. The City Council upheld the appeal, thus denying the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The project applicant filed a petition with the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, seeking judgment and a writ of mandate requiring the City to issue the requested CUP. As per City Council direction, the matter has been brought back to the City Council for reconsideration.

Site and Surrounding Area:

The subject property is located at 7901 Hillside
Drive, which is a through-lot that also fronts El Cajon Boulevard. The 5,617 square-foot property slopes
downward from Hillside Drive to El Cajon Boulevard
with elevations ranging from 560 feet (Hillside Drive)
to 538 feet (El Cajon Boulevard) above mean sea
level. The property is developed with a single-family
residence and a “U” shaped retaining wall that is
about 18’ tall and tapers down to about two (2) feet
tall along the west property line. This wall divides the middle of the property into upper and lower halves.

The General Plan designates the property as Mixed
Use Urban, and the property is zoned C-D-MU
(General Commercial/ Urban Design Overlay/ Mixed
Use Overlay).

Surrounding uses include a duplex to the south, a single-family residence to the east, the La Mesa Crossroads shopping center to the north (across El Cajon Boulevard), and an apartment building on the neighboring property to the west. There is an existing dispensary (Cookies CUP

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 3 of 11
17-95) nearby that will be discussed later in the report. Photos of the project site are provided as Attachment D.

Project Description:

The applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to operate a medical marijuana facility in a new, 2,122 square-foot, commercial building. The dispensary would occupy approximately 85% (1,811 square-feet) of the proposed building and would only be accessible via an elevator from Hillside Drive. A yet to be determined retail tenant (311 square-feet) would occupy a second suite that would front on and have direct access to the El Cajon Boulevard pedestrian realm.

The existing residential structure would be demolished, and most of the existing retaining walls would be incorporated into the proposed commercial building.

A parking lot, with vehicular and pedestrian access from Hillside Drive, would provide eight required parking spaces that would be covered by a standing seam metal roof carport. A portion of this parking lot would be supported by and located on the proposed commercial building. Customer access from the parking lot to the commercial building would be via the aforementioned elevator. Parking lot lighting would be located on building walls, beneath the carport, and on architectural bollards to help shield lighting from neighboring properties. The parking lot would be surrounded by a four-foot wall, and the driveway would have rolling wrought iron gate. Project plans are provided as Attachment G.

The building would be contemporary styled and tailored to maximize use of the relatively small, two-level lot. The El Cajon Boulevard frontage would feature a ground level storefront (noncannabis) that would occupy about 66 percent of the property street frontage. This suite would provide mostly floor-to-ceiling, matte black, aluminum framed, glass panels. A flat, aluminum canopy would overhang the entrance and project above the public right-of-way. The suite roof would be a medium bronze, standing seam metal roof that fades into the wall upper portion of the building. This stepped building height would help provide a human scale for pedestrians and avoid a boxy-like building appearance. There would be an approximately 39-foot tall tower element that is the elevator shaft that provides access from parking lot.

The Façade would primarily be white stucco siding (Merlex P-100 White), with an accent grey (P-1661 Light Grey) trim color, and an articulated concrete masonry block base. A Color and Materials Board is provided as Attachment H.

The project proposes 791 square-feet of landscaped area, including two street trees (Fern Pines) along El Cajon Boulevard and one Chinese Flame tree near Hillside drive. The landscaping would also provide a variety of shrubs and ground cover along street frontages as shown on the landscaping plan.

Separation Criteria:

LMMC 24.23.030 allows the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary in limited areas of the City and provides minimum separation requirements between a dispensary and specified uses to minimize potential adverse impacts on the community, and requires a 1,000-foot separation measured by path of travel between the specified uses and any proposed medical marijuana

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 4 of 11
dispensaries. Staff verified that the subject location is within an eligible zone and is not within a 600-foot-radius from any school.

There is an existing medical marijuana dispensary located at 7935 El Cajon Boulevard, approximately 200 feet east of the subject property. However, the proposed floor plan for the project would not allow access to the proposed cannabis retail use from El Cajon Boulevard, but rather would have entry via elevator from the parking area on Hillside Drive above. Because of this, the path of travel between the proposed use and the existing dispensary proceeds through the parking area to Hillside Drive, then west to Guava Avenue, then north to El Cajon Boulevard, and east to the existing dispensary. The path of travel then proceeds across the parking lot and down the elevator to the entry. As shown on the floor plan, the proposed commercial use on El Cajon Boulevard would have access to the elevator through a secured door to provide required accessibility to the accessible parking space in the parking area above.

Access to the cannabis use would not be allowed through this secured access. Based on this path of travel, there is no dispensary or any of the other uses specified by in LMMC

24.23.030(a)(1) within a 1,000-foot path of travel from the site as shown in Attachment E.

The proposed path of travel passes by the proposed lower floor retail space that includes the secured door to the elevator, through which there is also access to the proposed retail cannabis use. The Planning Commission and City Council on appeal have considered and approved past applications with secured access doors that did not serve as the entry point to the dispensary located less than 1,000 feet from specified sensitive uses. The conditions of approval prohibit any access to the dispensary, both directly through the emergency exit or indirectly through the front commercial suite, to El Cajon Boulevard. Doors controlling this access are required to be alarmed and a security guard must be stationed in the area to control and monitor the access at all times the business is open.

Operational and Security Requirements:

LMMC 24.23.030 also provides operational requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries, which have been incorporated as recommended conditions of the CUP (see Attachment A).

These include provisions for security measures to be implemented, including, but not limited to:
 Operable cameras;
 A fire and burglar alarm system monitored by an alarm company licensed by the State of California;
 Evidence that a California State Licensed Security Guard has been contracted for the Business at all times that the facility is open;
 A 24-hour, fixed-camera video surveillance and digital storage system in the cloud or other off-site method of recording available for 90 days after recording;  Prohibition of consultation by medical professionals on site;  Restriction of hours of operation between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm;  Activities associated with the business conducted indoors;  Yards and other open spaces around buildings kept free of waste, litter, junk, or storage of any material; and
 Site lighting provided and maintained.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 5 of 11
Landscape Standards:

City Landscaping Standards typically require that 10% of the parking area be landscaped, including interior landscape planters with canopy trees, and five-feet of perimeter landscaping, which would not be provided by this project. The reason is that the code specifies that interior landscaping shall not be required in covered parking areas or on the open top deck of a parking structure. In this case, all the parking spaces are covered and approximately half the parking lot is located on a parking structure; therefore, staff determined that the parking lot landscaping noted above was not required.

Zoning Ordinance Regulations:

The base C Zone is intended to provide areas in which many types of retail businesses, offices, and services can be conducted. Staff has reviewed the project and determined that it complies with zoning ordinance requirements this zone. This includes requirements specific to dispensaries found in LMMC 24.23.030 and development standards for the proposed commercial building regarding parking, landscaping, and building height. The zone building height limit is 46 feet; whereas, the elevator shaft is proposed at approximately 39-feet tall. The zone does not require a building setback. Business signage would be processed separately.

General Plan Consistency:

As specified, the General Plan designates the property as Mixed Use Urban. This designation is found along the City’s main corridors in areas identified for potential compact development.

The General Plan goal along El Cajon Boulevard is for less auto dependency with a more walkable commercial corridor through pedestrian oriented development. The proposed dispensary is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, as it would introduce uncommon retail goods with anticipated economic benefit for the area, revitalize the property, and improve the 12-foot pedestrian realm with new street trees. Further Goals and Policies of the GP are implemented through the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Required Findings for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approval:

Staff has reviewed the application for the CUP for a medical marijuana dispensary and has determined that the project is consistent with the recommended land use and development standards in effect for this site in accordance with the La Mesa Municipal Code and in compliance with Measure U. The project is not requesting, nor does it require, any deviation or variance from the applicable regulations and policy documents. The proposed specific regulatory conditions of approval assure the project’s compliance with applicable local, regional, and State codes and rules, and ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.

Based on the findings for approval of a conditional use permit (LMMC Section 24.02.060) and the analysis in this report, staff has made the following findings in support of the recommendation of approval.
[LMMC 24.02.060(a)]: Incompatibility with other uses in the same vicinity will not result

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 6 of 11
The project is compatible with other uses in the same vicinity. In accordance with Measure U, retail medical marijuana dispensary use is permitted in the C-D-MU zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The project has been designed to reduce potential impacts on neighboring uses through implementation of development standards and required operating conditions. Further, the subject property is located in the C Zone which is intended for and permits general commercial, retail sales, and office uses. The retail dispensary business is consistent with the vision established for the commercial area by the applicable land use plan. The proposed project meets the separation requirements of Measure U. [LMMC 24.02.060(b)]: Issuance of such a conditional use permit would not lead to the creation of a nuisance and would not endanger the public health, safety, or order by:
(1) Unreasonably increasing pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic in the area in which the premises are located;
The issuance of a CUP would not unreasonably increase pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic in the area. The proposed dispensary is contained almost wholly within an existing commercial building. The proposed project is a retail use that is not expected to generate higher levels of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. A traffic letter prepared by Mizuta Traffic Consulting concluded that the project will not significantly impact traffic operations and did not recommend any mitigation measures. (2) Increasing the incidence of disruptive conduct in the area in which the premises are located;
The issuance of a CUP would not unreasonably increase the incidence of disruptive conduct in the area because the proposed project is compliant with Measure U.

Proposed project conditions include provisions for security measures to be implemented, including, but not limited to, operable cameras; fire and burglar alarm systems monitored by an alarm company licensed by the State of California; evidence that a California State Licensed Security Guard contracted by the business is present at all times the facility is open; and a 24-hour, fixed-camera video surveillance system. The surveillance system is required to cover every interior area and room, and adjacent perimeter areas, within a minimum of 50 feet. Twenty-four-hour surveillance system access is required by the La Mesa Police Department or other City authorized department.

In addition, conditions of the permit would require that the applicant for the permit proactively address and cure any legitimate loitering complaints, noise complaints, odor complaints, non-compliance issue with the CUP, or non-compliance with other applicable state or local regulations. Failure to operate the business in conformance to the conditions of approval could result in possible suspension or revocation of the permit. It is not anticipated that within such a controlled and conditioned environment, disruptive conduct would occur.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 7 of 11
(3) Unreasonably increasing the level of noise in the area in which the premises are located The issuance of a CUP would not unreasonably increase the level of noise in the area.

No increase in noise level is expected from this retail use compared to other commercial uses allowed in the C zone. The proposed medical marijuana dispensary use is an indoor retail use comparable to a pharmacy with the expectation that noise generated by consumer activity should not be significantly different from a use that is more familiar to the general public. The project complies with Measure U and a condition of the permit would require the applicant to proactively address and cure any legitimate noise complaint. Failure to do so could result in possible suspension or revocation of the permit.
[LMMC 24.02.060(c)]: The use is consistent with the General Plan The General Plan land use designation of the subject property is “Mixed-Use Urban” for which the C-D-MU zone is consistent. While the proposed retail dispensary is mostly surrounded by residential uses, the mixture of residential and commercial uses would be consistent with the Mixed-Use Urban designation. Further by providing improvements within the public right-ofway, improving the area for pedestrian circulation, and creating jobs the project would help achieve goals and the objectives of the General Plan. The project would promote economic growth and employment consistent with Land Use Policy as described throughout the General Plan.

Public Comments
The Planning Department received 16 public comments (Attachment F) opposing the project prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The comments primarily expressed concerns regarding reduced quality of life in the surrounding residential neighborhood due to potential for increased crime and traffic in the neighborhood, suitability of the streets to handle commercial traffic, reduced availability of on-street vehicle parking, marijuana odor and usage, and the close proximity of an existing dispensary to the one proposed by this application.

Design Review Board Action:

The Urban Design Overlay (D) Zone requires that new construction and major exterior alterations be reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board (DRB) and City Council for consistency with the City’s Urban Design Program. The project was presented to the DRB on August 9th, 2021. Staff recommended that the DRB approve the project since it substantially conforms to the Urban Design Program, and the site design makes good use of the topographically challenging site. The proposed architectural design would provide a variety of surface planes, forms, textures, and colors. The project would also improve the streetscape by providing two (2) street trees and lighting from an otherwise vacant lot.

The DRB found that the project is consistent with the intent of the Urban Design Program policies and the Mixed Use Overlay Design Guidelines. The DRB recommended two Conditions be added to the project, including: 1) Breaking up mass of the elevator tower through use of signage, architectural definition, or materials; 2) The planting of 36-inch box trees instead of 24-

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 8 of 11
inch box trees shown on the landscape plans. These Conditions were approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2021-17 as Conditions numbered 9 and 10.

Planning Commission:

The Planning Commission reviewed the application for the CUP for a Medical Marijuana Dispensary and determined that the project is consistent with the recommended land use and development standards in effect for this site in accordance with the La Mesa Municipal Code.

The Planning Commission specifically considered and discussed the proposed path of travel for compliance with the requirements of Measure U. The Planning Commission found the proposed path of travel to be consistent with Measure, and its approval to be consistent with past actions taken on other applications. The permit has been conditioned to ensure that the proposed dispensary would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The findings of the Planning Commission and the conditions of approval can be found in attached Resolution PC2021-17 (Attachment A).

Public Notice of Planning Commission Hearing:

Notice of the Planning Commission hearing to consider the conditional use permit was mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on September 2, 2021, and published in The Daily Transcript on September 3, 2021; in accordance with Municipal Code requirements.

APPEAL:

An appeal (Attachment C) of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project was filed on October 20, 2021 by Dana J. Stevens, Executive Director of CASA (Community Action Service Advocacy), a nonprofit organization, on their behalf after conversations with community members.

The appeal asserts that the Planning Commission’s approval of the subject application was erroneous, because:
 It violates the purpose of Chapter 24.23 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning of dispensaries in such a manner to limit impacts on the City in general and residential neighborhoods in particular. Concerns were expressed regarding the narrowness, poor condition, and abrupt dead end of Hillside Drive and its unsuitability for commercial traffic.
 The proposed location would violate the minimum 1,000-foot path of travel separation between dispensaries because there are three footpaths that would be well under the 1,000-foot path of travel separation required between the proposed and an existing dispensary.
 It violates the purpose and intent of Municipal Code Chapter 6.11.010 to regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacturing, testing, sale, delivery, distribution and transportation of adult-use cannabis and cannabis products in a responsible manner to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of La Mesa. The location poses a danger to residents, pedestrians, and drivers on Hillside Drive and its feeder streets, and the density of cannabis businesses are contrary to health, safety,

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 9 of 11
and welfare of the nearby residents.
 It would set a precedent that residential neighborhoods, adjacent to commercial and industrial zones, could face the prospect that their front doors could open to the front doors of businesses that can be open from 7am until 9pm, seven days a week with bright exterior lighting for a business that is dangerous enough to require a licensed security guard on site while operating.

RESPONSE TO APPEAL:

The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of Measure U and the Municipal Code, and is consistent with the General Plan as discussed in this report and as reflected in the findings of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2021-17 approving the project (Attachment A).

The project complies with the “Measure U” 1,000-foot separation requirement between dispensaries for reasons detailed in the Separation Criteria section of the report. The welltraveled paths described in the appeal were considered and determined to not meet the definition of “Path of Travel”.

La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 6.11.010 is not applicable to this project because this application is for a medicinal use regulated by Chapter 24.23, not an adult-use that is regulated by Chapter 6.11. Nevertheless, a traffic study did not find the dispensary would significantly impact traffic operations and did not recommend any mitigation measures.

The approval would not set a land use precedent in the City for residential neighborhoods that abut the back of commercial or industrial zones as asserted in the appeal. Residential front doors facing commercial development is relatively common on streets where the zoning transitions from residential to commercial. Examples of this orientation can be found throughout the City wherever commercial and residential zones are adjacent. Further, the front doors of the residences located directly across Hillside Drive from the subject property do not face Hillside Drive or the proposed dispensary. Municipal Code regulations and project conditions of approval require that lighting be focused on the subject property and shielded from spillover onto adjacent properties.

Environmental Review:

The proposed dispensary and commercial building are categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines: Sections 15301, 15303 and 15332.
 CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 exempts the demolition of small individual structures that includes removal of a single-family residence and accessory structures.  CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 exempts new construction or conversion of small structures including commercial structures, accessory structures, and water, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 10 of 11
 CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 exempts infill development projects that meet all of the conditions necessary to qualify for the exemption as follow:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and policies, as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Mixed Use Urban. This designation allows for a mixture of residential and commercial uses along established routes (p. LD-32). The zoning classification for the project site is C-DMU Zone (General Commercial, Urban Design Overlay, Mixed Use Overlay). The City of La Mesa adopted Measure U, codified as Chapter 24.23 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, specifying Zone C as an appropriate zone for the proposed marijuana cultivation facility. The project is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations and regulations.
(b) The project occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The project is located at 7901 Hillside Drive in the City of La Mesa and within the La Mesa General Commercial Zone on a 5,617 square-foot site. The project site is mostly surrounded by existing, developed properties.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The project site is located between Hillside Drive and El Cajon Boulevard in the City of La Mesa and within a La Mesa identified transit corridor, El Cajon Boulevard. The site is currently developed with a residence. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

A traffic assessment letter was prepared for the project which concludes that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on traffic. The proposed use of the site will be fully conducted indoors, reducing potential for noise impacts. The project has conditions of approval requiring odor control and air filtration to minimize any potential impacts on air quality. Water for the project will be discharged appropriately into the City of La Mesa sewer system. The project is not expected to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The project site is an existing residence. All utilities are available. Provision of water service has been verified by the Helix Water District.

The project will change the building occupancy type on the property from a single-family residence to a commercial building that would include a medical marijuana dispensary, on a site

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: August 9. 2022
Page: 11 of 11
zoned for such land use, involves new construction of private facilities, landscaping, and public improvements along the property frontage. The project is located where all public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding uses are not environmentally sensitive. There is no evidence that the proposed commercial building and medical marijuana dispensary will result in an environmental impact. None of the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 apply. Therefore the project complies with the exemption standards established in the CEQA Guidelines.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notification of the August 9, 2022, City Council public hearing to reconsider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and interested parties on Friday, July 29, 2022, and published in the San Diego Daily Transcript on Friday, July 29, 2022.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Rescind the City Council’s decision on February 22, 2022, to honor the appeal and deny the project.

2. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) based on the findings and subject to conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution PC2021-17 (Attachment A), thus denying the appeal (Attachment C).

3. Ratify the Design Review Board’s approval of the project.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Kerry Kusiak
City Manager Director of Community Development
Attachments:

A. Planning Commission Resolution PC 2021-17
B. Design Review Board Certification of Action
C. Appeal and documentation filed by CASA
D. Site photos
E. Path of travel separation exhibit
F. Public Comments for Planning Commission
G. Project Plans
H. Color and Materials Board

CERTIFICATION OF

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION
FILE: Project No. 2017-31 (Hillside)
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021
SUBJECT: Consideration of a proposed commercial building with a cannabis use at 7901 Hillside Drive, APN 470-200-27-00 in the C-D-MU (General Commercial / Urban Design Overlay / Mixed Use Overlay) zone DETERMINATION: After reviewing the proposal, the Board made a motion to recommend approval of Project No. 2017-31 based on plans stamped received by the City on July 1, 2021, and a finding that the project is consistent with the City’s Urban Design Program and Mixed Use Overlay Design Guidelines, subject to the following recommendations:
1) The applicant shall break up the mass of the elevator shaft’s west façade through signage, modification of materials, or architectural definition.
2) The applicant shall provide 36-inch box street trees instead of the 24-inch box trees currently shown on landscape plans.

The vote on the motion was as follows:

Aye: Chair Langdon, Board members Taylor and Kusiak
Nay: Board member Lorenz

Absent: Board member Feske
ATTEST:

Kerry Kusiak
Director of Community Development

Project site; view from Hillside Drive
Project site; view from Hillside Drive
Project No. 2017-31 7901 Hillside Drive ATTACHMENT B

Project site; view from El Cajon Boulevard
Project site; view from side (facing west).

Project No. 2017-31 7901 Hillside Drive Page 244 of 291 !(
^
38 39 Christ
Lutheran
St Martin
20 I-8 EB

EL CAJON BL
CARTER
PL

GUAVAAV

LA MESA BL

BALTIMORE DR
TR
O
Y
L
N

CULOWEE ST
C
L
EA
R
V
EI W
W
Y
NORMAL
AV

MARIE AV

EL CAPITAN DR

SUNCREST DR

UNIVERSITY AV

TROY TR
LOMA

VISTA DR

SUNSET DR
MA
PL
E
A
V
EL
CA
P
TI A
N
D
R

HILLSIDE DR

PRIVATE RD

CIMARRON
LN
I-8 RA I-8 WB
LOMA

VISTA DR

UNIVERSITY PL

WOODYARD
AV

LEMON CR
I-8 RA
L
EE
A
V
1145
1191
1950
2156
Legend
^ Front Door
Path of Travel
1000 Ft Buffer
!( Minor Oriented
!( Child Care
Family Day Care
Schools
Parks
Applicant Parcel ± 350 175 0 350 Feet

From: Planning
To: "Sheila Adolph"
Cc: Kerry Kusiak; Michael Fellows
Subject: RE: Dispensary at 7901 Hillside Dr, La Mesa
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:31:16 PM
Good Afternoon,
Project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88), which is listed on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda, will be continued to a date certain of October 6th.

Thank you for your interest in the City of La Mesa.

Sincerely,
Cheryl
Cheryl Davis ƒ Administrative Coordinator ƒ Community Development ƒ 619.667.1190 P ƒ 619.667.1380 F From: Sheila Adolph [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 5:17 PM
To: Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Dispensary at 7901 Hillside Dr, La Mesa
Hello,
My husband and I are residents on Clearview Way, one of the streets/routes that will surely be impacted if plans to build a dispensary on Hillside Dr move forward.

We object to this proposal. Clearview Way is a mix of home owners and apartments. People do depend on the street parking. There is just the right balance of parking for the residents here right now.

We felt the impact that the steet work on La Mesa Blvd last winter and spring and have no interest in reliving that experience. Parking was severely impacted. One day, a large truck that had no business going doing this narrow, car-lined street rammed our truck. Although we had witnesses, no one was able to retrieve a license plate, and we were unable to pursue compensation. Our 2001 Toyota truck had survived all these many years without any dents.

Now the door and panel behind it are crunched. We have no desire to relive scenarios such as these.
$77$&+0(17F

Thank you for reading our concerns. I hope you will give it your most thoughtful consideration for the residents living here.

Sheila Adolph

From: Planning
To: "Esmeralda Almanza"
Cc: Kerry Kusiak; Michael Fellows
Subject: RE: Against the Marijuana dispensary
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:29:25 PM
Good Afternoon,
Project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88), which is listed on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda, will be continued to a date certain of October 6th.

Thank you for your interest in the City of La Mesa.

Sincerely,
Cheryl
Cheryl Davis ƒ Administrative Coordinator ƒ Community Development ƒ 619.667.1190 P ƒ 619.667.1380 F From: Esmeralda Almanza [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:02 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Against the Marijuana dispensary
To Whom it May Concern:

We are against the idea of having a Marijuana dispensary in my neighborhood!!! First, there is already one not too far from 7901 Hillside Dr.

Second, there is already enough car traffic in our area, with the nursing home employees taking up parking.

Third, This is a small quiet place and we would like to keep it that way!!!! So, NO ON HAVING ANOTHER MARIJUANA DISPENSARY HERE !!!! THANKS

From: Planning
To: "Jennfer Bartindale"
Cc: Kerry Kusiak; Michael Fellows
Subject: RE: Marijuana Dispensary
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:28:19 PM
Good Afternoon,
Project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88), which is listed on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda, will be continued to a date certain of October 6th.

Thank you for your interest in the City of La Mesa.

Sincerely,
Cheryl
Cheryl Davis ƒ Administrative Coordinator ƒ Community Development ƒ 619.667.1190 P ƒ 619.667.1380 F -----Original Message-----
From: Jennfer Bartindale [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 1:47 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Marijuana Dispensary
I am opposed to the marijuana dispensary being allowed to locate in my residential area. I am appalled that this would even be a consideration!
This is a family neighborhood! Children play in front of homes, people walk their dogs on the side walks. Out street is so narrow that with cars parked on both sides, I have to pull over to let another car go by.

There is extremely limited street parking for the residents of my neighborhood. As is, the nursing home and assisted living facility personnel already take up most of the daily parking spaces. We are already crowded for street parking.

It is in direct conflict to the law that prohibits marijuana dispensaries to be located within 1,000 feet of each other.

There is an existing dispensary directly parallel to the proposed one. The law also prohibits any customer based storefront commercial business to operate out of a residential neighborhood. This is a residential area! I believe it would increase crime in the area with the introduction of drug addicts in the area. They would be in our neighborhood and if they can’t afford their pot, they might resort to breaking into cars and our homes.

Please do not destroy our family friendly neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Bartindale
4890 Clearview Way
La Mesa CA 91942
619.251.5042
JB Sent from my iPhone