La Mesa City Council
May 9, 2023

LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

A Regular Meeting

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023, 6:00 p.m.

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

Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Colin Parent
Councilmember Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Jack Shu
City Treasurer Matthew Strabone
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
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 12:00 p.m., the Monday 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. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 PROCLAIMING MAY 2023 AS POPPY MONTH

5.2 PROCLAIMING MAY 2023 AS BIKE MONTH

5.3 PROCLAIMING MAY 15, 2023 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS'

MEMORIAL DAY

5.4 PROCLAIMING MAY 21 - 27, 2023 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK

5.5 CITY TREASURER'S QUARTERLY REPORT 1

5.6 BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 15

6. 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.

7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES

8. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

8.1 INTERVIEW OF AN APPLICANT FOR AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY

ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
29 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman

8.2 INTERVIEW OF AN APPLICANT FOR AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY

ON THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND VETERANS COMMISSION
32 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time in which members of the Council or audience may pull items from the CONSENT CALENDAR for discussion. Public Comments are also invited on Consent Calendar items.

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 OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 11 AND APRIL 25, 2023
35 Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.3 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2023
52 Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.4 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ADDITION OF ONE INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST (SPECIALIST I OR II BASED ON

QUALIFICATIONS) POSITION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SERVICE

CITY-WIDE
54 Staff Reference: Ms. Freeman
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.5 RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 12.44.130 OF THE LA MESA

MUNICIPAL CODE INSTALLING A DISABLED PERSONS PARKING
SPACE AT 6070 NANCY DRIVE
59 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO SELECT ELECTRIC, INC., FOR THE EL CAJON BOULEVARD

AND JESSIE AVENUE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
63 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.7 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID NO. 23-15, CITYWIDE GUARDRAIL

UPGRADES AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
SB GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC.
70 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.8 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN –

CITY OF LA MESA ANNEX
79 Staff Reference: Chief Koch
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

11. HEARINGS

11.1 ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN APPEAL HEARING 145

CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR

A REZONING PROPOSAL KNOWN AS THE ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN (PROJECT 2018-08) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
APPROXIMATELY 900 DWELLING UNITS IN FOUR APARTMENT

BUILDINGS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE STUDENT HOUSING AND
COMMERCIAL USES, ON AN APPROXIMATE 12-ACRE SITE
LOCATED AT 7407 ALVARADO ROAD (APN 469-021-20-00 TO -25- 00, 469-130-43-00 AND -44-00) IN THE CM-F-D (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE / FLOODWAY OVERLAY / URBAN

DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE
Staff Reference: Mr. Kusiak
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution denying Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan), a rezoning application for a specific plan that would include the development of approximately 900 dwelling units in four apartment buildings, and which may include student housing and commercial uses, on an approximately 12-acre site located at 7407 Alvarado Road (APN 469-021-20-00 to -25-00, 469-130-43-00 and -44-00) in the CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial Service/Floodway Overlay/Urban Design Overlay) zone, thus denying the appeal.

11.2 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE 2023 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM (RTIP) TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023 THROUGH
2027
1123
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution adopting an amendment to the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2027.

12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)

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

14. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

15. ADJOURNMENT
DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matt Strabone, City Treasurer
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Quarterly Report

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 9, 2023
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Quarter Ended
March 31, 2023
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Finance Department – City Treasurer

SUMMARY
PORTFOLIO VALUE:

The City’s portfolio ended the quarter with a market value of $78,725,892. This represents a discount of $3,429,673 from par value, or purchase price. As the City maintains an Investment Policy that follows a strict “buy and hold” strategy, there is no economic gain or loss upon call or maturity. The City’s securities continue to earn interest at the stated rates through the dates of redemption.

LIQUIDITY:

Liquidity meets the statutory requirements with $32,543,565 in LAIF for immediate availability. “LAIF” stands for Local Agency Investment Fund, and is operated by the California State Treasurer to act as an immediate-access account for local governments and special districts in California.

EARNINGS:

Investment earnings from the invested portfolio of government agency bonds, corporate securities, and certificates of deposit, but excluding LAIF, for the current quarter collected from January 1, 2023, through March 31, 2023, total $288,444, which represents an annualized rate of 2.33%. Investment earnings from LAIF for the current quarter total $195,809, which represents an annualized rate of 2.41%. Combined, investment earnings were $484,253, representing a total annualized rate of return of 2.36% for this quarter.

Please note that this represents interest payments and dividends actually earned by the City during the quarter, and may not necessarily reflect all interest payments and dividends payable to the City for the current quarter due to differing payment schedules and variable interest rates.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 5
City’s Strategic Goal
To maintain a financially sound and affordable
city government
SAFETY
Federal Agencies
• Carries the implied guarantee of the United States government Corporate Securities
• The City’s Investment Policy requires ratings of Double A (AA) or better Certificates of Deposit
• Guaranteed by the FDIC to $250,000
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
• Managed by the California State Treasurer; consists primarily of U.S. Treasuries, government agency bonds, and other short-term investments.

LIQUIDITY
The City’s LAIF balance of $32,543,565 represents the City’s immediate cash and is

39.6% of the portfolio. Additionally, as investments mature, they can be reinvested at then-current rates or redeemed to provide additional operating cash. The invested portfolio of government agency bonds, corporate securities, and certificates of deposit has an average maturity of 2.6 years with $3,714,000 maturing within one year for added liquidity.

EARNINGS
As noted above, the City’s portfolio earned $484,253 this quarter, representing an annualized yield of 2.36%.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 3 of 5

PORTFOLIO PROFILE
To achieve the City’s strategic goal, the City’s primary investment objectives, in order of priority, are: Safety, Liquidity, and Earnings. Key to each of these objectives is a well-diversified portfolio that minimizes credit and interest rate risk and provides necessary liquidity. The City’s portfolio is designed to meet these objectives as summarized in the following table which is presented at par values. This table represents the City’s holdings as of March 31, 2023:

Years to
Maturity
Government
Agencies
Corporate
Securities
Certificates
of Deposit LAIF Total 3/31/2023
%of
Portfolio
Earnings
Rate
0 – 1 500,000 0 3,214,000 32,543,565 36,257,565 44.13% 3.02%* 1 – 2 2,000,000 500,000 3,704,000 - 6,204,000 7.55% 2.59% 2 – 3 9,000,000 1,000,000 1,243,000 - 11,243,000 13.69% 1.86% 3 – 4 17,000,000 0 2,231,000 - 19,231,000 23.41% 1.40%
4 – 5 6,000,000 0 3,220,000 - 9,220,000 11.22% 3.73%
Totals 34,500,000 1,500,000 13,612,000 32,543,565 82,155,565 100.00% Portfolio % 41.99% 1.83% 16.57% 39.61% 100.00%
Earnings
Rate 2.14% 1.82% 2.42% 2.74% 2.42%
*Earnings rate for assets with 0-1 years to maturity excludes LAIF

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 4 of 5

PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY
During the quarter, three certificates of deposit matured. No other holdings in the City’s portfolio matured, were called, or were purchased.

Certificates of Deposit Matured: Maturity Rate Par Value Morgan Stanley Bank NA 5 year 2.65% $246,000
Allegiance BK Tex Houston 5 year 2.60% $249,000
Crossfirst Bank 5 year 2.70% $249,000

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 5 of 5

PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE
The portfolio complies with California code sections concerning safety and liquidity in the investment of public funds. Investment strategies are based on liquidity requirements and interest rate projections and have been collaboratively determined by the City Treasurer, City Manager, and Director of Finance. The City Treasurer executes trades in accordance with these strategies.

Required Contents of Investment Reports
California Government Code Section 53646(b) suggests that the quarterly investment report of a local agency contain certain items. These items include the type of investment, the issuer’s name, the date of maturity of the security, the par amount of the instrument, the market value, and the dollar amount invested in each security. The source of the market value also should be included in the report. The report also must reference all funds that are under the management of external investment providers, such as investment advisors and investment managers. A local government’s quarterly report, if submitted, must state the portfolio’s compliance with the agency’s investment policy or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance. Finally, the investment report must include a statement regarding the local agency’s ability to meet its cash flow needs for the next six months.

Accordingly, I advise you of the following facts in compliance with Government Code Section 53646(b):

1. The source of the valuations included herein is U.S. Bank, Saint Paul, MN 55107.

2. No funds are under the management of external providers or managers.

Investment decisions are made by a consensus of the City Treasurer, City Manager, and Director of Finance.

3. The City’s portfolio remains in strict compliance with the Investment Policy of the City of La Mesa for FY 2022-2023.

4. The City of La Mesa’s investment portfolio more than adequately assures the City’s ability to meet its cash flow needs during the ensuing six months.

Reviewed by Respectfully submitted by
___________________________ ___________________________ Greg Humora Matt Strabone
City Manager City Treasurer
Attachments:

A - Schedule of Investments – Summary
B - Schedule of Investments – Detail

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments (Summary)
As of March 31, 2023
Issuer Type of Investment Maturity Date Par Value Book Value Market Value State of California LAIF 98-37-421 Demand 32,543,565 32,543,565 32,104,563 Federal Agencies Medium Term Notes 09/2023 - 10/2027 34,500,000 34,493,445 32,332,205 Financial/Banking Institutions Certificates of Deposits 04/2023 - 11/2027 13,612,000 13,612,000 12,908,054 Corporate Obligations Medium Term Notes 07/2024 - 02/2026 1,500,000 1,492,425 1,381,070 Total 82,155,565 82,141,435 78,725,892
I certify that the investment of funds is in conformance with California Government Code section 53600. Those investments valued at below market cost will be held until maturity or until they can be sold without a loss. I also certify that the investment of funds provides the cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's estimated expenditure requirements.

Matt Strabone, City Treasurer

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2023
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 17312QJ26 CITIBANK NA C D 2.900% 4/11/23
04/11/2018 04/11/2023 2.90% 246,000.00 246,000.00 245,845.02 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 91435LAB3 UNIVERSITY IOWA C D

3.000% 4/28/23
04/30/2018 04/28/2023 3.00% 248,000.00 248,000.00 247,635.44 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 20033AZK5 COMENITY CAPITAL C D

3.300% 6/29/23
06/29/2018 06/29/2023 3.30% 249,000.00 249,000.00 247,944.24 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 06426KAN8 BANK OF NEW C D 3.250% 7/31/23
07/31/2018 07/31/2023 3.25% 249,000.00 249,000.00 247,538.37 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 75472RAD3 RAYMOND JAMES C D

1.950% 8/23/23
08/23/2019 08/23/2023 1.95% 247,000.00 247,000.00 243,989.07 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 501798MG4 LCA BANK C D 3.100%
9/07/23
09/07/2018 09/07/2023 3.10% 246,000.00 246,000.00 243,928.68 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 59833LAF9 MIDWEST C D 3.150%
9/18/23
09/17/2018 09/18/2023 3.15% 249,000.00 249,000.00 246,848.64 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 64017AAH7 NEIGHBORS FCU C D

3.300% 9/19/23
09/09/2018 09/19/2023 3.30% 245,000.00 245,000.00 243,020.40 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 949763VK9 WELLS FARGO BANK C D

3.550% 11/28/23
11/28/2018 11/28/2023 3.55% 249,000.00 249,000.00 246,477.63 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 635573AL2 NATIONAL CITY C D 3.400% 12/21/23
12/21/2018 12/21/2023 3.40% 245,000.00 245,000.00 241,974.25 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 59013KAR7 MERRICK BK SOUTH C D

2.400% 12/28/23
06/28/2019 12/28/2023 2.40% 249,000.00 249,000.00 244,010.04 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 61760AVJ5 MORGAN STANLEY C D

3.100% 2/07/24
02/07/2019 02/07/2024 3.10% 246,000.00 246,000.00 241,845.06 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 58117WAD9 MCHENRY SVGS BK C D

2.800% 3/14/24
03/14/2019 03/14/2024 2.80% 246,000.00 246,000.00 240,696.24 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 7954502D6 SALLIE MAE BANK C D

2.750% 4/10/24
04/10/2019 04/10/2024 2.75% 246,000.00 246,000.00 240,268.20 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 81407SBG1 SECURITY BK NEW C D

2.500% 6/10/24
06/10/2019 06/10/2024 2.50% 249,000.00 249,000.00 241,574.82 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 726547BK7 PLAINS ST BK C D 2.300% 6/21/24
06/21/2019 06/21/2024 2.30% 249,000.00 249,000.00 240,815.37 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 46256YBB4 IOWA ST BK C D 2.10%
7/10/24
07/10/2019 07/10/2024 2.10% 247,000.00 247,000.00 238,021.55 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 20143PDY3 COMMERCIAL BK C D

2.000% 7/15/24
07/15/2019 07/15/2024 2.00% 249,000.00 249,000.00 239,483.22 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 43719LAB1 HOME LN INVT BK C D

2.000% 7/19/24
07/19/2019 07/19/2024 2.00% 249,000.00 249,000.00 239,411.01

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2023
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 29278TKJ8 ENERBANK USA C D 2.150% 8/07/24
08/07/2019 08/07/2024 2.15% 247,000.00 247,000.00 237,693.04 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 15118RRH2 CELTIC BANK C D 1.88548% 8/30/24
08/30/2019 08/30/2024 1.82% 249,000.00 249,000.00 238,151.07 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 938828BM1 WASHINGTON C D 2.000%
8/30/24
08/30/2019 08/30/2024 2.00% 249,000.00 249,000.00 238,661.52 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 29367SJQ8 ENTERPRISE BANK C D

1.800% 11/08/24
11/08/2019 11/08/2024 1.80% 249,000.00 249,000.00 236,684.46 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 32117WAN2 FNB OF ALBANY C D 1.600% 2/28/25
02/28/2020 02/28/2025 1.60% 225,000.00 225,000.00 211,227.75 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 29260MAV7 ENCORE BK C D 1.150%
3/25/25
03/25/2020 03/25/2025 1.15% 249,000.00 249,000.00 231,124.29 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 73319FAK5 POPPY BANK C D 1.100%
3/27/25
03/27/2020 03/27/2025 1.10% 249,000.00 249,000.00 230,845.41 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 79772FAF3 SAN FRANCISCO C D

1.100% 3/27/25
03/27/2020 03/27/2025 1.10% 249,000.00 249,000.00 230,845.41 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 020080BX4 ALMA BANK C D 1.400%
3/28/25
03/30/2020 03/28/2025 1.40% 249,000.00 249,000.00 232,277.16 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 51210SSD0 LAKESIDE BK C D 1.400% 3/31/25
03/30/2020 03/31/2025 1.40% 249,000.00 249,000.00 232,199.97 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 694231AC5 PACIFIC C D 1.150%
3/31/25
03/31/2020 03/31/2025 1.15% 249,000.00 249,000.00 231,017.22 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 856285TF8 STATE BK INDIA C D 1.600% 4/29/25
04/29/2020 04/29/2025 1.60% 248,000.00 248,000.00 231,780.80 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 33847E3F2 FLAGSTAR BK FSB C D

1.050% 4/30/25
04/30/2020 04/30/2025 1.05% 248,000.00 248,000.00 229,092.48 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 06063HMS9 BANK BARODA NEW C D

0.700% 7/22/25
07/22/2020 07/22/2025 0.70% 249,000.00 249,000.00 226,206.54 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 89235MKY6 TOYOTA FINL C D 0.900% 4/22/26
04/22/2021 04/22/2026 0.90% 248,000.00 248,000.00 220,109.92 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 02007GQQ9 ALLY BK UT C D 2.850%
5/05/26
05/02/2022 05/05/2026 2.85% 246,000.00 246,000.00 231,653.28 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 90348JQ29 UBS BK USA SALT C D

0.900% 7/14/26
07/14/2021 07/14/2026 0.90% 249,000.00 249,000.00 218,768.91 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 32022RSC2 FIRST FINL BK C D 3.250% 8/03/26
08/01/2022 08/03/2026 3.25% 249,000.00 249,000.00 236,315.94 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 70962LAE2 PENTAGON C D 0.850%
9/01/26
09/01/2021 09/01/2026 0.85% 249,000.00 249,000.00 217,257.48 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 14042RQB0 CAPITAL ONE NATL C D

1.100% 11/17/26
11/17/2021 11/17/2026 1.10% 248,000.00 248,000.00 216,918.16

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2023
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 14042TDW4 CAPITAL ONE BANK C D

1.100% 11/17/26
11/17/2021 11/17/2026 1.10% 248,000.00 248,000.00 216,918.16 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 07371CE88 BEAL BK USA C D 1.900% 2/17/27
02/23/2022 02/17/2027 1.90% 247,000.00 247,000.00 220,872.34 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 02589ABQ4 AMERICAN EXPRESS C D

2.000% 3/09/27
03/09/2022 03/09/2027 2.00% 247,000.00 247,000.00 221,423.15 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 06740KPK7 BARCLAYS BK DEL C D

2.650% 4/13/27
04/13/2022 04/13/2027 2.65% 246,000.00 246,000.00 225,825.54 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 58404DPC9 MEDALLION BK C D 3.200% 5/24/27
05/24/2022 05/24/2027 3.20% 249,000.00 249,000.00 233,073.96 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 20825WAX8 CONNEXUS CR UN C D

3.100% 5/26/27
05/26/2022 05/26/2027 3.10% 249,000.00 249,000.00 232,125.27 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 90352RCN3 USALLIANCE FCU C D

3.300% 5/28/27
05/31/2022 05/28/2027 3.30% 249,000.00 249,000.00 233,977.83 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 50625LBN2 LAFAYETTE FED C D 3.250% 6/15/27
06/15/2022 06/15/2027 3.25% 249,000.00 249,000.00 233,385.21 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 88413QDL9 THIRD FED SVGS C D 3.500% 6/28/27
06/28/2022 06/28/2027 3.50% 245,000.00 245,000.00 231,980.70 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 254673L38 DISCOVER BK C D 3.400% 7/06/27
07/06/2022 07/06/2027 3.40% 245,000.00 245,000.00 231,000.70 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 307811EM7 FARMERS C D 3.200%
8/05/27
08/05/2022 08/05/2027 3.20% 249,000.00 249,000.00 232,528.65 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 08016PEH8 BELMONT BK TR C D

3.150% 8/24/27
08/24/2022 08/24/2027 3.15% 249,000.00 249,000.00 231,891.21 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 19075JAB4 COBALT FED CR C D 3.600% 9/15/27
09/15/2022 09/15/2027 3.60% 249,000.00 249,000.00 236,211.36 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 052392BT3 AUSTIN TELCO C D 3.800% 9/21/27
09/21/2022 09/21/2027 3.80% 249,000.00 249,000.00 238,178.46 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 87164YT95 SYNCHRONY C D 4.600%
10/28/27
10/28/2022 10/28/2027 4.60% 244,000.00 244,000.00 241,257.44 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 25460FDW3 DIRECT FED CR C D 4.800% 11/08/27
11/07/2022 11/08/2027 4.80% 248,000.00 248,000.00 247,246.08 Subtotal: 13,612,000.00 13,612,000.00 12,908,054.12

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2023
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value CORPORATE BONDS 48133DN55 JPMORGAN MTN L P

4.050% 7/29/24
07/29/2022 07/29/2024 4.05% 500,000.00 500,000.00 488,710.00 CORPORATE BONDS 46632FRU1 JPMORGAN CHASE MTN

0.700% 1/22/26
01/22/2021 01/22/2026 0.70% 500,000.00 500,000.00 437,435.00 CORPORATE BONDS 037833EB2 APPLE INC 0.700%
2/08/26
02/08/2021 02/08/2026 0.70% 500,000.00 492,425.00 454,925.00 Subtotal: 1,500,000.00 1,492,425.00 1,381,070.00

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2023
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value US AGENCIES 3132X06C0 F A M C M T N 3.050%
9/19/23
09/24/2018 09/19/2023 3.05% 500,000.00 495,945.00 496,195.00 US AGENCIES 3130ASPM5 F H L B DEB 3.550%
10/28/24
07/29/2022 10/28/2024 3.55% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 985,570.00 US AGENCIES 3130ASQP7 F H L B DEB 3.625%
1/28/25
07/28/2022 01/28/2025 3.63% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 985,140.00 US AGENCIES 3130ASF61 F H L B DEB 3.450%
6/27/25
06/27/2022 06/27/2025 3.45% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 978,940.00 US AGENCIES 3134GXZY3 F H L M C M T N 4.000%
6/30/25
06/30/2022 06/30/2025 4.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 986,460.00 US AGENCIES 31422XB50 F A M C M T N 3.630%
7/28/25
07/28/2022 07/28/2025 3.63% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 981,160.00 US AGENCIES 3134GXF66 F H L M C M T N 4.000%
8/01/25
08/01/2022 08/01/2025 4.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 985,960.00 US AGENCIES 3136G4G98 F N M A 0.560%
8/12/25
08/12/2020 08/12/2025 0.56% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 921,120.00 US AGENCIES 3136G4C43 F N M A 0.650%
8/14/25
08/14/2020 08/14/2025 0.65% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 922,980.00 US AGENCIES 3130ALD76 F H L B DEB 0.700%
2/25/26
02/25/2021 02/25/2026 0.70% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 907,720.00 US AGENCIES 3130ALGB4 F H L B DEB 0.800%
3/17/26
03/17/2021 03/17/2026 0.80% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 908,790.00 US AGENCIES 3130ALMM3 F H L B DEB 1.000%
3/30/26
03/30/2021 03/30/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 913,470.00 US AGENCIES 3130AMDY5 F H L B DEB 1.000%
5/20/26
05/20/2021 05/20/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 910,730.00 US AGENCIES 3133EMH21 F F C B DEB 0.900%
6/15/26
06/12/2021 06/15/2026 0.90% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 904,200.00 US AGENCIES 3130AMPT3 F H L B DEB 1.030%
6/23/26
06/23/2021 06/23/2026 1.03% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 907,490.00 US AGENCIES 3130AMWX6 F H L B DEB 1.020%
6/30/26
06/30/2021 06/30/2026 1.02% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 906,780.00 US AGENCIES 3130ANHW3 F H L B DEB 0.930%
8/25/26
07/29/2021 08/25/2026 0.93% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 901,780.00 US AGENCIES 3130ANSB7 F H L B DEB 1.000%
9/17/26
09/17/2021 09/17/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 902,070.00

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2023
US AGENCIES 3130ANYR5 F H L B DEB 0.950%
9/30/26
09/30/2021 09/30/2026 0.95% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 899,720.00 US AGENCIES 3130AP6M2 F H L B DEB 1.020%
9/30/26
09/30/2021 09/30/2026 1.02% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 901,930.00 US AGENCIES 3130APB87 F H L B DEB 1.100%
10/13/26
10/13/2021 10/13/2026 1.10% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 903,610.00 US AGENCIES 3130AP6U4 F H L B DEB 1.000%
10/14/26
10/14/2021 10/14/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 900,380.00 US AGENCIES 3130APDQ5 F H L B DEB 1.250%
10/28/26
10/28/2021 10/28/2026 1.25% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 907,430.00 US AGENCIES 3130APL78 F H L B DEB 1.375%
10/28/26
10/28/2021 10/28/2026 1.38% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 911,380.00 US AGENCIES 3130APQA6 F H L B DEB 1.400%
11/24/26
11/24/2021 11/24/2026 1.40% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 908,400.00 US AGENCIES 3130AQUD3 F H L B DEB 2.010%
2/25/27
02/25/2022 02/25/2027 2.01% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 926,820.00 US AGENCIES 3130AQZ55 F H L B DEB 2.500%
3/10/27
03/10/2022 03/10/2027 2.50% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 942,090.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARAH4 F H L B DEB 2.350%
3/29/27
03/04/2022 03/29/2027 2.35% 1,000,000.00 998,500.00 937,030.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARDY4 F H L B DEB 2.500%
3/29/27
03/29/2022 03/29/2027 2.50% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 941,460.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARGE5 F H L B DEB 3.000%
4/21/27
04/21/2022 04/21/2027 3.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 955,060.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARW56 F H L B DEB 3.650%
5/12/27
05/12/2022 05/12/2027 3.65% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 969,880.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARYA3 F H L B DEB 4.000%
5/26/27
05/26/2022 05/26/2027 4.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 976,620.00 US AGENCIES 3130AS7J2 F H L B DEB 3.200%
6/10/27
06/10/2022 06/10/2027 3.20% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 963,130.00 US AGENCIES 3134GXZN7 F H L M C M T N 4.250%
7/12/27
07/12/2022 07/12/2027 4.25% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 982,810.00 US AGENCIES 3134GX5E0 F H L M C M T N 5.000%
10/27/27
10/27/2022 10/27/2027 5.00% 1,000,000.00 999,000.00 997,900.00 Subtotal: 34,500,000.00 34,493,445.00 32,332,205.00

City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2023
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value Demand 98-37-421 LAIF State of California 2.74% 32,543,564.59 32,543,564.59 32,104,562.61 Grand Total: 82,155,564.59 82,141,434.59 78,725,891.73

DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tammi Royales, Director of Finance
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: Budget Monitoring Report Q3FY23

2022-2023 Budget Monitoring Report
Quarter Ending March 31, 2023
E:\Budget Monitoring Reports-Presentations\2022-2023\2022-2023 Q2 BMR.docx

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 1
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
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 SEPTEMBER 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 March 31, 2023. The overall economy remains uncertain. There are recessionary indicators but unemployment remains historically low. The following indicators help provide a picture in time.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND FORECASTS
U.S. Leading Economic Index
The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. fell by 1.2 percent in March 2023 to 108.4 (2016=100), following a decline of 0.5 percent in February. The LEI is down 4.5 percent over the six-month period between September 2022 and March 2023—a steeper rate of decline than its 3.5 percent contraction over the previous six months (March–September 2022). “The US LEI fell to its lowest level since November of 2020, consistent with worsening economic conditions ahead,” said Justyna Zabinska-La Monica, Senior Manager, Business Cycle Indicators, at The Conference Board. “The weaknesses among the index’s components were widespread in March and have been so over the past six months, which pushed the growth rate of the LEI deeper into negative territory. Only stock prices and manufacturers’ new orders for consumer goods and materials contributed positively over the last six months. The Conference Board forecasts that economic weakness will intensify and spread more widely throughout the US economy over the coming months, leading to a recession starting in mid-2023.”

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 3
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
Consumer Price Index
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) rose 0.1 percent in
March on a seasonally adjusted basis, after
increasing 0.4 percent in February, the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Over the last 12 months, the all items index
increased 5.0 percent before seasonal
adjustment.

The index for shelter was by far the largest
contributor to the monthly all items
increase. This more than offset a decline in
the energy index, which decreased 3.5
percent over the month as all major energy component indexes declined. The food index was unchanged in March with the food at home index falling 0.3 percent.

The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.4 percent in March, after rising 0.5 percent in February. Indexes which increased in March include shelter, motor vehicle insurance, airline fares, household furnishings and operations, and new vehicles. The index for medical care and the index for used cars and trucks were among those that decreased over the month.

The all items index increased 5.0 percent for the 12 months ending March; this was the smallest 12-month increase since the period ending May 2021. The all items less food and energy index rose 5.6 percent over the last 12 months. The energy index decreased 6.4 percent for the 12 months ending March, and the food index increased 8.5 percent over the last year.

Municipal Cost Index
The Municipal Cost Index (MCI)
decreased 0.1 percent in March after
holding steady in February and increasing

0.4 percent in January. Overall, the MCI
has increased 3.1 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 MARCH 31, 2023
U.S. Unemployment Rate
Total nonfarm payroll employment
increased by 236,000 in March, and the
unemployment rate changed little at 3.5
percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. In March, employment
continued to trend up in leisure and
hospitality, government, professional and
business services, and health care. The
unemployment rate edged down to 3.5
percent and has remained in a narrow
range of 3.5 percent to 3.7 percent since
March. The number of unemployed
persons at 5.8 million changed little in
March. These measures have shown little net change since early 2022.

Federal Funds Rate (Discount Rate)
A recent statement issued by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) indicators point to modest growth in spending and production. Job gains have been robust in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low. Inflation has eased somewhat but remains elevated.

Russia’s war against Ukraine is causing tremendous human and economic hardship and is contributing to elevated global uncertainty. The Committee is highly attentive to inflation risks.

STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND FORECASTS
State and Local Unemployment
The state unemployment rate increased
from 4.2 percent in January to 4.4
percent in February and in March. The
County of San Diego rate held steady at

3.7 percent, and the City of La Mesa
unemployment rate increased from 3.6
percent in January to 3.8 percent in
February and in March.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 5
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
California’s labor market grew slowly in
March, with total nonfarm employment
in the state expanding by just 8,700
positions. Recent extreme weather and
flooding likely played a role in the
slowdown as major storms hit California
during the survey week and impacted
sectors including Construction and Real
Estate. February’s gains were also
revised down to 21,800 in the latest
numbers, a 10,500 decrease from the
preliminary estimate of 32,300.

Statewide, as of February 2023, there were 295,200 more people employed in California compared to February 2020, the pre-pandemic peak. Total nonfarm employment in the state grew

1.7% over this time, compared to a 2.1% increase in the United States as a whole. Annually, California payrolls increased by 2.5% from March 2022 to March 2023, trailing the 2.7% national increase over the same period.

California’s unemployment rate held steady at 4.4% in March 2023. While this is near historic lows, the state’s unemployment rate remains elevated relative to the United States overall (3.5%).

California continues to struggle with its labor supply, which grew by 32,700 in March, an increase of 0.2% on a month-over-month basis. Since February 2020, the state’s labor force has fallen by 229,600 workers, a 1.2% decline.

Local Economic Outlook
San Diego County closed out 2022 with an even better rate of job growth than expected. In March, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) released annual benchmark revisions to their monthly employment survey estimates. These revisions indicate that the San Diego labor market has been growing faster than originally believed.

The housing market is showing signs of weakness. Rising interest rates have taken a toll on the market, making mortgages more expensive and sidelining would-be homeowners. As a result, home price growth has decelerated, and there has been little relief in terms of new housing production or new inventory of homes on the market. Higher frequency data from Zillow shows a synchronized decline in home price growth, with many markets in California starting to see negative year-over-year growth in home prices.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 6
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
Local Sales Tax Allocations
La Mesa’s receipts from October
through December were 9 percent
above the first sales period in 2022,
and place of sale collections soared to
12 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 15 percent.

The City’s allocations from the
countywide use tax pool fell 2 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. 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 including any applicable grants in line with the City’s objectives.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 7
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023

GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
General Fund Resources
General Fund revenues received through the third quarter of fiscal year 2022-2023 are in line with budget expectations at 73.9 percent. 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.  Property Tax is as expected
 Overall, total general fund revenues are meeting budgetary expectations for the fiscal year.  Sales tax revenues received through the third quarter FY23 are meeting budgetary expectations and are above when compared to the same time last year

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 8
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
 Proposition L sales tax revenues are meeting budgetary expectations and, consistent with base sales tax, are above the same period 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.  Cannabis Tax continues to exceed expectations but is forecasted to flatten as more cities allow sales of cannabis that will compete with local La Mesa shops.  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 within budgetary expectations.  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

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 9
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
 Most departments are slightly below expectations through 75 percent of the fiscal year.  Departments that are higher than budgeted are due to the carry forward and encumbrance of prior year obligations and the payment of full fiscal year appropriations for some specialized services such as street sweeping.

General Fund Reserves
The estimated available reserves for the current fiscal year 2022-2023 are $36,826,970.

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 2022- 2023.

CONCLUSIONS
Inflation continues to be the largest concern with consumers and the federal reserve continues to hike interest rates to try and slow down consumer spending to allow prices to flatten. Talks of a recession are still continuing but strong indicators remain in the job market. While there have been layoffs in technology, there seems to be absorption in other industries to offset this as the job market remains tight. The war in Ukraine continues to have a global impact. We are starting to see a local slowdown in consumer spending which is cause for concern as we continue with budget preparations for fiscal years 2024-2025. As always, we will continue to monitor indicators that may affect the City’s revenues and expenses.

CITY OF LA MESA PAGE 10
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
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 MARCH 31, 2023

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 MARCH 31, 2023
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: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: INTERVIEW OF AN APPLICANT FOR AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY

ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
Attached is an application from a citizen who wishes to be considered for appointment to fill an unscheduled vacancy on the Youth Advisory Commission. The applicant has been invited to attend the meeting and make a brief three-minute presentation describing their qualifications and interest in serving on the Commission.

The applicant will be called forward for their interview by the City Clerk. After their presentation you may ask questions of the applicant, if you wish.

The appointments will be made at the City Council meeting on May 23rd.

Attachment

Youth Advisory Commission: 3 positions – two-year term
Two appointees will fill the positions vacated by Dylan White and Camille Forga whose terms expire September 30, 2023 and held alternate positions; and one appointee will fill the alternate position with term expiring September 30, 2023.

Members must be between the ages of 13 and 20 years and reside within the City of La Mesa or attend school in the City.

First Appointed Number of Terms
Lauren Farace

APPLICATION IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: INTERVIEW OF AN APPLICANT FOR AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY

ON THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND VETERANS COMMISSION
Attached is an application from a citizen who wishes to be considered for appointment to fill the general population representative vacancy on the Community Relations and Veterans Commission. The applicant has been invited to attend the meeting and make a brief three-minute presentation describing their qualifications and interest in serving on the Commission.

The applicant will be called forward for their interview by the City Clerk. After the presentation you may ask questions of the applicant, if you wish.

The appointment will be made at the City Council meeting on May 23rd.

Attachments

Community Relations and Veterans Commission: 1 position – four-year terms One appointee will fill the general population representative vacancy with term expiring June 30, 2026.

All seven members shall be resident electors of the city. One member shall represent senior adults and shall not be less than fifty-five years of age at the time of appointment. One member shall be disabled or represent the disabled members of the community, three members shall be at large and two members shall represent veterans. These two members must meet one of the following criteria: 1) be an honorably discharged veteran of the United States armed forces; 2) be an active duty armed forces member serving in a civilian capacity; or 3) be a member of a Veterans Service Organization based within the La Mesa city limits which is federally chartered and/or recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs for claim representation First Appointed Terms
Megan O’Dowd

THE APPLICATION IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

1 La Mesa City Council
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Date:

Location:

April 11, 2023, 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California

Present: Mayor Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Parent
Councilmember Dillard
Councilmember Lothian
Councilmember Shu
Staff: City Manager Humora
City Attorney Sabine
City Clerk Wiegelman
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda. Agenda Items can be taken out of order during the meeting.

The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.

Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER DILLARD

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Humora introduced new Assistant City Manager, Amanda Lee.

Assistant City Manager Lee expressed her excitement to join the City of La Mesa.

City Manager Humora stated the City received a letter from the State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding leasing the

2 property at 8374-8375 Hercules Street for a potential parole office. He stated the City would update the public when there was further information on the matter.

3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
The Mayor, Council and staff made announcements and reported on various events taking place in the City. No action was taken.

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 PROCLAIMING APRIL 28, 2023, AS ARBOR DAY
Mayor Arapostathis read the proclamation proclaiming April 28, 2023, as Arbor Day.

5.2 PROCLAIMING APRIL 2023 AS VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION MONTH Mayor Arapostathis read the proclamation proclaiming April 2023 as Volunteer Appreciation Month.

5.3 2022 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Assistant to the City Manager Dedmon summarized the 2022 Performance Measures for the various City departments, highlighting the increased social media engagement, the planning and building applications received by the Community Development Department, the Fire Department's and Police Department's calls for service and response times, the crime rates against persons and property, the number of graffiti incidences, and the Public Works Department's service requests and response times. Assistant to the City Manager Dedmon provided an update on the status of the City's Five-Year Strategic Planning and Implementation document.

Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.

5.4 2023-2034 GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL FORECAST
Director of Finance Royales presented the long range projection of the City's General Fund revenues, expenditures, and reserves. Ms. Royales discussed the base forecast for revenue and expenditure assumptions, the national, state and local economies, revenues from cannabis sales, the City's unfunded liability, the status of the Section 115 Retirement Trust Fund, and the General Fund reserves history and forecast.

3 Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Dianne Osterling spoke regarding the Council taking positions on policies they are not responsible for, the focus of the Councilmembers, creating unity and not division among the community, and government transparency.

Victor Diaz spoke regarding tax fraud in the construction industry.

Jesse Garcia spoke regarding tax fraud in the construction industry.

7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflict of interest disclosures.

8. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

8.1 INTERVIEW OF APPLICANT FOR A VACANCY ON THE COMMUNITY

POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
City Clerk Wiegelman briefly explained the interview process.

Manuel Gomez spoke regarding their qualifications and interest in being appointed to the Community Police Oversight Board.

City Clerk Wiegelman said the appointment would be made at the April 25th City Council meeting.

Following the interview, no action was taken.

8.2 INTERVIEW OF APPLICANT FOR AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON

THE MOBILITY COMMISSION
City Clerk Wiegelman briefly explained the interview process.

Brian Lane spoke regarding their qualifications and interest in being appointed to the Mobility Commission.

City Clerk Wiegelman said the appointment would be made at the April 25th City Council meeting.

Following the interview, no action was taken.

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no public comments on Consent Calendar.

10. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 10.1 through 10.3)

4 Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.3.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

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

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.

10.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023
Approve.

10.3 RESOLUTION REJECTING BID NO. 23-15, CITYWIDE GUARDRAIL

UPGRADES
Resolution No. 2023-031
Adopt Resolution.

11. STAFF REPORTS

11.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE 2020-2022 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT AND THE FISCAL
YEAR 2024 WORK PLAN
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Throne provided a PowerPoint presentation on the 2020-2022 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program ("NTMP") Annual Report and Work Plan, highlighting the accomplishments since 2020, the completed Phase 1, 2 and 3 traffic calming projects, the policy changes to the implementation of the NTMP, and the Phase 1, 2, and 3 traffic calming projects that may be implemented based on the current funding level of $175,000. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Throne provided an update on the American Rescue Plan Act ("ARPA") Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting regarding the use of ARPA funds for traffic calming projects. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Throne stated the Mobility Commission recommended a policy change to the NTMP that would clear the Phase 1 list of old requests that had already received Phase 1 actions.

5 Council questions and comments ensued.

Mary Kate Miller submitted a comment regarding on-going traffic concerns on Lemon Avenue.

ACTION: Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to accept the 2020-2022 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program annual report including the ranked list of streets requesting traffic calming and the Fiscal Year 2024 Work Plan.

11.2 CONSIDERATION OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT
Director of Community Development Kusiak provided a PowerPoint presentation on the 2021 and 2022 ADU development activity, highlighting the related State laws, La Mesa regulations, the current ADU activity and ADU activity since 1981, ADU review times, application and permit fees, the size and type of permitted ADUs, the City's ADU guidebook, and next steps.

Dianne Osterling spoke on ADU regulations and short-term rentals.

Council questions and comments ensued.

ACTION: Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to accept the report on ADU development activity.

12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.

13. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
There were no reports.

14. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.

15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk

6

1 La Mesa City Council
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Date:

Location:

April 25, 2023, 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California

Present: Mayor Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Parent
Councilmember Dillard
Councilmember Lothian
Councilmember Shu
Staff: City Manager Humora
Assistant City Manager Lee
City Attorney Sabine
City Clerk Wiegelman
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda. Agenda Items can be taken out of order during the meeting.

The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.

Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER DILLARD

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Sabine announced there were no reportable actions.

3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.

4. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS

2 The Mayor, Council and staff made announcements and reported on various events taking place in the City. No action was taken.

5. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.

6. PRESENTATION

6.1 PROCLAIMING MAY 2023 AS WATER SAFETY MONTH
The Mayor read the proclamation proclaiming May 2023 as Water Safety Month.

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
John Schmitz announced that during the month of May a number of 3rd grade classes would be touring the La Mesa Library, City Hall, Police Station, and Fire Station.

William Best spoke regarding their issues with the City's building division.

8. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflict of interest disclosures.

9. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

9.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL AN UNSCHEDULED

VACANCY ON THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
Mayor Arapostathis nominated Manuel Gomez for appointment to the Community Police Oversight Board as the Police Beat 1 representative.

Councilmember Shu announced that the Community Police Oversight Board Police Beat 3 representative seat was vacant and encouraged members of the community to apply.

Resolution No. 2023-032
Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Dillard
Approve the appointment of Manuel Gomez to the Community Police Oversight Board as the Police Beat 1 representative and adopt Resolution confirming the appointment.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu

3 Approved (5 to 0)

10. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
Melissa Weiss Walter spoke in opposition to Item 11.12.

Christopher Glenn submitted a comment on Item 11.4

11. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 11.1 through 11.12)
*If a public hearing item is part of the Consent Calendar, the public hearing shall be deemed held if the item is not removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action (Items 11.2 and 11.7)
Councilmember Lothian requested Item 11.11 be pulled for separate consideration.

Councilmember Shu requested Item 11.12 be pulled for separate consideration.

Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
Approve Consent Calendar Items 11.1 through 11.10.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

11.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.

11.2 *QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK

ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINDINGS FOR THE QUIMBY ACT

PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK ACQUISITION

AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ. AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PROJECTS AS OUTLINED IN THE

PARKS MASTER PLAN
Resolution No. 2023-033

4 Adopt Resolution.

11.3 RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING POOLING OF SELFINSURANCE THROUGH THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION (WC)

PROGRAM OF PUBLIC ENTITY RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
(PERMA) AND APPLICATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT
Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE

DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT TO SELFINSURE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LIABILITIES Resolution No. 2023-034
Adopt Resolution.
b. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING POOLING OF

SELF-INSURANCE THROUGH THE WORKERS'

COMPENSATION PROGRAM OF PERMA
Resolution No. 2023-035
Adopt Resolution.

11.4 RESOLUTION AWARDING RFP 23-14 FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT

STAFFING/RESOURCE ANALYSIS SERVICES TO CITYGATE

ASSOCIATES, LLC
Resolution No. 2023-036
Adopt Resolution.

11.5 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPAIR OF THE 2021 PIERCE FIRE

ENGINE BY FIRETRUCKS UNLIMITED TO BE USED BY THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT ON EMERGENCY RESPONSES
Resolution No. 2023-037
Adopt Resolution.

11.6 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS REQUIRED BY PROPOSITION 218 AND SCHEDULE A

PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED INCREASE IN EDCO TRASH
RATES TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2023

5 Authorize staff to initiate the notification process required by Proposition 218 and schedule a public hearing for a proposed increase in EDCO trash rates to be effective July 1, 2023.

11.7 *SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) ANNUAL

ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTCIP) DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANDAG ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO

THE RTCIP DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01 AND

TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN
Resolution No. 2023-038
Adopt Resolution.

11.8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1

FOR CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICES TO
ARDURRA GROUP, INC., FOR THE EL CAJON BOULEVARD AND

JESSIE AVENUE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Resolution No. 2023-039
Adopt Resolution.

11.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE COLLIER PARK PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO
HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC.

Resolution No. 2023-040
Adopt Resolution.

11.10 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TASK ORDER TO DMAX

ENGINEERING FOR DRY WEATHER MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM
SEWER (MS4) OUTFALL MONITORING AND PERSISTENT FLOW

PROGRAM
Resolution No. 2023-041
Adopt Resolution.

11.11 RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROJECT 2021-48 (SEA

ANEMONE LLC)
A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AT 8875
LA MESA BOULEVARD 5101-5131 GARFIELD STREET, AND 8940

6 DAILEY ROAD, APN 494-840-08-00, 494-840-09-00, 494-840-25-00, 494-840-26-00, 494-840-27-00, AND 494-850-01-00 IN THE RB-D-MU (RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY/MIXED USE

OVERLAY), C-D-MU (GENERAL COMMERCIAL/URBAN DESIGN
OVERLAY / MIXED USE OVERLAY), R3-P-MU (MULTIPLE UNIT

RESIDENTIAL/ SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY/URBAN DESIGN
OVERLAY), AND R1-P (URBAN RESIDENTIAL/SCENIC

PRESERVATION OVERLAY) ZONES
Councilmember Lothian inquired about the parking arrangements for the residents of the proposed development.

Associate Planner Kinnard responded to Councilmember Lothian's inquiry.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Councilmember Dillard
Approve.

For (4): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, and Councilmember Shu
Against (1): Councilmember Lothian
Approved (4 to 1)

11.12 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE COUNCIL’S DESIRE NOT TO HAVE

FUTURE PROPOSALS FROM STAFF REGARDING NEW

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES UNLESS OTHERWISE

DIRECTED BY COUNCIL
Councilmember Shu expressed his opposition to the Resolution affirming the Council's desire not to have future proposals from staff regarding new residential development impact fees unless otherwise directed by staff.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Resolution No. 2023-042
Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
Adopt Resolution.

7 For (4): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, and Councilmember Lothian
Against (1): Councilmember Shu
Approved (4 to 1)

12. STAFF REPORTS

12.1 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE

TO BE CHARGED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2023-2024
Purchasing Officer Munzenmaier provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City’s Cost Allocation and User Fee Study, highlighting the new and adjusted fees.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Resolution No. 2023-043
Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Councilmember Shu
Adopt Resolution adopting a fee schedule to be charged by various City departments for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

12.2 CONSIDERATION OF HEARTLAND COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY

AND HEARTLAND FIRE TRAINING FACILITY AUTHORITY CHANGE

OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATION
Vice Mayor Parent explained he was not able to be the primary representative for the San Diego Community Power Board of Directors and the two Heartland Boards due to conflicting meeting schedules.

Council questions and comments ensued.

ACTION: Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to appoint Councilmember Dillard as the primary representative on the Heartland Communications Facility Authority Board and the Heartland Fire Training Facility Authority Board.

8 12.3 CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE

REPORTING AND APPROVAL OF CONTINUED USE PER LA MESA
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-2896 (LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY - ASSEMBLY BILL 481
Chief Sweeney provided a PowerPoint presentation on the La Mesa Police Department's Annual Military Equipment Report, highlighting the requirements of AB 481, the complaints received, the military equipment violations discovered, and the additional acquisitions of military equipment in 2023.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Dillard
(1) Accept the Military Equipment Use Policy Annual Report; and (2) Approve the policy and the continued use of Military Equipment by the La Mesa Police Department based on the findings as required by law.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

13. HEARINGS

13.1 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN 6TH CYCLE UPDATE
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice.

Mayor Arapostathis opened the hearing for Item 13.1.

Director of Community Development Kusiak provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Housing Element of the General Plan 6th Cycle update, highlighting the Housing Element update process, the affordable housing revisions, the site inventory revisions, the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the next steps in the Housing Element process, and the environmental review.

Council questions and comments ensued.

9 Stephen Russell, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Federation, submitted a comment in support of the adoption of the revised 6th Cycle Housing Element prepared by staff, with the recommendations that the City aggressively pursue the policies noted in the revised Housing Element, and include the development of an Inclusionary Housing Policy, paired with a Density Bonus program, to help meet the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and affordable housing goals.

Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Vice Mayor Parent
Close the hearing.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)
Resolution No. 2023-044
Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Councilmember Shu
Adopt Resolution approving the revised Housing Element 6th Cycle update including a provision authorizing the Community Development Director to make non-legislative technical updates as directed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

13.2 CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2023-2024 AND A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice.

Mayor Arapostathis opened the hearing for Item 13.2.

Associate Planner Kinnard provided a PowerPoint presentation on the CDBG program, the 2023-2024 Consolidated Plan goals, the proposed

10 projects for FY 2023-2024, and the proposed allocation of CDBG program funds for FY 2023-2024.

Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Vice Mayor Parent
Close the hearing.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)
Resolution No. 2023-045 and Resolution No. 2023-046
Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
(1) Adopt Resolution approving the FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for the CDBG program and authorizing submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and (2) Adopt Resolution approving a substantial amendment to the FY 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan for the CDBG program and authorizing submittal to HUD.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

14. COUNCIL INITIATED

14.1 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST THAT STAFF APPLY FOR AN

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE GRANT- COUNCILMEMBER
SHU
Councilmember Shu explained the purpose for requesting the Council direct staff to apply for an inclusionary housing ordinance grant.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Stephen Russell, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Federation, submitted a comment endorsing the request by Councilmember Shu to apply for a grant to begin a study of the potential for inclusionary housing in La Mesa.

11 ACTION: Following Council discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to bring to the strategic planning workshop a report on the share of multifamily development since the adoption of the City's Affordable Homes Bonus program that includes affordable deed restriction onsite units.

Moved By Councilmember Shu
Seconded By Councilmember Dillard
Direct staff to pursue a grant application with San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) or other organizations to help the City study the housing issues and draft an inclusionary housing ordinance.

For (2): Councilmember Dillard, and Councilmember Shu
Against (3): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, and Councilmember Lothian
Failed (2 to 3)

15. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.

16. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
There were no reports.

17. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.

18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk

1 La Mesa City Council
Minutes of a Special Meeting
Date:

Location:

April 25, 2023, 5:00 p.m.

Council Chambers and City Manager's Conference Room
City Hall, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California

Present: Mayor Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Parent
Councilmember Dillard
Councilmember Lothian
Councilmember Shu
Staff: City Manager Humora
Assistant City Manager Lee
City Attorney Sabine
City Clerk Wiegelman
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Parent called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments.

Vice Mayor Parent adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 5:04 p.m.

Mayor Arapostathis joined the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

3. CLOSED SESSION

3.1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
Agency Negotiator: Ms. Freeman
Employee Organization: La Mesa Firefighters' Local #4759

2 The meeting reconvened at 5:30 p.m. with all members present.

4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION - CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney Sabine announced there were no reportable actions.

5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 9, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADDITION OF ONE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST
(SPECIALIST I OR SPECIALIST II) POSITION IN THE

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO

PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SERVICE

CITY-WIDE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving the addition of one Information Technology Specialist (Specialist I or II based on qualifications) Position in the Administrative Services Department to Provide Technical Support and Service City-wide?
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the addition of one Information Technology Specialist (Specialist I or II based on qualifications) position in the Administrative Services Department to Provide Technical Support and Service City-wide
Fiscal Impact:

Not to exceed $131,969 annually; representing total compensation maximum (salary, PERS retirement, Social Security, benefits, Medicare and workers’ compensation)

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 3
BACKGROUND:

Staff proposes to add one Information Technology Specialist (Specialist I or II based on qualifications) position to the budget, in order to provide technical service and support to sustain adequate operations across all City departments with their unique computer technology needs. The volume of information processing, data storage, use of different software programs, applications and systems for each department requires additional staff to maintain and update existing platforms and manage new technology products at the City.

DISCUSSION:

The City currently has an Information Technology (IT) Division within the Administrative Services Department consisting of one IT Manager, one IT Analyst, and two IT Specialists.

IT personnel have varied levels of experience and responsibility with hardware and software systems maintenance, troubleshooting, and oversight of database security and data integrity. Not only do IT personnel provide internal customer service for end-user support, they cooperate with vendors, manufacturers and implementation coordinators, and perform testing and servicing for all computers, as well as telephone and voicemail systems – including the Police Department Communications Division (911 operations).

Adequate staffing for the IT Division is critical for successful business continuity, public safety and customer service. The existing systems require constant oversight to ensure on-going function and performance. There are major enterprise applications and new system implementations occurring now and in the near future for improved and updated operations in in the following departments: Police, Finance, Community Development and Public Works & Engineering.

The Community Development Department recently implemented new software for building permits and inspections. The Finance Department is in the process of implementing new software for budgeting and human resources functions. The Police, Fire and Public Works Department also operate and maintain software and technology essential to their operations. All of these applications are mission critical to the function of the organization and require an enhanced level of support. The City’s dependence and use of technology will only continue to increase in the future.

Staff is recommending that the current IT staffing level be increased to better support all existing and new systems and applications. The proposed increase to the salary budget is up to $131,969 annually for one IT Specialist (Specialist I or II) position.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 3 of 3
Long-term, a full-time employee who is knowledgeable about the City’s systems and who works on a schedule with existing IT staff, is an effective way to ensure the successful management of the various systems across the City.

CONCLUSION:

Staff proposes the adoption of the attached resolution to approve the addition of one Information Technology Specialist (Specialist I or II) position in the Administrative Services Department to provide technical support and service City-wide.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Rida Freeman
City Manager Director of Administrative Services
Attachments: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA TO APPROVE

THE ADDITION OF ONE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST (SPECIALIST I OR

II BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS) POSITION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SERVICE CITY-WIDE WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need for additional Information Technology personnel to provide technical service and support to sustain City operations; WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the City’s commitment to innovation, which includes improved and advanced technologies to support the objectives of the City, helping to provide effective operations with the use of technology, resulting in satisfied community customers; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need for skilled personnel to manage, improve and maintain such technology improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California that the City Council adopts a resolution to approve the addition of one Information Technology Specialist (Specialist I or II) Position in the Administrative Services Department to provide technical support and service City-wide.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the position listings, salary ranges/bands, and pay steps as set forth in the current City of La Mesa Compensation Plan for FY 2022-2023, FY 2023-2024 and FY 2024-2025 shall be in full force and effect.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of May 2023, 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. 2023- , 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: May 9, 2023
SUBJECT: REPORT AMENDING SECTION 12.44.130 OF THE LA

MESA MUNICIPAL CODE INSTALLING A DISABLED
PERSONS PARKING SPACE AT 6070 NANCY DRIVE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council approve installing a disabled person parking space at 6070 Nancy Drive?
Recommendation:

Adopt the attached resolution, approving the installation of a disabled person parking space at 6070 Nancy Drive.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost to remove the space should be less than $1,000 and can be covered by the Public Works Traffic Operations maintenance budget (3107-6420).

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Effective and efficient traffic circulation and transportation Environmental Review:

This project is categorically exempt from the environmental review process under Section 15301 Class 1 (c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, which exempts projects which involve negligible or no expansion of existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 2
BACKGROUND:

Requests for an on-street disabled persons parking space require possession of a valid disabled person placard, an available on-street space, and no available access from the private property.

DISCUSSION:

The request for an on-street disabled persons parking space at 6070 Nancy Drive is from a renter who does not have access to their on-site driveway. The existing driveway serves a duplex, which the property owner provided either access to another renter or their own private use. The requestor has provided verification of ownership of a disabled person placard.

The Mobility Commission discussed this item at their April 1, 2023 meeting and voted to recommend to City Council that the disabled persons parking space at 6070 Nancy Drive be installed.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the Mobility Commission’s recommendation and approve the resolution amending Section 12.44.130 of the La Mesa Municipal Code and install a disabled persons parking space at 6070 Nancy Drive.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne
City Manager Director of Public Works
_Michael Kinnard_____________
Michael Kinnard
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A: Resolution
B: Site Pictures

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AMENDING SECTION 12.44.130 OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE INSTALLING A DISABLED PERSONS PARKING SPACE AT 6070 NANCY DRIVE
BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, as follows:

Section 12.44.130 of the La Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following:

Street Side of Street Location Description or Address
Nancy Drive West One parking space located at 6070 Nancy Drive PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of May 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , 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
6070 Nancy Drive

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 9, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Contract Change Order No. 1 to Select Electric, Inc., for the El Cajon Boulevard and Jessie Avenue Safety Improvements Project
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City of La Mesa authorize Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $33,372.45 to Select Electric Inc., for the El Cajon Boulevard and Jessie Avenue Traffic Safety Improvements Project?
Recommendation:

Adopt the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $33,372.45 to Select Electric Inc., for the El Cajon Boulevard and Jessie Avenue Traffic Safety Improvements Project.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds for the change order are available and will be funded from CIP Accounts. 302- 68300-000-220BOT and 302-68300-000-2233TR. No General Fund monies will be used.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Effective and efficient traffic circulation and transportation Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 T-1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure – Encourage active transportation options through planning and development of safe active transportation infrastructure and facilities in the City.  T-2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (Vision Zero) – Advance community-wide active transportation through safety programs, public engagement, education, and advocacy.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 2
BACKGROUND:

On December 13, 2022, a construction contract was awarded to Select Electric, Inc, for the El Cajon Boulevard and Jessie Avenue Traffic Safety Improvements Project for $420,865. This project is intended to improve pedestrian crossing safety at this intersection as part of the City’s on-going implementation of Vision Zero Plan to reduce pedestrian fatalities. During preconstruction field meetings with the contractor, unforeseen utility conflicts were identified that are needed to be addressed to enable the project to be constructed.

DISCUSSION:

Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $33,372.45, will add potholing, staking and surveying to the contract thereby allowing the Contractor to locate existing and layout new facilities within the awarded scope of work. Construction change orders over $25,000 require City Council approval pursuant to Administrative Instruction No. F-13 “Change Orders.” CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $33,372.45 to Select Electric Inc., for the El Cajon Boulevard and Jessie Avenue Safety Improvements Project.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne
City Manager Director of Public Works
Michael Kinnard
Michael Kinnard
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Change Order No. 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO SELECT ELECTRIC, INC., FOR THE EL CAJON BOULEVARD AND JESSIE AVENUE SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, Select Electric, Inc., was awarded a construction contract for Bid 23-01, for the El Cajon and Jessie Avenue Safety Improvements Project; WHEREAS, Unforeseen utility conflicts were identified, requiring potholing, staking and surveying be added to the construction contract.;
WHEREAS, Change Order no. 1 will provide potholing, staking, and surveying services to the construction contract; and
WHEREAS, Construction Change Orders over $25,000 require City Council approval.

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 and instructed to execute for and on behalf of said City, Contract Change Order No. 1, which shall supply potholing, staking, and surveying services, between the City of La Mesa and Select Electric, Inc., for an amount of $33,372.45, for the El Cajon Boulevard and Jessie Avenue Safety Improvements Project. Said contract change order is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of May 2023, 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. 2023- , 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)

2790 Business Park Drive, Vista, CA 92081; ph. 619-460-6060; fax 619-460-6069 Change Order Request Proposal
Date: March 15th, 2023 (rev 3-16-23) COR: 3572.01-R1
Job No.: 3572
Project Name: El Cajon Blvd TS Improvement Project
To: Dustin Bender – Sr Public Work Inspector
Reference: RFP from Dustin Bender, Ardurra, on 3-7-23 requesting pricing for construction staking and potholing on the project.

To Whom It Concerns,
Select Electric, Inc. is pleased to provide this Cost Proposal described below:

Scope of Work Under this Change:
 4 days of potholing approx. 20-22 potholes with 3 guys (2 Elec, 1 Traffic Control) w/ 1 utility truck & 1 UT w/ compressor.  1 day of restoration with 5 guys (3 laborers, 1 operator, 1 Traffic Control) w/ 1 Utility Truck w/ compressor & 2 Utility Trucks & 1-10yd dump w/ trailer & backhoe)
 Construction Staking & Survey for curb & gutter & hardscape, street lights and dry utilities

Total: $33,372.45
Notes and Exclusions:

Please refer to the original bid for the list of exclusions.

Price Quotation and Time Requirements
SEI proposes to perform the above-described extra work on the following basis:

Lump Sum Total of Thirty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Two and 45/100__ Dollars $33,372.45 Hourly Rate for Labor and Equipment as listed in the “Scope” Section.

The performance of this extra work will require a time extension of 5 Working Days plus the lead time for material delivery.

We appreciate your consideration and, should you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Work can not start until a written acceptance of this proposal is received.

Sincerely,
Steven Anderson / Project Manager
Select Electric Inc.

Please Note: The price quoted is based on work being performed under normal conditions including reasonable access to the work. The proposed price does not include extra costs for performance of work out of sequence, schedule delays, acceleration, extended overhead, or any other impacts caused by the cumulative effect of changes on original contract work. Select Electric Inc. hereby reserves all rights to re-evaluate its costs and seek equitable adjustment should it become evident that costs have been impacted by any of the above causes. Should it be impractical to determine any time impacts at the time of submittal of this Proposal, Select Electric Inc. reserves its rights to seek appropriate time extensions should it become evident at a later date that this extra work contributed to project schedule delays.

COR No:

Contract No: Date Submitted:

Project Title: G.C./Agency:

Location: Job No:

Description of Work: Prepared By:

LABOR Hourly Rate Extended Amounts EQUIPMENT Hours Hourly Rate Extended Amounts Electrician REG 64 $ 73.48 $ 4,702.72 WORK TRUCK WITH ATTACHMENTS 40 $ 74.77 $ 2,990.80 Traffic Control REG 40 $ 62.00 $ 2,480.00 Work Truck 56 $ 49.31 $ 2,761.36 Operator REG 8 $ 83.99 $ 671.92 10 Yd Dump w/ trailer & backhoe 8 $ 137.43 $ 1,099.44 Laborer REG 16 $ 71.54 $ 1,144.64 - $ -
- - - $ - - $ - $ -
- - - $ - - - $ - $ -
- - $ - - - $ - $ -
- - - $ - - - $ - $ -
$ 8,999.28 - - $ - $ -
$ 8,999.28 - - $ - $ -
- - $ - $ -
- - $ - $ -
Description Qty U.M. Unit Cost Ext. Amount $ 6,851.60
Cold Patch 1 LS $ 470.00 $ 470.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - 8999.28
$ - 15.00% 1349.89
$ 470.00 6851.60

8.25% $ 38.78 10.00% 685.16
$ 508.78 508.78

10.00% 50.88

0.00 Description Qty U.M. Unit Cost Ext. Amount 12975.00 Land Surveyor/Staking 1 LS $ 12,975.00 $ 12,975.00 10.00% 1297.50 $ - 32718.08
$ - 2.00% 654.36
$ -
$ 12,975.00 Total Cost 33372.45
Other
Bond & Insurance
Total Cost of Subcontracted Work
(B) California Sales Tax
Total Cost of Subcontracted Work
Subcontracted Work Mark-up
Sub-total

SUBCONTRACTED WORK
Hours

MATERIAL
(A) California Sales Tax
Cost of Labor
Total Cost of Labor with Surcharge
Total Cost of Equipment
Subtotal
Total Cost of Material Total Cost of Material
Material Mark-up
Labor Mark-up
Total Cost of Equipment
Total Cost of Labor
Equipment Mark-up
Steven Anderson
Jessie Ave TS Improvements
El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave
3572
LS for Construction Staking & Potholing. 4 days of potholing approx. 20-22 potholes with 3 guys (2 Elec, 1 Traffic Control) w/ 1 utility truck & 1 UT w/ compressor. 1 days of restoration with 5 guys (3 laborers, 1 operator, 1 Traffic Control) w/ 1 Utility Truck Change Order Request Recap

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 2, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID 23-15, CITYWIDE

GUARDRAIL UPGRADES AND AWARDING A

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SB GENERAL
ENGINEERING, INC.

DESCRIPTION: Guardrail upgrades throughout the City of La Mesa will include repairs, replacement, enhancement, and
extension of existing guardrails to improve roadway
safety.

ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City of La Mesa accept Bid 23-15, Citywide Guardrail Upgrades and award the construction contract to SB General Engineering in the amount of $422,738?
Recommendation:

Adopt the attached Resolution accepting Bid 23-15, Citywide Guardrail Upgrades and award a construction contract to SB General Engineering in the amount of $422,738.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds for the project are available Capital Improvement Project account 30222AOT. No general fund money will be used for this project.

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

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 3
 Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors
 Safe community
Environmental Review:

The project was issued a Categorical Exemption-Exclusion determination according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act.

BACKGROUND:

City staff was successful in obtaining grant funding in an amount of $434,300 through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The grant is intended to serve as a comprehensive framework for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on public roads.

This grant and the project are consistent with the City’s Vision Zero Plan.

In alignment with the grant program goals, citywide guardrail upgrades involve the repair, replacement, and extension of damaged or insufficient guardrail throughout the City of La Mesa. This project also includes the replacement and instillation of sturdier and taller guardrail that will help reduce injuries and further support the implementation of the City’s Vision Zero Plan.

DISCUSSION:

On April 12, 2023, a notice inviting bids was advertised and bid documents were distributed. On May 2, 2023, one bid was received electronically. The apparent responsive, responsible low bidder was identified as SB General Engineer, Inc. with a total base bid price of $422,738. A bid results summary is shown in Attachment B.

The engineer’s estimate for the project was $395,022 and based on the low bid, there are sufficient funds from the HSIP grant to complete the project.

Contract time for completion of the project is 20 working days. The work is expected to begin in May of 2023 and be completed by June of 2023.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Bid 23- 15, Citywide Guardrail Upgrades and awarding a construction contract to SB General Engineering in the amount of $422,738.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 3 of 3
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Respectfully submitted by:

Tristan Leger_______________________
Tristan Leger
Assistant Engineer
Attachments: A – Resolution – Bid Award to SB General Engineering B – Bid Tab Results Tabulation

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ACCEPTING BID NO. 23-15, CITYWIDE GUARDRAIL UPGRADES AND

AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SB GENERAL
ENGINEERING, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to improve high quality municipal services and revitalize neighborhoods and corridors;
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2018, the City adopted a Vision Zero Plan to reduce traffic fatalities to zero and prioritize safety within infrastructure projects and combine education and enforcement practices to achieve this goal;
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2020, the City of La Mesa secured Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Funding in the amount of $434,300 for the replacement, repair, and enhancement of guardrail throughout the City of La Mesa; WHEREAS, the project under consideration is consistent with the City’s Vision Zero Plan;
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2023, bid 23-15 was advertised and low bid selection was based on the lowest responsive, responsible base bid;
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, the City received One bid and SB General Engineering, Inc. was the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder with a total base bid amount of $422,738; and
WHEREAS, the total bid is within the City’s budget.

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

SB General Engineering, Inc.’s base bid in the amount of $422,738 for Bid No. 23-15, Citywide Guardrail Upgrades was determined to be the lowest, responsive, 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 construction contract with SB General Engineering, Inc. to perform items of work at the prices set forth in said bid for a total bid award amount of $422,738.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works/City Engineer 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 9
th day of May, 2023, 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)

City of La Mesa
Citywide Guardrail Upgrades Project (Federally Funded Project) Caltrans HSIPSL-5207(052) (BID 23-15 (RE-BID)), bidding on 05/02/2023 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 05/02/2023
PlanetBids, Inc.

City of La Mesa
Citywide Guardrail Upgrades Project (Federally Funded Project) Caltrans HSIPSL-5207(052) (BID 23-15 (RE-BID)), bidding on 05/02/2023 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 05/02/2023
PlanetBids, Inc.

City of La Mesa
Citywide Guardrail Upgrades Project (Federally Funded Project) Caltrans HSIPSL-5207(052) (BID 23-15 (RE-BID)), bidding on 05/02/2023 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 05/02/2023
PlanetBids, Inc.

Fund:
302

CERTIFICATE OF CITY/DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Certification of Unappropriated Reserves
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the money required for the appropriation of funds for the purpose as docketed is available in the Treasury, or is anticipated to come into the Treasury, and is otherwise unappropriated.

Amount$
Purpose
Date
Fund _________________ _
Director of Finance
City of La Mesa
By
Unappropriated Reserves Available Balance$
Certification of Unencumbered Balance
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the indebtedness and obligation as docketed can be incurred; that sufficient monies to meet the obligations are actually in the Treasury, or are anticipated to come into the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation from which the same are to be drawn; and that said monies now actually in the treasury, together with the monies anticipated to come into the Treasury, to the credit of said appropriation are otherwise unencumbered.

Amount Not to Exceed $422,738.00
Date: 5/9/2023
Dept./ Activity:
68300-000-
222AOT
Di�
City of La Mesa
By: Michael Throne
$422,738.00 from Account 302-68300-000-222AOT (Amount Available $499,000.00)
Purpose: Resolution Accepting Bid No. 23-15, Citywide Guardrail Upgrades and Awarding a Construction Contract to SB General Engineering Inc.

CERTIFICATE NO. 1830

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 9, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2023

SAN DIEGO COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTONAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – CITY OF LA MESA
ANNEX
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Fire
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt the 2023 San Diego County Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of La Mesa?
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopts by resolution the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Safe community
BACKGROUND:

The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) is required by the federal government for each jurisdiction. The previous Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for the County was developed in 2018. The current Plan is a five-year revision of

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 2
that Plan that is required by federal regulations. The Plan recommends hazard mitigation actions, and sets goals and objectives, that will protect people and property affected by natural or manmade disasters in the City of La Mesa and other jurisdictions within the County. Having this plan in place also satisfies requirements for the City to obtain federal and state assistance in the event of a disaster, or when applying for grant funding for certain City projects. This Plan has been written after over a year of development by the County of San Diego and jurisdictions within the County. The State of California and FEMA have reviewed the plan and have tentatively approved it pending its adoption by each jurisdiction.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Bent Koch
City Manager Fire Chief
Attachments: Resolution
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – La Mesa Section

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – CITY OF LA MESA ANNEX WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa recognizes the threat that natural and human caused hazards pose to people and property within San Diego County; WHEREAS, the County of San Diego has prepared a jurisdiction-specific, multi-hazard mitigation plan hereby known as the 2023 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (also referred to as the County Base Plan) in accordance with federal laws, including the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended; the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended; and the National Dam Safety Program Act, as amended; WHEREAS, the 2023 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies mitigation goals and actions to reduce and/or eliminate long-term risk to people and property in San Diego County from the impacts of future hazards and disasters;
WHEREAS, adoption by the City Council of La Mesa and required state and federal updates demonstrate its commitment to hazard mitigation and achieving the goals outlined in the 2023 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan;
WHEREAS, content related to San Diego County and other jurisdictions has required revisions to meet the plan approval requirements, the City of La Mesa Annex has been approved by the California Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency; WHEREAS, changes occurring after adoption of the City of La Mesa Annex will not require the City Council to re-adopt any further iterations of the Annex; WHEREAS, subsequent plan updates following the five-year approval period for this plan will require separate adoption resolutions; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Annex will allow the City of La Mesa to continue to submit applications for hazard mitigation grants and remain eligible for public assistance funds for the next five years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council adopts the 2023 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – City of La Mesa Annex.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9th day of May 2023, 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. 2023- , 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)

Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan:

City of La Mesa Annex
San Diego County, California
2023

i
This page is intentionally left blank.

SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 2 1. SECTION ONE: Determine the Planning Area and
Resources

1.1. Planning Area: City of La Mesa
The City of La Mesa is located in Eastern San Diego County, approximately 12 miles east of the City of San Diego. La Mesa is a suburban residential community surrounded by rolling hills and hilltop home sites. The City is 9 square miles of diverse residential, commercial, and industrial area. La Mesa has its own Police Department and is part of joint exercise of powers agreement for organizational management of fire protection, fire prevention services, emergency medical services and emergency management.

These services are provided by Heartland Fire & Rescue, an ISO Class 1 Fire department.

La Mesa has a semi-arid Mediterranean climate and averages 263 sunny days per year. Winters are mild with periodic rain. Frost is rare but can occur in December and January. Summer is almost rain free, but sometimes overcast and cool in the months of May and June. While most days have mild and pleasant temperatures, hot dry Santa Ana winds bring high temperatures on a few days each year, mostly but not exclusively in the fall.

There are approximately 23,532 households in the City. There exists a cross-section of housing types, from lower cost mobile homes and apartments, to moderately priced condominiums, to higher cost singlefamily residences. According to the most recent US Census data, the population of La Mesa is 61,933. It also shows the racial makeup of La Mesa to be as follows:
• 67.4% White
• 24.7% Hispanic or Latino
• 8.3% Black or African America
• 7.5% Asian
• 10.8% Mixed Race
• 0.3% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
• .08% Native American
• 10.8% listed as Other Race

SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 3 1.2. Community Rating System Requirements
The Community Rating System (CRS) is a FEMA program and rewards communities that go beyond the minimum standards for floodplain management under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Communities can potentially improve their Community Rating System and lower NFIP premiums by developing a CRS Plan.

For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see http://www.fema.gov/nationalflood-insurance-program.

Community Rating System
(CRS) Planning Steps
Local Mitigation
Planning
Handbook Tasks
(44 CFR Part 201)
Step 1. Organize
Task 1: Determine the Planning Area and
Resources
Task 2: Build the Planning
Team 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1)
Step 2. Involve the public
Task 3: Create an Outreach Strategy
44 CFR 201.6(b)(1)
Step 3. Coordinate
Task 4: Review Community Capabilities
44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) & (3)
Step 4. Assess the hazard Task 5: Conduct a Risk
Assessment 44 CFR
201.6(c)(2)(i)
44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii) & (iii)
Step 5. Assess the problem
Step 6. Set goals Task 6: Develop a Mitigation
Strategy 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i)
44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii)
44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii)
Step 7. Review possible activities
Step 8. Draft an action plan
Step 9. Adopt the plan
Task 8: Review and Adopt the Plan
44 CFR 201.6(c)(5)
Step 10. Implement, evaluate, revise
Task 7: Keep the Plan Current
Task 9: Create a Safe and Resilient
Community 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)
TABLE 1: DESCRIBES THE CRS REQUIREMENTS MET BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.

Any jurisdiction or special district may participate in the hazard mitigation planning process. However, to request FEMA approval, each of the local jurisdictions must meet all requirements of 44 CFR §201.6. In addition to the requirement for participation in the process, the Federal regulation specifies the following requirements for multi-jurisdictional plans:
• The risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risk where they may vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(iii))
• There must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(iv))

SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 4 • Each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that is has been formally adopted. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(5))
The hazard mitigation plan must clearly list the jurisdictions that participated in the plan and are seeking plan approval. The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and annexes meet all requirements.

SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team
5 2. SECTION TWO: Build the Planning Team

2.1. Planning Participants
City Manager’s Office
Hilary Ego, Environmental Program Manager
Information Technology / GIS
Javier Rios, IT Manager/GIS Specialist
Fire Department – Heartland Fire & Rescue
Bent Koch, Operations Chief
Shaun Richardson, Fire Marshal
Andy McKellar, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Police Department
Ray Sweeney, Chief of Police
Public Works
Hamed Hashemian, Engineering Project Manager
Joe Kuhn, Storm Water Project Manager

2.2. Planning Process
The San Diego County Hazard Mitigation Working Group held regular meetings which were attended by the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. A series of meetings was held by the Local Planning Group (LPG). Due to COVID restrictions, these meetings were held online. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction’s current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City’s planning documents, codes, and ordinances.

See the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan’s Section Two for details about the county-wide Planning Process.

City of La Mesa LPG Meetings
May, 19, 2021 – Initial Meeting
April 13, 2022 – Final Meeting

SECTION THREE | Create an Outreach Strategy
6 3. SECTION THREE: Outreach Strategy
See the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan’s Section Three for details about the countywide outreach strategy.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
7 4. SECTION FOUR: Community Capabilities
Local mitigation capabilities are existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources that reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities, and must be included in a hazard mitigation plan by the planning team.

The Local Planning Group may also identify additional types of capabilities relevant to mitigation planning.

4.1. Capability Assessment
The primary types of capabilities for reducing long-term vulnerability through mitigation planning are:
• Planning and regulatory
• Administrative and technical
• Financial
• Education and outreach
Improvements in existing policies and programs in each of the four areas above can be obtained through increased cooperation between city departments, continued training of staff, and collaboration with local and regional partners.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
8 4.1.1 Planning and Regulatory
Planning and regulatory capabilities are the plans, policies, codes, and ordinances that prevent and reduce the impacts of hazards. Please indicate which of the following your jurisdiction has in place:

Plans Yes/No
Year
Does the plan address hazards?
Does the plan identify projects to include in the
mitigation strategy?
Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions?
Comprehensive/Master Plan Yes
2013
The General Plan address flood, fire, seismic, geologic, and hazardous materials.

The General Plan does not identify specific projects to include in the mitigation strategy.

The plan can be used to implement mitigation actions.

Capital Improvements Plan Yes
FY20/21
Yes
No
Yes
Economic Development Plan
No Currently in development
Local Emergency Operations Plan
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Continuity of Operations Plan
Yes
2013
No
No
No
Transportation Plan
Yes
The City has various transportation plans including Vision Zero (2018), Complete Street Design (2021) and CAP
(2018).

Stormwater Management Plan
Yes
2015
Yes
Yes
Yes
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes
2013
Yes
Within the Safety Element of the General Plan
M. Real estate disclosure requirements No
Other special plans (e.g., brownfields
redevelopment, disaster recovery, coastal zone
management, climate change adaptation)
Yes
2018 Climate Action Plan
TABLE 4.1.1: PLANNING AND REGULATORY - 4.1 DATA.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
9 4.1.1.Administrative and Technical
Administrative and technical capabilities include staff and their skills and tools that can be used for mitigation planning and to implement specific mitigation actions. For smaller jurisdictions without local staff resources, if there are public resources at the next higher-level government that can provide technical assistance, indicate so in your comments:

Administration Yes/No Describe capability
Is coordination effective?
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of
land
development and land management practices
Yes
Planning and Engineering staff are trained to become
familiar with and to enforce all applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations and requirements of land
development and land management practices.

Yes.

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
and/or infrastructure
Yes
Conduct inspections of private and public construction
projects inspecting materials and workmanship to ensure compliance with approved plans and specifications;
inspect conditions prior to the start of construction,
during construction, and upon completion.

Yes.

Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding
of natural and/or manmade hazards Yes
Both Planers and Engineers understand various types of
natural and manmade hazards. Staff is trained to assist with hazard mitigation when/if it occurs and appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated all development/
construction projects.

Mitigation Planning Committee
Yes Development Advisory Group and Planning Review
Group
Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g.,
tree trimming, clearing drainage systems) Yes
Annual weed abatement program, citizen complaint
request tracker, and fuels mitigation Annual tree
trimming program, storm drain clearing before storm
season, regular storm drain jetting
Mutual aid agreements
Yes
Participate in the California Fire Rescue and Mutual Aid System, the San Diego County Operational Area
Emergency Operations Plan. The California Master
Mutual Aid Agreement.

Table 4.1.2: Administrative and Technical - 4.1 Data Continued.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
10 Staff Yes/No
FT/PT1
Is staffing adequate to enforce regulations?
Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation?
Is coordination between agencies and staff effective?
Chief Building Official Yes
FT - 1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
FT -1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Emergency Manager Yes
FT/1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Surveyors
Yes
FT - 1
Consultants are relied upon for survey work.

Training provided through State survey license and
necessary training is reviewed upon consultant selection.

Staff with education or expertise to assess the
community’s vulnerability to hazards
Yes
FT Fire and Land Use Planning
Community Planner Yes
FT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Scientists familiar with the hazards of the
community Yes
Consultants are relied upon for scientific work.

Necessary training is reviewed upon consultant selection.

Coordination is effective.

Civil Engineer Yes
FT-1
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes
FT - 1
The City of La Mesa has an onsite consultant to manage
and update its infrastructure maps
Grant writers Yes
PT
Each department has specified employees that have grant writing as part of their full-time position duties
TABLE 4.1.3: ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL – 4.1 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
11 Technical Yes/No
Describe capability
Has capability been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past?
Warning systems/services
(Reverse 911, outdoor warning signals) Yes
Alert San Diego for Reverse 911 operations. Wireless
Emergency Alerts (WEA) for emergency notifications
Portable changeable message boards.

Hazard data and information Yes Previous Regional and La Mesa-specific hazard data and information has been used to identify and mitigate risks in the past
Grant writing Yes
PT
Various full-time staff have grant writing as part of their regular duties
Hazus analysis Yes Hazus program has been used to identify and mitigate risks TABLE 4.1.4: ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL – 4.1 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
12 4.1.2 Financial
Identify whether your jurisdiction has access to or is eligible to use the following funding resources for hazard mitigation:

Funding Resource Access/
Eligibility
(Yes/No)
Has the funding resource been used in past and for
what type of activities?
Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation
actions?
Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG)
No No.

Potentially in CDQG- qualifying areas
Capital improvements project funding
Yes
CIP Funds include replacement or rehabilitation of
corrugated metal pipes. Any other emergency has been
dealt with the CIP funds on a as needed basis.

Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
No
No, but with voter approval can happen
Yes
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service
Yes
The City charges for sewer collection and treatment
services.

Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for
new developments/homes
No
Impact fees have not been used in the past for
specifically hazard mitigation.

This resource could be used to fund future mitigation
actions with support and direction from the City Council.

Incur debt through general obligation bonds No
Incur debt through special tax and revenue
bonds
No
Incur debt through private activity bonds No
Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG)
No
Impact fees have not been used in the past for
specifically hazard mitigation.

This resource could be used to fund future mitigation
actions with support and direction from the City Council.

Capital improvements project funding
Yes
CIP funds have been used for pervious and future hazard mitigations.

Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes With voter approval TABLE 4.1.5: FINANCIAL – 4.1 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
13 4.1.3 Education and Outreach
Identify education and outreach programs and methods already in place that could be used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information:

Program/Organization Yes/No
Describe program/organization and how relates to
disaster resilience and mitigation.

Could the program/organization help implement
future mitigation activities?
Local citizen groups or non-profit
organizations focused on environmental
protection, emergency preparedness, access
and functional needs populations, etc.

Yes
La Mesa works with a number of community organizations who have direct involvement in environmental protection,
emergency preparedness and access and functional needs issues.

Examples are the American Red Cross, Sierra Club, San Diego Regional Center and the International Rescue Committee. http://sandiegosierraclub.org/
https://www.rescue.org/united-states/san-diego-ca
https://www.sdrc.org/
https://www.redcross.org/local/california/southerncalifornia/about-us/locations/san-diegoimperial.html?CID=organic_gmb_listings East County Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT)
Ongoing public education or information
program (e.g., responsible water use, fire
safety, household preparedness,
environmental education)
Yes
The City uses many avenues to inform and educate community members. Environmental information can be found on the
City’s webpage, preparedness and safety messaging is presented through the social media outlets for both Fire and Police Departments. Each September the City holds a Safety Fair in coordination with National Preparedness Month and each
October, the Fire Department holds an Open House event. At each of these events, Police and Fire personnel, along with trained CERT members, provide safety and preparedness
information to the public. More information is available to the public through these websites and partner agencies.
https://www.cityoflamesa.us/65/EnvironmentalSustainability https://mtrp.org/
https://thegarden.org/
Natural disaster or safety related school
programs Yes
The Fire Department offers disaster and safety programs to local schools as requested.

StormReady certification
No
Firewise Communities certification
No
Public-private partnership initiatives
addressing disaster-related issues
Yes
Fire department along with CERT, SDGE, Red Cross and
local community groups provide information on “all
hazards” disaster preparedness and general fire safety. Using multiple federal, state and local resources information is compiled and shared as it applies to specific disaster related issues that are encountered.

TABLE 4.1.6: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH - 4.1 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
14 4.2 Safe Growth Audit
Identify gaps in your community’s growth guidance instruments and improvements that could be made to reduce vulnerability to future development:

Comprehensive Plan Yes No
Land Use

1. Does the future land-use map clearly identify natural hazard areas? X Land use established with consideration of hazards identified and mapped in the General Plan Safety Element.

2. Do the land-use policies discourage development or redevelopment within natural hazard areas?
X

3. Does the plan provide adequate space for expected future growth in areas located outside natural hazard areas?
X
La Mesa is almost entirely urbanized.

Transportation

1. Does the transportation plan limit access to hazard areas? X Access it not provided or contemplated to the limited natural hazard areas in mostly urbanized La Mesa.

2. Is transportation policy used to guide growth to safe locations? X

3. Are movement systems designed to function under disaster conditions (e.g., evacuation)? X La Mesa is nearly completely urbanized and its street system is complete. Multiple freeway and surface roads may be utilized in a disaster situation and the City is served by two trolley lines.

TABLE 4.2.1: SAFE GROWTH AUDIT - 4.2 DATA.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
15 Comprehensive Plan (continued) Yes No
Environmental Management

1. Are environmental systems that protect development from hazards identified and mapped?
X
General Plan Safety Element

2. Do environmental policies maintain and restore protective ecosystems? X

3. Do environmental policies provide incentives to development that is located outside protective ecosystems?
X
General Plan Conservation and Sustainability Element
Public Safety

1. Are the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan related to those of the FEMA Local Hazard Mitigation Plan?
X
The City participates in the San Diego County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

2. Is safety explicitly included in the plan’s growth and development policies? X General Plan Safety Element

3. Does the monitoring and implementation section of the plan cover safe growth objectives?
X
Growth is directed away from the very few hazard areas in the City and directed to mixed-use corridors with ready access to transit
TABLE 4.2.2: SAFE GROWTH AUDIT - 4.2 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
16 Zoning Ordinance Yes No

1. Does the zoning ordinance conform to the comprehensive plan in terms of discouraging development or redevelopment within natural hazard areas? X
Several overlays address limiting development in areas prone to natural hazard

2. Does the ordinance contain natural hazard overlay zones that set conditions for land use within such zones?
X
Floodway, Hillside, and Scenic Preservation Overlays

3. Do rezoning procedures recognize natural hazard areas as limits on zoning changes that allow greater intensity or density of use?
X
Through application of the overlays and other zoning regulations limiting or prohibiting development in hazard
areas

4. Does the ordinance prohibit development within, or filling of, wetlands, floodways, and floodplains?
X
Floodway Overlay Zone
Subdivision Regulations Yes No

1. Do the subdivision regulations restrict the subdivision of land within or adjacent to natural hazard areas?
X
Through application of the overlays

2. Do the regulations provide for conservation subdivisions or cluster subdivisions in order to conserve environmental resources?
X
Planned Residential Development (PRD) process

3. Do the regulations allow density transfers where hazard areas exist? X PRD process
TABLE 4.2.3: SAFE GROWTH AUDIT - 4.2 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
17 Capital Improvement Program and Infrastructure Policies Yes No

1. Does the capital improvement program limit expenditures on projects that would encourage development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards? X

2. Do infrastructure policies limit extension of existing facilities and services that would encourage development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards? X

3. Does the capital improvement program provide funding for hazard mitigation projects identified in the FEMA Mitigation Plan?
X
Other Yes No

1. Do small area or corridor plans recognize the need to avoid or mitigation natural hazards? X

2. Does the building code contain provisions to strengthen or elevate construction to withstand hazard forces?
X

3. Do economic development or redevelopment strategies include provisions for mitigation natural hazards?
X

4. Is there an adopted evacuation and shelter plan to deal with emergencies from natural hazards?
X
TABLE 4.2.4: SAFE GROWTH AUDIT - 4.2 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
18 4.2.1 Future Development Trends
The City of La Mesa is primarily land locked due to boundaries with other jurisdictions, and county and state lands. These development constraints have led to increased infill development within the City.

Increased development has caused a strain on existing undersized infrastructure leading to increased concerns of stormwater capacity and flooding, which is being addressed through the waste water/stormwater projects outlined in Section 6 of this plan. New development does not extend city boundaries, it is re-utilizing existing real estate within city limits.

City of La Mesa – Population (US Census Bureau)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
63,315 59,998 61,191 61,121 61,933

4.3 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
As a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a community develops capabilities for conducting flood mitigation activities. The hazard mitigation plan must describe each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP. Participating communities must describe their continued compliance with NFIP requirements. The mitigation plan must do more than state that the community will continue to comply with the NFIP. Each jurisdiction must describe their floodplain management program and address how they will continue to comply with the NFIP requirements. The local floodplain administrator is often the primary source for this information.

Jurisdictions where FEMA has issued a floodplain map but are currently not participating in the NFIP may meet this requirement by describing the reasons why the community does not participate. Plan updates must meet the same requirements and document any change in floodplain management programs.

The City of La Mesa continues to participate in the NFIP. According to the 2022 FEMA Repetitive Loss Summary Report, The City of La Mesa has 2 Repetitive Loss properties and no Severe Repetitive Loss properties.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
19 NFIP Topic Source of Information Comments
Insurance Summary
How many NFIP policies are in the
community? What is the total premium
and coverage?
State NFIP Coordinator or
FEMA NFIP Specialist
Total Flood Policies: 31
Total Premium: 16,752
Total Coverage: 7,651,000
How many claims have been paid in the
community? What is the total amount of
paid claims? How many of the claims
were for substantial damage?
FEMA NFIP or Insurance
Specialist
Total Claims Paid: 18
Total Claims Amt Paid: 35,517
How many structures are exposed to
flood risk within the community?
Community Floodplain
Administrator (FPA) Unknown
Describe any areas of flood risk with
limited NFIP policy coverage
Community FPA and
FEMA Insurance
Specialist N/A
Staff Resources
Is the Community FPA or NFIP
Coordinator certified?
Community FPA
No
Is floodplain management an auxiliary
function?
Community FPA No, but the Land Development Engineer
administers the regulations.

Provide an explanation of NFIP
administration services (e.g., permit
review, GIS, education or outreach,
inspections, engineering capability)
Community FPA The Land Development Division within the
Development Services Department administers all
aspects of the NFIP program except GIS. GIS is
administered by the greater Engineering Dept.

What are the barriers to running an
effective NFIP program in the
community, if any?
Community FPA
None
Compliance History
Is the community in good standing with
the NFIP?
State NFIP Coordinator,
FEMA NFIP Specialist,
community records Yes
Are there any outstanding compliance
issues (i.e., current violations)?
No
When was the most recent Community
Assistance Visit (CAV) or Community
Assistance Contact (CAC)? August 12, 2010.

Is a CAV or CAC scheduled or needed?
No
TABLE 2.3.1: NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM - 4.3 DATA.

SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities
20 NFIP Topic Source of Information Comments
Regulation
When did the community enter the
NFIP?
Community Status Book
http://www.fema.gov/
national-flood-insuranceprogram/national-floodinsurance-programcommunity-status-book March 8, 1974
Are the FIRMs digital or paper? Community FPA Digital
Do floodplain development regulations
meet or exceed FEMA or State
minimum requirements? If so, in what
ways?
Community FPA City of La Mesa floodplain development
regulations meet, and in some cases exceed, FEMA
and State minimum requirements.

Provide an explanation of the permitting
process.

Community FPA, State,

FEMA NFIP
During Discretionary Review of a project, the
applicant is notified of the floodplain development
regulations applicable to the site and project. The
conditions of approval for the project include
condition(s) specifying the requirements for
development within the Flood Hazard Area. A site
plan must be submitted and is reviewed for
conformance with the La Mesa Municipal Code
floodplain development requirements. The
Development Permit is not issued until the plans
are in conformance. Occupancy of any new
habitable structures or additions is not granted until
applicable documentation has been submitted and
approved by the City.

Flood Insurance Manual
http://www.fema.gov/
flood-insurance-manual
Community FPA, FEMA
CRS Coordinator, ISO
representative
Community Rating System (CRS)
Does the community participate in
CRS?
Community FPA, State,

FEMA NFIP
No
What is the community’s CRS Class
Ranking?
Flood Insurance Manual
http://www.fema.gov/
flood-insurance-manual N/A
What categories and activities provide
CRS points and how can the class be
improved? N/A
Does the plan include CRS planning
requirements
Community FPA, FEMA
CRS Coordinator, ISO
representative N/A
TABLE 4.3.2: NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM - 4.3 DATA CONTINUED.

SECTION FIVE | Conduct a Risk Assessment
21 5 SECTION FIVE: Risk Assessment
The planning team conducted a risk assessment to determine the potential impacts of hazards to the people, economy, and built and natural environments of the community. The risk assessment provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process, which is focused on identifying and prioritizing actions to reduce risk to hazards.

Highest Rated Jurisdictional Hazards
The final list prioritized hazards for La Mesa were hazards with Medium Overall Significance. This list of hazards was determined by the LPG using historical data, vulnerability assessments, and information gathered from the County OES Hazard Seminar Series.
• Drought: Drought is a slow-onset hazard that can last for months or years. As a hazard, it has the potential to impact many aspects of life, including drinking water and food. Because of the long duration of droughts, the impacts last for years and can ripple through a community over time.

Vulnerability and Impacts: Given the semi-arid climate of La Mesa, the regular occurrences of multi-year droughts across the State and Southwest region, drought can have a major impact on La Mesa’s resiliency.
• Earthquake: An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or along the edge of the Earth's tectonic plates. The effects of an earthquake can be felt far beyond the site of its occurrence. They usually occur without warning and, after just a few seconds, can cause massive damage and extensive casualties. There is potential for injuries, loss of life, property damage, and disruption of services.

Vulnerability and Impacts: The largest impact to the jurisdiction will likely be providing support to the affected area through mutual aid to Fire and Police departments. The city may also be asked to open disaster shelters to provide relief for those directly affected by the earthquake. Past Occurrences • Extreme Heat: In most of the United States, including the entire planning area, extreme heat is a long period (2 to 3 days) of high heat and humidity with temperatures above 90 degrees. The city has seen an increase in the number of extreme heat events.

Vulnerability and Impacts: Extreme heat does not cause structural damage like floods, fires, and earthquakes; however, extreme heat events put vulnerable populations (such as older adults, children, people who are chronically ill, and people who work outside) at risk of heatrelated illnesses and even death.

Extreme heat also has secondary impacts, such as power outages and poor air quality. Heat events, and the increased use of air conditioning, can lead to power outages, which makes the events even more dangerous. Hotter temperatures may also lead to poorer air quality because ozone formation, a component of smog, increases with higher temperatures.

SECTION FIVE | Conduct a Risk Assessment
22 *Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. Following the Risk Assessment criteria in section 5.1, La Mesa has no hazards that fall into the “High” category.

5.1 Hazards Summary
The Local Planning Group reviewed the hazards identified in the previous Hazard Mitigation Plan and evaluated each to see if they still posed a risk to the jurisdiction. In addition, the hazards listed in the FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook were also reviewed to determine if they should be added to the list of hazards to include in the plan revision.

Hazard
Location (Geographic
Area Affected)
Maximum Probable
Extent (Magnitude/Strength)
Probability of Future
Events
Overall Significance
Ranking
Avalanche Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Dam Failure Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Drought Limited Moderate Occasional Medium
Earthquake Significant Severe Likely Medium
Erosion Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Expansive Soils Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Extreme Cold Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Extreme Heat Significant Moderate Likely Medium
Flood Limited Weak Occasional Low
Hail Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Hurricane Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Landslide Limited Weak Occasional Low
Lightning Negligible Weak Occasional Low
Sea Level Rise Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Severe Wind Limited Weak Occasional Low
Severe Winter
Weather
Negligible Moderate Occasional Low
Storm Surge Negligible Weak Unlikely Low

SECTION FIVE | Conduct a Risk Assessment
23 Subsidence Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Tornado Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Tsunami Negligible Weak Unlikely Low
Wildfire Limited Weak Occasional Low
TABLE 5.1.1: HAZARD SUMMARY – 5.1 DATA.

Definitions for Classifications
Location (Geographic Area Affected)
• Negligible: Less than 10 percent of planning area or isolated single-point occurrences • Limited: 10 to 25 percent of the planning area or limited single-point occurrences • Significant: 25 to 75 percent of planning area or frequent single-point occurrences • Extensive: 75 to 100 percent of planning area or consistent single-point occurrences Maximum Probable Extent (Magnitude/Strength based on historic events or future probability) • Weak: Limited classification on scientific scale, slow speed of onset or short duration of event, resulting in little to no damage
• Moderate: Moderate classification on scientific scale, moderate speed of onset or moderate duration of event, resulting in some damage and loss of services for days • Severe: Severe classification on scientific scale, fast speed of onset or long duration of event, resulting in devastating damage and loss of services for weeks or months • Extreme: Extreme classification on scientific scale, immediate onset or extended duration of event, resulting in catastrophic damage and uninhabitable conditions Hazard Scale / Index Weak Moderate Severe Extreme
Drought Palmer Drought Severity Index3 -1.99 to
+1.99
-2.00 to
-2.99
-3.00 to
-3.99
-4.00 and
below
Earthquake
Modified Mercalli Scale4 I to IV V to VII VII IX to XII Richter Magnitude5 2, 3 4, 5 6 7, 8
Hurricane Wind Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind
Scale6
1 2 3 4, 5
Tornado Fujita Tornado Damage Scale7 F0 F1, F2 F3 F4, F5 Probability of Future Events
• Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.
• Occasional: 1 to 10 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
• Likely: 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years
• Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year.

SECTION FIVE | Conduct a Risk Assessment
24 Overall Significance
• Low: Two or more criteria fall in lower classifications, or the event has a minimal impact on the planning area. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a minimal or unknown record of occurrences or for hazards with minimal mitigation potential. • Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. • High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. o Cumulative meteorological drought and wet conditions: http://ncdc.noaa.gov/ o Earthquake intensity and effect on population and structures: http://earthquake.usgs.gov o Earthquake magnitude as a logarithmic scale, measured by a seismograph: http://earthquake.usgs.gov o Hurricane rating based on sustained wind speed: http://nhc.noaa.gov o Tornado rating based on wind speed and associated damage: http://spc.noaa.gov Critical Facility Type Jurisdiction Name Counts
BUS LA MESA 2
EMERGENCY - EOC LA MESA 1
EMERGENCY - FIRE LA MESA 3
EMERGENCY - POLICE LA MESA 1
HOSPITAL LA MESA 1

SECTION FIVE | Conduct a Risk Assessment
25 5.2 Hazard Omission Rationale
During the initial evaluation, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) determined certain hazards were not included in the original plan’s profiling step because they were not prevalent hazards within San Diego County, were found to pose only minor or very minor threats to San Diego County compared to the other hazards (status had not changed), and would, therefore, not be included in this revision. Only hazards that received a High or Medium ranking in Section 5.1 were considered in this mitigation planning process.

Hazard Description Reason for Exclusion
Avalanche A mass of snow moving down a slope. There
are two basic elements to a slide; a steep,
snow-covered slope and a trigger
Snowfall poses very minor threat
compared to other hazards. NO
significant snowfall has occurred
within this jurisdiction.

Dam Failure Catastrophic rupture of the dam structure
causing downstream flooding and the
possibility of human injury or loss of life.

Presents a minor threat to limited
portions of the City.

Erosion Erosion is the action of surface processes
(such as water flow or wind) that
removes soil, rock, or dissolved material from
one location on the crust, and then transports it
to another location where it is deposited.

Presents a minor threat to limited
portions of the City.

Expansive soils Expansive soils shrink when dry and swell when wet. This movement can exert enough
pressure to crack sidewalks, driveways,
basement floors, pipelines and even
foundations
Presents a minor threat to limited
portions of the City.

Hailstorm Can occur during thunderstorms that bring
heavy rains, strong winds, hail, lightning, and
tornadoes
Occurs during severe
thunderstorms; most likely to
occur in the central and southern
states; no historical record of this
hazard in the region.

Land subsidence Occurs when large amounts of ground water have been withdrawn from certain types of
rocks, such as fine-grained sediments. The
rock compacts because the water is partly
responsible for holding the ground up. When
the water is withdrawn, the rocks fall in on
themselves.

Soils in the County are mostly
granitic. Presents a minor threat to
limited parts of the county. No
historical record of this hazard in
the region.

Tornado A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized
by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. It is
spawned by a thunderstorm (or sometimes
because of a hurricane) and produced when
cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing
the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage from
a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity
and wind-blown debris.

Less than one tornado event
occurs in the entire State of
California in any given year; poses
very minor threat compared to
other hazards. No historical record
of this hazard in the region.

SECTION FIVE | Conduct a Risk Assessment
26 Volcano A volcano is a mountain that is built up by an accumulation of lava, ash flows, and airborne
ash and dust. When pressure from gases and
the molten rock within the volcano becomes
strong enough to cause an explosion, eruptions
occur
No active volcanoes in San Diego
County. No historical record of
this hazard in the region.

Wildfire A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading
through vegetative fuels and exposing or
possibly consuming structures. They often
begin unnoticed and spread quickly. Naturally
occurring and non-native species of grasses,
brush, and trees fuel wildfires.

While wildfire occurs within the
adjoining, unincorporated areas of
the County, no wildfire has taken
place inside City boundaries or
had a sustained negative affect on
City services.

Windstorm A storm with winds that have reached a
constant speed of 74 miles per hour or more
Maximum sustained wind speed
recorded in the region is less than
60 miles per hour and would not
be expected to cause major
damage or injury.

Table 5.2.1: Hazard Omission Rationale

SECTION FIVE | Conduct a Risk Assessment
27 5.3 Potential Hazard Exposure and Loss Estimates
The City of La Mesa reviewed a set of jurisdictional-level hazard maps and data provided by the County of San Diego, including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates related to residential, commercial, and critical asset/facilities to identify the top hazards threatening the City.

Table 5.3.1: Summary of potential hazard-related exposure/loss in The City of La Mesa.

Residential Commercial Critical Facilities
Hazard Type
Exposed
Population
Number of
Residential
Buildings
Potential
Exposure Loss
for Residential
Buildings
Number of
Commercial
Buildings
Potential
Exposure Loss
for
Commercial
Buildings
Number of
Critical
Facilities
Potential
Exposure for
Critical
Facilities
Coastal Storm N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise
Coastal Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mean Higher High Water N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dam Failure 129 7 2,720,200 1 302,350 1 6,670,000
Earthquake (Loss)
(Annualized Loss -
Includes shaking,
liquefaction and landslide
components)
211 340 132,056,031 212 64,188,905 0 0
100 Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rose Canyon
M6.9 Scenario 25,203 5,473 2,126,260,500 604 182.619,400 10 48,973,800 Floods (Loss)
100 Year 0 1 388,600 3 907,050 0 0
500 Year 105 1 388,600 3 907,050 0 0
Rain-Induced Landslide
High Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moderate Risk 0 2 777,000 0 0 0 0
Tsunami N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire/Structure Fire
High Fire Hazard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Very High Fire Hazard 106 0 0 0 0 0 0

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
28 6 SECTION SIX: Mitigation Strategy
The mitigation strategy serves as the long-term blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the risk assessment. The mitigation strategy describes how the community will accomplish the overall purpose, or mission, of the planning process.

The mitigation strategy is made up of three main required components: mitigation goals, mitigation actions, and an action plan for implementation. These provide the framework to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to reduce risk to hazards.

Mitigation goals are general guidelines that explain what the community wants to achieve with the plan They are usually broad policy-type statements that are long-term, and they represent visions for reducing or avoiding losses from the identified hazards
Mitigation actions are specific projects and activities that help achieve the goals.

The action plan describes how the mitigation actions will be implemented, including how those actions will be prioritized, administered, and incorporated into the community’s existing planning mechanisms.

In a multi-jurisdictional plan, each jurisdiction must have an action plan specific to that jurisdiction and its vulnerabilities.

Although not required, some communities choose to develop objectives to help define or organize mitigation actions. Objectives are broader than specific actions, but are measurable, unlike goals.

Objectives connect goals with the actual mitigation actions.

6.1 Mitigation Action Evaluation
The Local Planning Group for the City identified and prioritized the following new mitigation actions based on risk assessments, goals, and objectives. Background information as well as information on how the action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible office, partners, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are described.

The mitigation strategy includes only those actions and projects which reflect the actual priorities and capacity of the jurisdiction to implement over the next five years covered by this plan. It should further be noted, that although a jurisdiction may not have specific projects identified for each significant (medium) hazard for the five-year coverage of this planning process, the jurisdiction has focused on identifying those projects which are realistic and reasonable for the City to implement. Should future projects be identified for significant hazards where the jurisdiction has the capacity to implement, the City would add those projects to the City’s Annex.

Rank each of the criteria with a -1, 0 or 1 using the following scale:
• 1 = Highly effective or feasible
• 0 = Neutral
• -1 = Ineffective or not feasible
Example Evaluation Criteria:
• Life Safety – How effective will the action be at protecting lives and preventing injuries?

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
29 • Property Protection – How significant will the action be at eliminating or reducing damage to structures and infrastructure?
• Technical – Is the mitigation action technically feasible? Is it a long-term solution? Eliminate actions that, from a technical standpoint, will not meet the goals. • Political – Is there overall public support for the mitigation action? Is there the political will to support it?
• Legal – Does the community have the authority to implement the action? • Environmental – What are the potential environmental impacts of the action? Will it comply with environmental regulations?
• Social – Will the proposed action adversely affect one segment of the population? Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the relocation of lower income people?
• Administrative – Does the community have the personnel and administrative capabilities to implement the action and maintain it or will outside help be necessary? • Local Champion – Is there a strong advocate for the action or project among local departments and agencies that will support the action’s implementation? • Other Community Objectives – Does the action advance other community objectives, such as capital improvements, economic development, environmental quality, or open space preservation? Does it support the policies of the comprehensive plan? The information contained within this plan, including results from the Risk Assessment, and the Mitigation Strategy will be used by the City to help inform updates and the development of local plans, programs and policies. The City’s Public Works Department may use the hazard information when implementing forestry, street, and solid waste division projects. This plan may also be utilized when implementing water, wastewater reclamation, and environmental projects that are part of the City’s Sustainability Plan.

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
30 Local Plans and Regulations
GOAL 2: Update and implement La Mesa’s Climate Action Plan to support hazard mitigation efforts Address
mitigation
strategies for
drought,
extreme heat,
flooding, hail,
landslide,
lightning, severe
wind, severe
winter weather,
wildfire, etc
through Climate
Action Plan
implementation
actions
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9
Address a risk
assessment
associated with
hazards which
may require
enhanced
evacuation
strategies
1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 7
Increase public
awareness and
knowledge of
damages and
losses due to
climate change
through
community
awareness
1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8
Table 6.1.1: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data
Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
31 Table 6.1.2: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score
Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score
Structure and Infrastructure Projects
GOAL 1: Stabilize the long-term water supply and provide the city with a significant source of water in order to augment existing sources
Treat wastewater and
deliver it to local reservoirs
for raw water supply to
better mitigate the effects
of drought
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Work with other regional
governments and water
providers as part of the
multi-phased program called
Pure Water San Diego, to
treat wastewater and
deliver it to local reservoirs
for raw water supply.
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
32 Table 6.1.3: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score
Structure and Infrastructure Projects
GOAL 3: Mitigate seasonal street flooding through improvements to the storm drain system Improve drainage
system to address
the dangers of
possible flood
damage to public
infrastructure.
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9
Enhance current
regional efforts
with regard to
seasonal flooding.
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
33 Structure and Infrastructure Projects (contd.)
GOAL 4: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people and critical infrastructure, due to structure fire / wildland fire.

Maintain
adequate
emergency
response
capability
1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 7
Develop a
comprehensive
approach to
reducing the
possibility of
damage and
losses due to
structure and
wildland fire
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9
Coordinate with
and support
existing efforts to
mitigate
structural and
wildland fire
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9
Maintain GIS
mapping to best
reflect potential
vulnerability of
assets from
structural and
wildland fire
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 7
Table 6.1.4: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environ
mental
Social Administrative
Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
34 Table 6.1.5: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score
Structure and Infrastructure Projects (contd.)
Goal 6: Incorporate the use of energy efficient systems, including solar and battery projects to reduce the probability of black/brown outs during extreme heat
Coordinate with
Energy Services
Company (ESCO) to
identify City
facilities that would
benefit the most from
improving energy
systems
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Due to essential
functions ensure City
facilities have
reliable energy
efficient systems,
including solar and
battery storage to
operate during a
black/brown out
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
35 Table 6.1.6: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score
Structure and Infrastructure Projects (contd.)
Goal 8: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and City-owned facilities, due to other manmade hazards.

Maintain adequate
planning and
emergency response
capability
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9
Develop a
comprehensive
approach to reducing
the possibility of
damage and losses due
to manmade hazards
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
Coordinate with and
support existing efforts
to mitigate manmade
hazards
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
Maintain IT awareness
and GIS mapping to
best reflect potential
vulnerability of assets
from manmade hazards
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
36 Table 6.1.7: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political
Legal
Environmental Social Administrative
Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score
Structure and Infrastructure Projects (cont.)
Goal 9: Reduce the probability of injury to people as well as minimize damage and loss of existing infrastructure (to include critical facilities) due to hazardous materials incidents.

Maintain adequate
emergency response
capability 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9
Develop a
comprehensive
approach to reducing
the possibility of
damage and losses due
to hazardous materials
incidents
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
Coordinate with and
support existing efforts
to mitigate hazardous
materials incidents
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
Maintain GIS mapping
to best reflect potential
vulnerability of assets
from hazardous
materials
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
37 Table 6.1.8: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score
Natural Systems Protection
GOAL 5: Urban Forest Management
Address extreme
heat, erosion,
landslide, and
wildfire hazards
through the
implementation of
the La Mesa Urban
Forest Management
Plan.
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Implementation
activities include
education and
outreach, tree
planting programs,
ordinance updates,
arborists, etc.
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
38 Table 6.1.9: Mitigation Action Evaluation – 6.1 Data Continued Education and Awareness Programs
GOAL 7: Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation Educate the public to increase
awareness of hazards and
opportunities for mitigation
actions
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7
Promote partnerships between
the state, counties, and local
jurisdictions and agencies to
identify, prioritize, and
implement mitigation actions
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Work with the Chamber of
Commerce, other businesses,
and local agencies to promote
hazard mitigation within the
city
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Mitigation Action
Life
Safety
Property
Protection Technical Political Legal Environmental Social Administrative Local
Champion
Other
Community
Objectives
Total
Score

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
39 6.2 Mitigation Action Implementation
In large part, hazard priorities remained unchanged from the last plan, though some hazards’ (such as Climate Change, Drought, and Extreme Heat) prevalence and/or probability of occurrence increased and, therefore, needed an updated Vulnerability Assessment.

The information contained within this plan, including results from the Risk Assessment, and the Mitigation Strategy will be used by the City to help inform updates and the development of local plans, programs and policies. The City’s Public Works Department may use the hazard information when implementing forestry, street, and solid waste division projects. The Engineering Department may utilize the hazard information when implementing water, wastewater reclamation, and environmental projects that are part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program. This plan’s goals and actions were updated from the last version to reflect current priorities within existing plans, including the El Cajon General Plan’s Safety Element and the city’s Sustainability Plan. This plan’s goals and actions were updated from the last version to reflect current priorities within existing plans, including the La Mesa General Plan’s Safety Element and the Climate Action Plan.

Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title: Stabilize the long-term water supply Action: Work with other regional governments and water providers as part of the multi-phased program called Pure Water San Diego, to treat wastewater and deliver it to local reservoirs for raw water supply.

Background/Issue: The City of La Mesa would like to ensure a stable, drought resistant water supply for its residents.

Ideas for Integration: Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency:

City of La Mesa – Public Works
Partners: • San Diego County Water Authority
• Helix Water District
• Pure Water Advisory Panel
• State Water Board
Potential Funding: • Ratepayers
• Wastewater funds
• Grants
• Federal/State Funding
Cost Estimate: Phase 1 $1-$2 Billion
Phase 2 $3-5 Billion
Benefits: (Losses
Avoided)
Reduction of dependency on other regions to supply San Diego’s water needs. Mitigate long term water cost hazards. Create a sizable supply buffer to combat drought conditions.

Timeline: Phase 1 2025
Phase 2 2035
Priority:

High
Worksheet Completed by: Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
40 Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title: Implement La Mesa’s Climate Action Plan to support hazard mitigation efforts
Action: Utilize City and individual department outreach efforts to increase public awareness of the city’s Climate Action Plan, and on the possible effects of climate change.

Background/Issue:

The City of La Mesa has a desire to mitigate the effects of climate change and to keep its Climate Action Plan consistent with current legislative requirements and supportive of effective hazard mitigation planning Ideas for Integration: Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency:

All City of La Mesa Departments
Partners: • San Diego Association of Governments
• San Diego Gas & Electric
• San Diego Community Power,
• Helix Water District
• EDCO
• County of San Diego
• CalRecyle
• CalFire
• CalTrans
Potential Funding:
• City General Fund
• Any available grants
Cost Estimate:

Undetermined. Varies, dependent upon cost at time of implementation and/or response Benefits: (Losses Avoided)
Keeping La Mesa’s Climate Action current with legislative requirements and support effective hazard mitigation planning
Timeline:
2023 - 2028
Priority:

High
Worksheet Completed by:

Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
41 Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title: Mitigate seasonal street flooding Action: Improve drainage system to address the dangers of possible flood damage to public infrastructure through participation in current regional efforts with regard to seasonal flooding.

Background/Issue: The City of La Mesa has occasional flooding issues affecting roadways and public infrastructure in some low lying areas.

Ideas for Integration: Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency:

City of La Mesa
Partners:
• Salvation Army Kroc Center
• City of San Diego (Easements)
Potential Funding:

FEMA/Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Funding
Cost Estimate:
$2.5-$3.5 Million
Benefits: (Losses
Avoided) Damage to public and private property and neutralizing traffic hazards due to flooding.

Timeline:
2023-2024
Priority:

High
Worksheet Completed by: Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
42 Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project
Title:

Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to structure fire / wildland fire.

Action: Maintain GIS mapping to best reflect potential vulnerability of assets from structural and wildland fire.

Action: Incorporate public messaging and awareness through City newsletters and other materials, educating the public on how to reduce structure/wildfire risk at home Background/Issue:

The City of La Mesa has experienced damage and losses due to fire.

Ideas for Integration: Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency:

Heartland Fire & Rescue / La Mesa Fire Department
Partners: La Mesa Public Works
La Mesa Community Services
La Mesa GIS
Potential Funding:

City General Fund
Cost Estimate:

Undetermined. Varies, dependent upon cost at time of implementation and/or response Benefits: (Losses
Avoided)
Reducing the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people and critical infrastructure, due to structure fire / wildland fire.

Timeline:
2023 - 2028
Priority:

High
Worksheet Completed by: Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
43 Jurisdiction: City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title:

Urban Forest Management Plan
Action: Address extreme heat, erosion, landslide, and wildfire hazards through the implementation of the La Mesa Urban Forest Management Plan.

Action: Implementation activities include education and outreach, tree planting programs, ordinance updates, arborists, etc.

Background/Issue: The City of La Mesa is committed to expanding and maintaining the City’s urban canopy.

Ideas for Integration:

Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency: City of La Mesa Public Works Department and Community Development Partners:
• Tree San Diego
• Urban Corps
• CalFire
• Dudek Consultants
• La Mesa Park and Recreation Foundation
Potential Funding: General Fund and grants
Cost Estimate: Undetermined. Varies, dependent upon cost at time of implementation and/or response Benefits: (Losses
Avoided)
• Shade canopy to reduce the urban heat island effect and improve energy efficiency in buildings • Prevents soil erosion and landslides with soil stabilization • Wildfire risk reduction due to the maintenance of a healthy tree canopy Timeline: 2023 -2028
Priority: High
Worksheet Completed by:

Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
44 Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title: Reduce the probability of black/brown outs during extreme heat events.

Action: Identify City facilities that would benefit the most from improving energy systems reliable energy efficient systems, including solar and battery storage to operate during a black/brown out Background/Issue: The City of La Mesa has experienced extreme heat during the summer months. The City has a high number of elderly residents as well as buildings that have inefficient systems that power them. More recently, buildings systems have failed due to excessive use to keep residents cool, thus contributing to black/brown outs.

Ideas for Integration:

Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency:

City of La Mesa Public Works
Partners:

Energy Services Company (consultant)
Potential Funding:
• General Fund
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget
Cost Estimate:

Undetermined. Varies, dependent upon cost at time of implementation and/or response.

Benefits: (Losses
Avoided)
• More efficient buildings, lowering the use of electrical power • Lessen the probability of brown/black outs
• Diversify the City’s energy supply
• Battery storage and solar at essential City buildings in case of a brown/black out Timeline:
2023 - 2028
Priority:

High
Worksheet
Completed by: Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
45 Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title: Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation La Mesa Safety Element
Action: Educate the public to increase awareness of hazards and opportunities for mitigation actions Action: Promote partnerships between the state, counties, and local jurisdictions and agencies to identify, prioritize, and implement mitigation actions
Action: Work with the Chamber of Commerce, other businesses, and local agencies to promote hazard mitigation within the city
Background/Issue: To increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation planning Ideas for Integration:

Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency: • City of La Mesa Communications Department • City of La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue – Emergency Preparedness Partners:

City of La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue – Emergency Preparedness Potential Funding:
• General Fund
• Potential grant funding
Cost Estimate:

Undetermined. Varies, dependent upon cost at time of implementation and/or response Benefits: (Losses Avoided)
Increasing public awareness, understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation Timeline:
2023 -2028
Priority:

Medium
Worksheet Completed by: Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
46 Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to other manmade hazards.

Action: Maintain IT awareness and GIS mapping to best reflect potential vulnerability of assets from manmade hazards
Background/Issue:

The City of La Mesa has experienced damage and losses due to manmade hazards.

Ideas for Integration: Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency:

Heartland Fire & Rescue / La Mesa Fire Department
Partners: • La Mesa Public Works
• La Mesa Police Department
• La Mesa GIS
• City Manager’s Office
Potential Funding:

General Fund
Cost Estimate:

Undetermined. Varies, dependent upon cost at time of implementation and/or response Benefits: (Losses
Avoided)
Reducing the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people and critical infrastructure, due to manmade hazards.

Timeline:
2023 -2028
Priority:

High
Worksheet Completed by: Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy
47 Jurisdiction:

City of La Mesa
Mitigation Action/Project Title: Reduce the probability of injury to people as well as minimize damage due to hazardous materials incidents.

Action: Maintain GIS mapping to best reflect potential vulnerability of assets from HAZMAT.

Background/Issue:

The City of La Mesa has experienced damage and losses due to hazardous materials incidents.

Ideas for Integration: Actions can be integrated into existing city plans, such as the General Plan, written policies, City of El Cajon Municipal Codes and ordinances codes, as well as any futures updates to the previously mentioned plans, ordinances and codes.

Responsible Agency:

Heartland Fire & Rescue / La Mesa Fire Department
Partners: La Mesa Public Works
La Mesa Community Services
La Mesa GIS
San Diego County HAZMAT/CUPA
Potential Funding:

General Fund
Cost Estimate:

Undetermined. Varies, dependent upon cost at time of implementation and/or response Benefits: (Losses
Avoided)
Reducing the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people and critical infrastructure, due to structure hazardous materials incidents.

Timeline:
2023 - 2028
Priority:

Medium
Worksheet Completed by: Andy McKellar
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Heartland Fire & Rescue

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
48 7 SECTION SEVEN: Keep the Plan Current
Hazard Mitigation Plan maintenance is the process the planning team establishes to track the plan’s implementation progress and to inform the plan update. Hazard Mitigation Plan updates provide the opportunity to consider how well the procedures established in the previously approved plan worked and revise them as needed.

This annex is part of the most recent San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update. The plan was last updated in 2018. See the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2018 for more information.

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
49 7.2 Mitigation Action Progress
Plan monitoring means tracking the implementation of the plan over time. The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be monitored.

Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and State-owned facilities, due to other manmade hazards.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipated completiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ The actions identified in this project are no longer considered FOUO. They have been included in Goal 8 of the 2022 MJHMP update.
• What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? None
• If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? This project is still relevant and remains ongoing
• Other comments
None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
50 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Promote disaster resistant future development Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipated completiondate: Ongoing
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Facilitate the updating of general plans and zoning ordinances to limit development in hazard areas. o The City’s general plan was adopted in 2012, covering a 20 year planning period. The plan and all its sections have recently been updated.
➢ Facilitate the adoption of building codes that protect renovated existing assets and new development in hazard areas.
o Various uniform building codes that pertain to safety issues are updated as new regulations are put in place.
➢ Restrict future development that exacerbates hazardous materials. o Environmental Impact Reports are required to assess risk. o During the inspection process, mitigation strategies are discussed to reduce risks. • What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? None
• If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? Project remains relevant and is ongoing.
• Other comments
None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
51 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipated completiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Increase public awareness of hazards and opportunities for mitigation actions. o La Mesa utilizes established media including web page and Social Media sites to keep the public informed of mitigation activities.
o The City continues hazard mitigation outreach to community members at public events, utilizing trained CERT members to provide information to residents. ➢ Promote partnerships between the state, counties, local and tribal governments to identify, prioritize, and implement mitigation actions.
o The City continues to collaborate with regional partners in Operational Area planning through its ongoing membership on the Unified Disaster Council.
• What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? COVID-10 restrictions somewhat inhibited this overall goal, but did not force cancellation. • If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? Collaborative planning will always have relevance in protecting the community and will continue to be ongoing.
• Other comments
None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
52 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to hazards.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipated completiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practice among City staff. o City staff has seen and are aware of the hazards as outlined in the City’s Hazard mitigation and Climate action Plans.
➢ Explore developing a web-based Hazard Mitigation Planning System and provide technical assistance. o The City has implemented the See-Click-Fix web based program where community members can go online to report hazards they encounter.
➢ Continue to enhance the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) o In 2021 the City’s EOC underwent a significant upgrade, ensuring that the technology remains relevant for at least the next 10 years.
• What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? None
• If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? Portions of this project remain relevant and will continue to remain ongoing. • Other comments
None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
53 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, state, local and tribal governments.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipated completiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Establish and maintain closer working relationships with state agencies, local and tribal governments. o The City continues to support local partnerships, with participation on the Unified Disaster Council (UDC) and Urban Area Working Group (UAWG) and the coordination of Automatic and Mutual aid agreements.
• What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? Occasional issues encountered due to COVID-19 restrictions. • If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? The project will remain relevant and will be ongoing.
• Other comments
None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
54 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and State-owned facilities, due to floods.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipatedcompletiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to floods. o La Mesa continues to ensure finish floor elevations of new development are at least above the 100-year floodplain.
o The City continues to require drainage studies for major projects in order to ensure adequate measures are incorporated in the project and that they do not adversely affect downstream or other surrounding properties. o The City continues to design new critical facilities in such a way as to minimize potential flood damage. ➢ Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of floods within the 100-year floodplain. o The City continues its efforts to maintain flood control channels and storm drains, in accordance with habitat preservation policies, through periodic dredging, repair, de-silting, and clearing to prevent any loss in their effective use.
o La Mesa continues to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and requirement to review applications for conformance with the NFIP standards
➢ Minimize repetitive losses caused by flooding by analyzing historical losses. o La Mesa continues preventative maintenance and inspection of floodway structures, storm drains, etc. consistent with applicable standards.
o The City continues to improve drainage courses in an environmentally sensitive manner to eliminate repetitive events.
• What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? None • If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? The project remains relevant and ongoing
• Other Comments - None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
55 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and State-owned facilities, due to wildfires.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipatedcompletiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to wildfires. o The City continues to require the application of California Fire Code pertaining to Fire Protection Plans (FPP). The FPP will provide for 100’ of vegetation management (per CA Government Code 51182 and the MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Calif. Department of Fish and Game, CDF, and the San Diego County Fire Chiefs Association) around all new structures or require equivalent construction methods as determined by a technical fire analysis as defined by Local Response Fire Hazard Zone determination.
o The City continues to ensure that street widths, paving, and grades can accommodate emergency vehicles. La Mesa also requires 30’ of vegetation management on all street segments without improved lots
o La Mesa requires fire resistant construction materials in all areas. • What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? - None • If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? - The project remains relevant and ongoing
• Other comments - None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
56 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and State-owned facilities, due to dam failure.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipatedcompletiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to dam failure. o Although the nearest dam (Lake Murray) lies outside City limits, La Mesa monitors and cooperates with the City of San Diego to reduce the possible effects of dam failure to the City of La Mesa. • What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? - None • If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? - This project remains ongoing. • Other comments - None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
57 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and State-owned facilities, due to geological hazards.

Responsible Agency La Mesa Fire Department / Heartland Fire & Rescue Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipatedcompletiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? ➢ Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to geological hazards. o The City continue to require a Geotechnical Investigation Report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill prepared by a licensed civil engineer for all building and structures supported on fill. o The City continue to require a preliminary report for all buildings and structures supported on natural ground unless the foundations have been designed in accordance with Table No. 1806.2 of the Building Code. ➢ Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of geologic hazards. o The City continues to require seismic retrofits for major renovations in accordance with Historic and Building Code provisions.
o The City continues to utilize the California Building Code for Building Conservation for non-historic buildings.
• What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? - None • If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? - This project remains ongoing. • Other comments - None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
58 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form
Progress Report Period From Date: February 2018 To Date: February 2023 Action/Project Title Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and State-owned facilities, due to severe weather as a possible result of the effects of climate change (i.e. El Nino storms/thunderstorms, lightening, extreme heat, drought).

Responsible Agency La Mesa / Heartland Fire & Rescue
Contact Name Andy McKellar
Contact Phone/Email 619-772-2897
[email protected]
Project Status o Project completed
o Project canceled
o Project on schedule
o Anticipatedcompletiondate:
o Project delayed
Explain
Summary of Project Progress for this Report Period
• What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period? • Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to severe weather. o La Mesa is currently involved in a regional project to upgrade the current storm drain system. • Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of severe weather o Protect existing essential service facilities by retrofitting or maintaining severe weather utilities and infrastructure such as emergency generators, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and information technology, etc.
• Educate the community about drought, its potential impacts and individual mitigation techniques that they can engage in to help to prevent or reduce the impact of drought.
o La Mesa has developed and adopted a local Climate Action Plan which is available to all residents on the City website.
o La Mesa provides educational materials on severe weather and mitigation strategies on the city and disaster preparedness website and through social media.
o La Mesa has engaged in a variety of direct community outreach events in order to educate the community on drought, its potential impacts and individual mitigation techniques. • What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter? - The main obstacle encountered with this goal was the COVID-19 pandemic and the required social distancing. For this reason, many of the public events that would normally take place were cancelled. However, the city continued to provide information through social media. • If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised? - The goal is still relevant and public education remains ongoing.
• Other comments – None

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
59 7.3 Plan Update Evaluation
Plan Section Considerations Explanation
Planning
Process
Should new jurisdictions and/or
districts be invited to participate in
future plan updates?
Yes, as new business and/or community sector
organizations form during the next project period
Have any internal or external agencies
been invaluable to the mitigation
strategy?
La Mesa Public Works – Engineering
La Mesa Public Works – Environmental Sustainability
La Mesa Police Department
La Mesa / Heartland Fire & Rescue - Emergency
Management
La Mesa / Heartland Fire & Rescue - Emergency Services
La Mesa / Heartland Fire & Rescue - Fire Prevention
La Mesa Information Technology Department - GIS
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Can any procedures (e.g., meeting
announcements, plan updates) be done
differently or more efficiently?
Yes, the continuance of virtual meetings developed during the worldwide pandemic.

Has the Planning Team undertaken
any public outreach activities?
Yes, a variety of outreach activities continue to be
developed and implemented and are ongoing.

How can public participation be
improved?
While we already have strong community support, La
Mesa continues to seek ways to improve public
participation.

Have there been any changes in public
support and/or decision- maker
priorities related to hazard mitigation?
The COVID-19 pandemic showed conflicting priorities
related to public support of mitigation efforts.

Capability
Assessment
Have jurisdictions adopted new
policies, plans, regulations, or reports
that could be incorporated into this
plan?
Yes, updated hazard mitigation plans are part of an
ongoing aspect of La Mesa’s mitigation efforts.

Are there different or additional
administrative, human, technical, and
financial resources available for
mitigation planning?
As staff positions change, and budget priorities shift, this capability may see some limitation of available resources.

Are there different or new education
and outreach programs and resources
available for mitigation activities?
La Mesa is always striving to incorporate new outreach
programs and resources into its mitigation activities.

Has NFIP participation changed in the
participating jurisdictions?
No change indicated.

Table 7.1.1: Plan Update Evaluation

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
60 Plan Section Considerations Explanation
Risk
Assessment
Has a natural and/or technical or
human-caused disaster occurred?
COVID-19 pandemic.

Should the list of hazards addressed in
the plan be modified?
Only if currently unknown, significant threats should
develop.

Are there new data sources and/or
additional maps and studies available?
If so, what are they and what have they
revealed? Should the information be
incorporated into future plan updates?
As new sources of GIS products, and technological tools (mobile apps, etc.) emerge, they will be identified and incorporated in future plans.

Do any new critical facilities or
infrastructure need to be added to the
asset lists?
Not at this time.

Have any changes in development
trends occurred that could create
additional risks?
Any significant changes in development trends will be
monitored and addressed in plan updates.

Are there repetitive losses and/or
severe repetitive losses to document?
According to the 2022 FEMA Repetitive Loss Summary
Report, The City of La Mesa has 2 Repetitive Loss
properties and no Severe Repetitive Loss properties.

Mitigation
Strategy
Is the mitigation strategy being
implemented as anticipated? Were the
cost and timeline estimates accurate?
Yes
Should new mitigation actions be
added to the Action Plan? Should
existing mitigation actions be revised
or eliminated from the plan?
As additional migration actions are identified, they will be considered for addition to the plan.

Are there new obstacles that were not
anticipated in the plan that will need to
be considered in the next plan update?
Unknown
Are there new funding sources to
consider?
Unknown
Have elements of the plan been
incorporated into other planning
mechanisms?
Yes, the Mitigation Plan was used to inform the City’s
Climate Action Plan.

Plan
Maintenance
Procedures
Was the plan monitored and evaluated
as anticipated?
Yes
What are needed improvements to the
procedures?
Ensure continued monitoring and evaluation by Emergency Management and involved city departments during the next project period.

TABLE 7.3.2: PLAN UPDATE EVALUATION

SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current
61 7.4 Plan Implementation and Integration
Following adoption of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, the City of El Cajon Local Planning Group will present the El Cajon Annex to City Council for approval. After adoption by the City, documentation of implementation of the Mitigation Actions will begin.

The Mitigation Actions will be used to inform future iterations and updates of the General Plan and its Safety Element, the Emergency Operations Plan, the Sustainability Plan, and any other future plans that were the Hazard Mitigation plan could have bearing.

Leadership from all City departments meet on a regular basis to review all new plans submitted to the City, and all departmental improvements submitted. Each department reviews all plans and must approve them before moving forward with implementation.

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 9, 2023
SUBJECT: An appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination to deny an application for a Rezoning Proposal Known
as the Alvarado Specific Plan (Project 2018-08)
DESCRIPTION: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination to deny an application for a Rezoning Proposal known as the Alvarado Specific Plan
(Project 2018-08) for the development of approximately
900 dwelling units in four apartment buildings, which may include student housing and commercial uses, on an
approximate 12-acre site located at 7407 Alvarado Road
(APN 469-021-20-00 to -25-00, 469-130-43-00 and -44-
00) in the CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial
Service / Floodway Overlay / Urban Design Overlay)
Zone
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission determination and adopt a resolution to deny the application for a rezoning proposal known as the Alvarado Specific Plan and thus deny the appeal?
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying the application for a rezoning application known as the Alvarado Specific Plan, thus denying the appeal.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 9
Fiscal Impact:

New residential development results in long-term fiscal impacts related to the provision of police services, fire protection, public works services, and parks and recreation services to new residents.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Maintain a financially sound and affordable city government  Ensure safe and affordable homes for La Mesa's current and future residents
 Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA):

Units proposed in the Alvarado Specific Plan would contribute toward the City’s RHNA targets in the above moderate category.

Environmental Review:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed specific plan. The PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from September 9, 2020, to October 26, 2020. The PEIR concluded that the specific plan would not have an adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures which reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No changes have resulted to the impact of the PEIR to date.

BACKGROUND:

The Alvarado Specific Plan (“Plan”) area
encompasses an approximately 12-acre
site along the south side of Alvarado
Road generally between 70th Street on the
west and Guava Avenue on the east in
the western portion of the City. The
applicant proposes a zoning amendment
to establish the Plan as a zoning overlay
for the Plan area. The Plan entails a
master development plan for a phased
transit-oriented development and

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 3 of 9
associated public improvements that would include four development parcels to be constructed in two phases. Each parcel would be developed with a multi-family residential building, which may include ground-floor commercial uses and/or student housing, with a total of approximately 900 dwelling units.

Under current zoning, multi-family residential units as proposed are not permitted and the Plan would not comply with the allowed uses, standards, and requirements established by the City of La Mesa Zoning Ordinance for the subject property. The Plan is proposed to establish the planning goals, policies, and objectives, and design guidelines and development standards for the development of the site. Building design and site development would be established through a form-based approach of the Plan, intended to guide design with text and diagrams to illustrate ultimate development of the site. The site and the Plan are described and discussed in more detail in the August 17, 2022 staff report to the Planning Commission (Attachment B).

The Planning Commission considered the proposed Plan and took testimony at a noticed public hearing on August 17, 2022. The applicant provided a response to the staff report that was provided to Planning Commission prior to the hearing (Attachment C). During the Planning Commission review, issues raised included the lack of public outreach, the absence of affordable housing within the plan, the lack of detailed and illustrative design guidelines and development standards for the plan, and concerns relating to the plan’s proposed height and density. Following public testimony and interactive discussion with the applicant as well as the applicant’s team and staff, and following the applicant’s statement of no interest to continue to work with staff at the direction of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to bring back a Resolution of denial for the Plan. At the September 7, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. PC 2022-07 (Attachment D), to deny

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 4 of 9
the proposed Alvarado Specific Plan. Prior to meeting, the applicant provided a letter opposing adoption of the resolution (Attachment E).

A Planning Commission recommendation that an amendment is inconsistent with the Land Use Element and the General Plan results in an automatic denial unless appealed to the City Council within five (5) calendar days. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Plan was filed on September 12, 2022, by the Law Office of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP on behalf of the applicant (Attachment F).

The proposed Specific Plan is included as Attachment G of this report. Attachment H includes an updated and revised Chapter III and development and design standards.

The final PEIR for the Plan is included as Attachment I.

DISCUSSION:

The General Plan is a policy document adopted by City Council Resolution. In order to implement its policies, other plans and programs must be adopted. A variety of these plans and programs have been used in La Mesa to implement Land Use Policy; including, but not limited to, Specific Plans, redevelopment project areas, etc. Specific Plans are used to establish a link between implementing policies of the General Plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. The content of a Specific Plan must remain consistent with the General Plan, and will usually include an examination of current conditions, a forecast of future conditions, a list of goals and policies, needed public improvements, and a set of development regulations tailored to the unique characteristics and planning issues in an area.

A Specific Plan should be a concise, efficient, well-organized, regulatory document that presents policies, rules, and regulations in a format that is readily understandable and navigable. It is important that a Specific Plan provide clear regulation and guidance to current and future staff as well as to the property owner for development of the property and construction of future projects. Since it is a regulatory document, clarity and precision are paramount for successful enforcement in court, the same as any other zoning ordinance.

Staff review suggests that the Plan does not reflect the desired attributes of a Specific Plan and exhibits many inconsistencies with the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan. Staff provided direction to the applicant in two review letters (Attachments J and K) with the intent of ensuring that the Plan would be a functional document that serves the City and the property owner as a future development tool, as well as a viable tool for enforcement purposes, if necessary, and ensuring consistency with the General Plan. The applicant did not address the majority of the concerns presented in the review letters.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 5 of 9
The proposed Plan contains extensive background discussion and support and rationale for the Plan. In several instances, the Plan discusses the process by which it will be adopted and/or reviews, consultations, or other interactions necessary from other agencies to adopt the Plan. A Specific Plan does not typically include lengthy discussions of background or support for its adoption or the processes that would be completed prior to adoption of the Plan, which are more suited for the staff reports and supporting materials presented to decision makers during the adoption process. The excessive background discussion and processing narrative would not provide guidance or serve a function in the implementation of the Plan.

The Plan states that only objective standards may be adopted and applied in compliance with state law. The Plan also states that future projects would be subject to a finding of substantial conformance with the Plan. A finding of substantial conformance relies on the discretion of decision makers, who decide based on their opinions. The plan also references being subject to the Urban Design Program, which establishes a subjective, discretionary process for consideration of projects. The Plan is internally inconsistent and contradictory in indicating both that subjective standards apply and that only objective standards may be applied.

Development and design standards initially requested of the applicant in May 2019 were provided to staff in June 2022 (Attachment H). The proposed objective design standards provide insufficient guidance for design of the site and buildings and describe design that is far less articulated and varied than shown in the illustrations in the Plan.

Site and building improvements with much less detail than shown could be found to be consistent with the proposed development standards and design guidelines. The Plan inaccurately portrays a level of architectural detail in the provided drawings compared to the text to the extent that it could mislead decision makers and the public to expect future construction to be similar to what is shown.

The Plan states that the intent would be to enter into a Development Agreement with the City related to its implementation. A subcommittee of the City Council was created for the purpose of negotiating a Development Agreement, however, negotiations were unsuccessful. The applicant stated in a letter dated December 29, 2021 (included as part of Attachment L) that they decided to discontinue pursuit of a Development Agreement.

Staff requested several times that the applicant perform community outreach to introduce the Plan to La Mesa residents and business owners. The only notification to the community was the legally required notification for the draft PEIR. The applicant stated that the Plan area has no significant adjacency to other neighborhoods.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 6 of 9
As noted in the staff reviews of the Plan, there are other concerns with the document in its current state. These include exhibits with text or graphics too small to be readily legible, poor organization, extraneous and/or repetitive text, and lack of needed detail.

Together these issues make the Plan a poor regulatory tool for guidance of future development for the property owner, decision makers, and the residents of the City. The applicant has declined to make further changes to the document.

The Plan does address many requirements and is consistent with many General Plan policies relating to the provision of housing and transit-oriented development. However, staff is concerned that many other important General Plan policies are not adequately addressed or supportive of the Plan as discussed in detail in the August 17, 2022 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B). Policies of concern include those related to whether the project is in the best interest of the City, if the development proposed in the Plan fits in the context of the existing neighborhood, the provision of affordable housing, community engagement, and the scale and form of the proposed buildings.

The City of La Mesa has had a long-standing commitment to excellence of design and the City’s Urban Design Program (UDP) states that the City of La Mesa enjoys a beautiful natural setting. This commitment concerns not only the appearance of specific buildings, but also to the community as a whole and is expressed through the establishment of various land use and design policies within the UDP. As proposed, staff suggests that the Plan is not consistent with the UDP as discussed in more detail in The August 17, 2022 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B). Policies and guidelines of concern include those that address the visual quality and continuity of the community including hills and vegetation as dominant physical features and preserving unbroken views of the skyline of hills. Other policies and guidelines of concern relate to high quality design of buildings, building variety, and consistency or proposed development with existing development and character. The UDP does encourage specific guidelines for specific areas, but very little detail and graphics have been incorporated in the Plan to ensure high quality design will result.

The Plan in its current form has inconsistencies with General Plan policies and Urban Design Objectives and Standards as expressed through the recommendations and guidelines of the Urban Design Program. The Plan does not present a concise, efficient, regulatory document of the policies, rules, and regulations applicable to the Plan area and would not provide the clear regulation and guidance desired for current and future staff, as well as the current and any future property owners, for development of the property and construction of the proposed buildings.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 7 of 9

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
Broad topics raised in the appeal followed by a summary of staff’s responses, are provided in bullet point form below.
 The appeal letter asserts that the Planning Commission Resolution is not consistent with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including inconsistency with the City land use and design policies.

The Specific Plan in its current form has inconsistencies with General Plan policies and Urban Design Objectives and Standards as expressed through the recommendations and guidelines of the Urban Design Program. These matters can be reviewed separately from an environmental “assessment” document (in this case, an EIR) as a specific plan is a legislative action, not a project for development.

A legislative land use action is a policy action for the establishment of new development standards and guidelines based on legislative priorities established by the City Council. A discretionary land use action is the consideration of an application for a specific construction proposal for compliance with established development standards and guidelines. In this case, the application proposes a Specific Plan to establish policies and development standards for future development. There is no application for proposed development or a specific construction proposal under consideration. Furthermore, denial of a proposed specific plan does not need to be based on lack of consistency with the General Plan but may be based on more general policy considerations, such as the absence of any affordable housing, dissatisfaction with the proposed design, location of housing near the I-8 freeway, or other policy concerns. If the City Council decides to deny the Plan, its denial may be based on such policy concerns, separate from environmental analysis.
 The appeal letter challenges that the Planning Commission staff report does not acknowledge the relationship of the Plan relative to the City’s Housing Element and RHNA. The appeal notes that the Plan is essential to the City’s Housing Element and states that the Staff Report presented to the Planning Commission asked whether the subject property is “suitable for high-density residential development.” The appellant states that decision was already made by the City Council and is reflected in the City’s General Plan.

The Plan is not part of the Housing Element. The Housing Element has identified other sufficient sites within the City to meet RHNA needs. In addition, the General Plan presents suitability of sites in the Regional Serving Commercial

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 8 of 9
designation as a policy choice to be determined on site by site basis, which the Planning Commission did as part of their review and consideration of the proposed Plan. Therefore, the site is not essential to the Housing Element and is not pre-determined to be “suitable for high-density residential development.”  The appeal letter also notes grounds cited in the Planning Commission Resolution as a basis for denial lacks “sufficient detail, standards and graphics to ensure high-quality design will be achieved…”. The appellant believes these vague statements are not supported by evidence and have been contradicted by documents presented in support of the Specific Plan and the applicant’s experts.

As previously discussed throughout this staff report, the proposed objective design standards provide insufficient guidance for design of future projects and describe design that is far less articulated and varied than shown in the illustrations in the Plan. Buildings and site improvements with much less detail than shown could be found to be consistent with the proposed development standards and design guidelines. The Plan does not present a clear, precise, efficient, regulatory document of the policies, rules, and regulations applicable to the Plan area. The Plan inaccurately portrays a level of architectural detail in the provided drawings compared to the text to the extent that it could mislead decision makers and the public to expect future construction to be similar to what is shown. The Plan would not provide the clear regulation and guidance desired for current and future staff, as well as the current and any future property owners, for development of the property.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notification of the May 9, 2023, City Council public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Plan was mailed to all property owners within 1000 feet of the subject property and interested parties on Thursday, April 27, 2023, and published in the San Diego Daily Transcript on Friday, April 28, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed specific plan. The PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from September 9, 2020, to October 26, 2020. The PEIR concluded that the specific plan would not have an adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures which reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 9 of 9
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying the application for the Alvarado Specific Plan (Project 2018-08), thus denying the appeal.

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

A. Draft resolution denying the Alvarado Specific Plan
B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 17, 2022 C. Letter from the applicant dated August 15, 2022
D. Planning Commission Resolution of Denial
E. Letter from the applicant dated September 6, 2022
F. Appeal of Planning Commission decision
G. Alvarado Specific Plan
H. Alvarado Specific Plan revised Chapter III and development and design standards I. Final Program Environmental Impact Report
J. Staff review letter dated October 18, 2019
K. Staff review letter dated August 10, 2020
L. Correspondence from the applicant
M. Public comments received
N. Alvarado Specific Plan conceptual grading plans

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA DENYING PROJECT 2018-08 (ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN), A REZONING APPLICATION

FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 900 DWELLING UNITS IN FOUR APARTMENT BUILDINGS,

AND WHICH MAY INCLUDE STUDENT HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL USES, ON AN APPROXIMATELY 12-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 7407 ALVARADO ROAD (APN 469-021-20-00 TO -25-00, 469-130-43-00 AND -44-00) IN THE CM-F-D (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE/FLOODWAY
OVERLAY/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE.
____________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the property owner has submitted an application for rezoning known as the Alvarado Specific Plan (2018-08) for the proposed development of approximately 900 dwelling units in four apartment buildings, which may include student housing and commercial uses, on an approximately 12-acre site located at 7407 Alvarado Road (APN 469-021-20-00 to -25-00, 469- 130-43-00 and -44-00) in the CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial Service/Floodway Overlay/Urban Design Overlay) zone;
WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan would require an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as specified by La Mesa Municipal Code (LMMC) Section 24.03.010; WHEREAS, pursuant to LMMC Section 24.03.020, the Director of Planning shall assess and provide a written report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding any proposed amendment as to its consistency with the Land Use Element and General Plan goals; WHEREAS, LMMC Section 24.03.050 provides that the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on each proposed amendment and shall include supporting findings and reasons;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive and consider a staff report for the proposal;
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of La Mesa did hold a duly noticed public hearing and accepted public testimony in consideration of Project No. 2018- 08;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Mesa voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council deny the project and directed staff to return with a resolution of denial, which decision shall be an automatic denial of the project unless it is appealed to the City Council;
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the project was filed on September 12, 2022, by the Law Office of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP on behalf the applicant, Paydar Properties, Inc.

WHEREAS, the City Council did receive and consider a staff report in regards to the applicant’s appeal; and

WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City Council of La Mesa did hold a duly noticed public hearing and accepted public testimony in consideration of the appeal of Project No. 2018-08.

THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the proposed project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15270, which states, “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves”.

2. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan and Land Use Policies and the Planning Commission found some aspects of the project that would not be in the best interest of the City. (General Plan Policy LU–1.1.1) Such issues include, but are not limited to, the proposed building size and form are not consistent with surroundings and existing development or in scale with existing nearby neighborhoods, and the proposed density is excessive for the project site and surrounding area. The plan identifies buildings up to eight stories in height and in excess of 80 feet, thus proposing buildings amongst the largest in the City of La Mesa.

Further, the proposed Plan and massing of the large buildings would constitute a visually disruptive element that does not enhance the visual quality and continuity of the community. (General Plan Policy UD-2.1.1).

3. That the proposed project lacks sufficient detail, standards and graphics to ensure that a high-quality design will be achieved (General Plan Policy LU-2.1.5). In addition, it was noted that the applicant declined to perform any outreach to the community about the proposed development, which is an integral part of the planning process (General Plan Policy LU-4.3.1). Furthermore, the project does not provide any affordable housing (General Plan Policy LU-4.1.1).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are true and hereby made a part hereof.

2. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are supported by the record of the City Council proceeding, including the City Council’s comments and conclusions, public testimony, and the staff report, plans, and exhibits, all of which are herein incorporated by reference.

3. The City Council denies the rezoning application known as the Alvarado Specific Plan (Project No. 2018-08).

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of May 2023, 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 true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023-, 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)

LA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: August 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) – Consideration of an application for the Alvarado Specific Plan for the development of approximately 900 dwelling units in four apartment buildings, which may include student housing and commercial uses, on an approximate 12-acre site located at 7407 Alvarado Road (APN 469-021-20-00 to -25-00, 469-130-43-00 and - 44-00) in the CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial Service / Floodway Overlay / Urban Design Overlay) Zone.

ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development

SUMMARY
Issues:

1. Is the Alvarado Specific Plan (“Plan”) an appropriate zoning overlay for the subject site and is the proposed Plan consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and the General Plan?

2. Is the proposed Plan compatible with the area and surrounding neighborhoods in terms of use, size and scale? Is the area suitable for high-density residential development?

3. Is the proposed Plan consistent with the City’s unique community identity and its historical image as a distinct suburban community? and satisfy requirements for overall design and neighborhood and area compatibility? Recommendation:

1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the proposed Alvarado Specific Plan (“Plan”), the staff report with attachments, evidence on the record, and testimony received, and provide direction to staff to return with a resolution reflecting the Planning Commission’s findings to:
a. Determine that the Plan is compatible with the area, neighborhood, and the City’s unique community identity and that the Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and General Plan, and the Urban Design Program, and recommend adoption thereof to the City Council; or
b. Determine that the Plan is not compatible with the area, neighborhood, and

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 2 of 11
August 17, 2022
the City’s unique community identity and that the Plan is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element or General Plan, and recommend denial of the application.

Environmental Review:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed project. The PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from September 9, 2020, to October 26, 2020.

The PEIR concluded that the project would not have an adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures which reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance.

BACKGROUND:

Project Site:

The Alvarado Specific Plan (“Plan”) area encompasses an approximately 12-acre site along the south side of Alvarado Road generally between 70th Street on the west and Guava Avenue on the east in the western portion of the City. The site is relatively level with a slight topographical variation as it slopes downward from east to west to the degree of approximately 10 feet. The site is bound by the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west, the Green Line trolley corridor to the south, a car dealership to the east, and Alvarado Road and Interstate 8 (I-8) to the north. The site is developed and currently contains a recreational vehicle (RV) resort facility with paved access roadways, RV spaces, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, other ancillary buildings, and three billboards. The subject property has operated as a recreational vehicle campground since 1998.

Prior to this change in use, the site was operated as a mobile home park since the 1950’s when Interstate 8 (I-8) was constructed.

Alvarado Creek enters the site at the intersection of Alvarado Road on the east and continues southwesterly and westerly along the southern
boundary of the western portion of the site until
it enters an underground storm drainage
facility. The Creek flows through a box culvert
underneath a bridge on Alvarado Road and
then a trapezoidal channel with concrete-lined
banks and a natural channel bottom aside from
the concrete aprons near the Alvarado Road
overcrossing and at the western end of the
site. Much of the channel supports vegetation
including native and non-native species at
varying vegetative cover, and water regularly
flows through this section.

Three freeway-oriented billboard signs are located within the project site along the Alvarado Road frontage. One is located at the eastern boundary of the site and is a single-sided sign oriented for viewers traveling along eastbound I-8. The other two signs occur in the western portion of site and are double sided. The billboards signs are proposed to remain on-site. Overhead utility lines also cross over portions of the site that connect to 15 utility poles located throughout the site.

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 3 of 11
August 17, 2022
General Plan Designation and Zoning Classification
The City of La Mesa Zoning Ordinance, Title 24 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, serves as the primary implementation tool of the General Plan. Whereas the General Plan is a policy document and sets forth direction for development decisions, the Zoning Ordinance is a regulatory document that establishes specific standards for the use and development of all properties in the City. The Zoning Ordinance regulates development intensity using a variety of methods, such as specific regulations regarding the use of land; the minimum lot size for subdivisions; limitations on location, height, and bulk of buildings on lots; and other regulations such as off-street parking standards.

According to state law, the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan. In addition to development regulations established by the City's base zones, several overlay zones have been applied to particular areas of the City where supplemental permitted use and development standards are merited.

The project site currently has a General Plan designation of Regional Serving Commercial and a Zoning designation of CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial Service with Floodway and Urban Design Overlays). The Light Industrial and Commercial Service zone (CM) is applied in areas that are generally removed from residential uses such as along Alvarado Road. The CM zone is intended to include heavy commercial activity and light industrial services.

The Floodway Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone F) is intended for application in those areas of the City within floodways or water courses in which flood control structures and facilities are either required or planned to be installed or improved. The construction of buildings and structures within areas in Overlay Zone F are prohibited until adequate flood protection facilities are constructed or guaranteed to be constructed and temporary alternate arrangements are made to protect persons and property.

New development and major renovations or remodeling of property within the Urban Design Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone D) is subject to the requirements of the Urban Design Program and approval by the Design Review Board and City Council. This overlay zone is used to supplement the required land use regulations that are reviewed under the standard provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Projects developed within Overlay Zone D are evaluated on their compliance with both the unique design criteria that pertain to the visually sensitive areas and the general development guidelines established by the Urban Design Program.

The project proposes a zoning amendment to establish the Plan as a zoning overlay for the Plan area. A zoning amendment requires a finding of consistency with the Land Use Element and the General Plan by the Planning Commission, whom provides a recommendation on the amendment to the City Council. A Planning Commission recommendation that an amendment is consistent with the Land Use Element and the General Plan is set for consideration by the City Council in a noticed public hearing. A Planning Commission recommendation that an amendment is inconsistent with the Land Use Element and the General Plan results in an automatic denial unless appealed to the City Council within five (5) days.

The proposed Plan is included as Attachment A of this report. Attachment B includes an updated and revised Chapter III and development and design standards. The final PEIR for the project is included as Attachment C.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed Alvarado Specific Plan (“Plan”) entails a master development plan for a phased

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 4 of 11
August 17, 2022
transit-oriented development and associated public improvements. The Plan would include four development parcels that would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the parcels (Parcels 1-3) west of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Phase 2 includes the parcel (Parcel 4) east of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Each parcel would be developed with a multi-family residential building, which may include ground-floor commercial uses.

Phase 1 would feature two multi-family residential buildings built on a podium deck over multi-level parking in the central portion of the site and a smaller-scale building in the western-most parcel.

Phase 2 would include one building in the
eastern portion of the site similar in size and
scale to the two larger buildings constructed
in Phase 1. The buildings would include up to
five stories of residential units and one to
three levels of parking. Each building would
include a mix of housing types and sizes. In
total, an estimated 850 to 950 residential
units would be constructed at buildout. In
addition to the residential uses, the project
may include ground floor, resident-serving
commercial uses. The project would also include improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel within the project site, improvements to Alvarado Road, relocation of utilities, and pedestrian connection to the 70th Street Trolley Station.

Under current zoning, multi-family residential units are not permitted and the project would not comply with the allowed uses, standards, and requirements established by the City of La Mesa Zoning Ordinance for the project site. The Plan is proposed to establish the planning goals, policies, and objectives, and design guidelines and development standards for the development of the site. Building design and site development of the project would be established through a form-based approach of the Plan, intended to guide design with text and diagrams to illustrate ultimate development of the site. Development on each parcel will require the approval of a Site Development Plan and Design Review application prior to construction. The Design Review application will be subject to ratification by the City Council.

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 5 of 11
August 17, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The General Plan is a policy document adopted by City Council Resolution. In order to implement its policies, other plans and programs must be adopted. A variety of these plans and programs have been used in La Mesa to implement Land Use Policy; including, but not limited to, Specific Plans, redevelopment project areas, etc. Specific Plans are used to establish a link between implementing policies of the General Plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. The content of a Specific Plan must remain consistent with the General Plan, and will usually include an examination of current conditions, a forecast of future conditions, a list of goals and policies, needed public improvements, and a set of development regulations tailored to the unique characteristics and planning issues in an area.

A Specific Plan should be a concise, efficient, well-organized, regulatory document that presents policies, rules, and regulations in a format that is relatively easy to understand and navigate. It is important that a Specific Plan provide clear regulation and guidance to current and future staff as well as to the property owner for development of the property and construction of the project.

Since it is a regulatory document, according to the City Attorney, clarity and conciseness are paramount for successful enforcement in court, the same as any other zoning ordinance.

Staff review suggests that the Plan does not reflect the desired attributes of a Specific Plan and exhibits many inconsistencies with the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan. Staff provided direction to the applicant in two review letters (Attachments D and E) with the intent of ensuring that the Plan would be a functional document that serves the City and the property owner as a future development tool, as well as a viable tool for enforcement purposes, if necessary, and ensuring consistency with the General Plan. The applicant did not address the majority of the concerns presented in the review letters. The Plan in its current state would not function properly as a regulatory tool as discussed herein.

The proposed Plan contains extensive background discussion and support and rationale for the Plan. In several instances, the Plan discusses the process by which it will be adopted and/or reviews, consultations, or other interactions necessary from other agencies to adopt the Plan. A Specific Plan does not typically include lengthy discussions of background or support for its adoption or the processes that would be completed prior to adoption of the Plan, which are more suited for the staff reports and supporting materials presented to decision makers during the adoption process. The excessive background discussion and processing narrative would not provide guidance or serve a function in the implementation of the Plan.

The Plan states that only objective standards may be adopted and applied in compliance with state law. The Plan also states that future projects would be subject to a finding of substantial conformance with the Plan. A finding of substantial conformance relies on the discretion of decision makers, who decide based on their opinions. The plan also references being subject to the Urban Design Program, which establishes a subjective, discretionary process for consideration of projects. The Plan is internally inconsistent and contradictory in indicating both that subjective standards apply and that only objective standards may be applied.

Development and design standards initially requested of the applicant in May 2019 were provided to staff in June 2022 (Attachment B). The proposed objective design standards provide insufficient guidance for design of the project and describe design that is far less articulated and varied than shown in the illustrations in the Plan. A project with much less detail than shown could be found to be consistent with the proposed development standards and design guidelines. The Plan inaccurately portrays a level of architectural detail in the provided drawings compared to the

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 6 of 11
August 17, 2022
text to the extent that it could mislead decision makers and the public to expect future construction to be similar to what is shown.

The Plan states that the intent would be to enter into a Development Agreement with the City related to its implementation. However, the applicant stated in their letter dated December 29, 2021 (included as part of Attachment F) that they decided to discontinue pursuit of a Development Agreement.

Staff requested several times that the applicant perform community outreach to introduce the Plan to La Mesa residents and business owners. The applicant declined to do any outreach whatsoever. The only notification to the community was the legally required notification for the draft PEIR. The applicant has insisted that the project site has no significant adjacency to other neighborhoods and therefore cannot possibly be the subject of community interest.

As noted in the staff reviews of the Plan, there are many other concerns with the document in its current state. These include exhibits with text or graphics too small to be readily legible, poor organization, extraneous and/or repetitive text, and lack of needed detail. Together these issues make the Plan a poor regulatory tool for guidance of future development for the property owner, decision makers, and the residents of the City. The applicant has declined to work with City staff to make the document viable and have consistently demonstrated the expectation that the Plan be accepted as they propose, without input from City staff or community and without consideration of any modifications or adjustments to ensure the Plan works for the City.

General Plan Consistency:

The proposed Plan does address many requirements and is consistent with many General Plan policies relating to provision of housing and transit-oriented development. However, staff is concerned that many other important General Plan policies are not adequately addressed or supportive of the project as discussed below.
• Policy LU-1.1.1: The City shall exercise its police powers related to land use in the best interest of the City to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of all citizen.

The Planning Commission should consider whether the Plan and the development therein proposed is in the best interest of the City.
• Policy LU-2.1.5: Implement the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone by promoting the rehabilitation of properties and new development that fits into the context of the existing neighborhoods while meeting the City’s Urban Design Objectives for infill development.

The City’s Urban Design Objectives are established in the Land Use & Urban Design Element of the General Plan, and elucidated through the Urban Design Program. The three large buildings would be among the largest in the City of La Mesa. are proposed of similar size and massing with no transitioning from the street or adjacent development, and are divergent from the existing neighborhood character. The Planning Commission should consider the Plan’s consistency with the City’s Urban Design Objectives of the Land Use & Urban Design Element and as expressed through the Urban Design Program.

The General Plan’s Urban Design Objectives are addressed and analysis of the Plan in relation to the Urban Design Program is provided below.

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 7 of 11
August 17, 2022
• Policy LU-2.2.1: Create a superior living environment for multi-family dwellings.

The Plan would site all of the proposed units within 500 feet of I-8, and between I-8 and the trolley tracks. CARB recommends that housing units not be sited within 500 feet of a freeway due to air pollution and particulate matter risks. The exterior sound environment is heavily impacted by noise created by traffic on I-8 and by the trolley. The Planning Commission should consider whether these factors reflect consistency with creating a superior living environment for multi-family dwellings. • Policy LU-4.1.1: Opportunities for affordable housing should exist in all residential areas to support the policies and programs of the City’s Housing Element.

The Plan does not provide any affordable housing.
• Policy LU-4.3.1: Promote citizen involvement and partnerships between residents, community organizations, and agencies, such as school districts.

Community involvement is an important and integral part of the planning process. During processing of the Plan, the applicant declined to perform any outreach to the community about the proposed development.
• Policy LU-6.1.4: Provide incentives for Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use development, such as a parking reduction consistent with Regional Standards, for more intense development and higher density residential uses along major transportation corridors or in areas accessible to transit use.

Although the Plan is identified as a Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use development, no specific details are provided or outlined relative to transit oriented incentives or ridership.

Necessary detail to determine how incentives will be applied (i.e. reduction in rent for transit ridership, discount transit passes, etc.) is not provided. There is only general discussion relative to transit discount programs and a definition and brief discussion regarding “unbundled parking” as a transit-oriented strategy. • Policy UD-1.1.1: The visual quality and continuity of the community will be enhanced through consistent circulation patterns, definition of community edges and boundaries, distinct gateways and nodes, and removal of visually disruptive elements.

The Planning Commission should consider whether or not the development proposed in the Plan enhances the visual quality and continuity of the community. The large, clustered buildings would be substantially larger than any development in the vicinity, and would visually dominate the area. The project site sits at the western gateway to the City and would largely define the character of La Mesa to travelers on I-8. The proposed Plan and massing of the large buildings could be construed as adding a visually disruptive element that does not enhance the visual quality and continuity of the community. • Policy UD-1.2.2: Commercial signage should improve rather than detract from the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. New billboard structures are prohibited.

The proposed Plan would retain the multiple billboards on the project site. Illustrations in the Plan show the billboards in relation to the proposed buildings. The Planning

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 8 of 11
August 17, 2022
Commission should consider whether the billboards are compatible with the Plan and the proposed development, and whether they improve or detract from the quality of the surrounding neighborhood.
• Policy UD-2.1.1: Give careful attention to Urban Design Standards related to building scale, architectural materials, landscaping, and other elements to emphasize attractive building and site design in new developments and redevelopments.

The City’s Urban Design Standards were established by the City Council as the Urban Design Program, which is intended to ensure that development is consistent with the City’s commitment to design excellence and is compatible with the surrounding uses and neighborhoods, and the community as whole. The Planning Commission should consider the Plan’s consistency with the City’s Urban Design Standards as expressed through the Urban Design Program. Analysis of the Plan in relation to the Urban Design Program is provided below.
• Policy UD-2.1.4: Building setbacks and step-backs should be evaluated to maintain La Mesa’s pedestrian emphasis and character.

Proposed building scale and special form are not consistent with surroundings and existing development or in scale with existing neighborhoods nearby. Illustrations and standards within the Plan identify buildings up to eight stories in height and in excess of 80-feet, thus proposing buildings amongst the largest in the City of La Mesa. The buildings rise to their full height in close proximity to pedestrian throughways with no or little stepback. The Planning Commission should consider whether the Plan in this respect maintains the City’s pedestrian emphasis and character.

Urban Design Program Consistency:

The City’s Urban Design Program (UDP) states that the City of La Mesa enjoys a beautiful natural setting. As such, the City of La Mesa has had a long-standing commitment to excellence of design. This commitment concerns not only the appearance of specific buildings, but also to the community as a whole. In order to assure the future quality of the City’s appearance and to enhance the beauty of La Mesa, the City Council decided to strengthen the community’s commitment to design excellence through the establishment of various land use and design policies within the Urban Design Program. In addition to the established policies, the UDP also identifies a series of questions in which proposed projects should meet certain criteria for the context of the development. Below are a some, but not all, of the UDP’s policies and questions:
• Will the project improve the quality of life and special form of La Mesa? • Will the project fit in La Mesa on an urban scale as well as the proposed site? • Will the project be a good neighbor?
• Does the project attempt to incorporate the basic principles of urban design? • Is there an overall La Mesa design theme?
• Are new proposals or remodeling required to match surrounding existing developments?

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 9 of 11
August 17, 2022
Staff has concerns with the Plan’s consistency with the policies of the UDP as described below. • Enhance the visual quality and continuity of the community through consistent circulation patterns, definition of community edges and boundaries, distinct gateways and nodes, and removal of visually disruptive elements.

The Planning Commission should consider whether or not the development proposed in the Plan enhances the visual quality and continuity of the community. The large, clustered buildings would be a drastic change to the site recognized in the UDP, would be substantially larger than any development in the vicinity, and would visually dominate the area. The project site sits at the western gateway to the City and would largely define the character of La Mesa to travelers on I-8. The proposed Plan and massing of the large buildings could be construed as adding a visually disruptive element that does not enhance the visual quality and continuity of the community. • Ensure high quality community design for new construction and renovation, and conservation of historically and architecturally important districts, groupings, streetscapes, and structures.

The project proposes a form-based approach, however insufficient detail, standards and graphics to define the project, site, buildings, and products to be used have been incorporated to ensure that a high-quality design will be achieved. • Continue the recognition of the hills and vegetation as dominant physical features and elements of the city.

The proposed building height and scale challenges the surrounding topography as a dominant feature. From all directions, the buildings will obscure views of nearby and distant hills and skylines.
• Provide programs and plans that give direction and guidelines for the preparation, review, and establishment of specific design areas within the community.

The UDP encourages specific guidelines for specific areas. As a form-based Specific Plan, specific guidelines are not definitive. As previously mentioned, very little detail and graphics have been incorporated to ensure high quality design will be the finished product. • Views along hilltops should be preserved. The visual skyline of hills generally should not be broken by structures.

From all directions, the buildings will obscure views of nearby and distant hills and skylines • When new construction is proposed near existing structures, the new work should fit with the old.

Proposed building scale and special form are not consistent with surroundings and existing development. The Specific Plan illustrates and describes buildings up to eight stories in height and in excess of 80-feet which is out of scale within the immediate area.

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 10 of 11
August 17, 2022
• All building design should reflect a sense of human scale and proportion. The City of La Mesa is a relatively small community in relation to the metropolitan area and relies on the scale of the residential neighborhoods and the commercial areas for a significant portion of the image. Careful attention should be given to new development so that this image is promoted.

The proposed buildings would be among the largest in the City of La Mesa. The project is not in scale with existing neighborhoods nearby. The Plan promotes a significantly different image than what currently exists.
• All proposed buildings or structures should be compatible with the neighborhood character.

The proposed project is a divergent from the neighborhood character. The proposed buildings are larger and bulkier in size and scale compared to buildings in the area, and the proposed residential use is inconsistent with the commercial nature of the area. • Projects containing many buildings generally should provide variety in building size and massing. A transition from low buildings on street frontages to larger and taller structures on the interior of the properties is generally encouraged.

Three of the four large buildings are proposed of similar size and massing with little to no transitioning from the street.
• In multiple-family residential developments, individual dwelling units generally should be architecturally expressed.

This is not expressed within the Plan as proposed. Rather, there is a deferral in design and theme to later application submittals.

The Plan in its current form has inconsistencies with General Plan policies and Urban Design Objectives and Standards as expressed through the recommendations and guidelines of the Urban Design Program. The Plan does not present a concise, efficient, regulatory document of the policies, rules, and regulations applicable to the Plan area and would not provide the clear regulation and guidance desired for current and future staff, as well as the current and any future property owners, for development of the property and construction of the project.

Public Notice
Notification of the August 17, 2022, public hearing to consider the project was published in the San Diego Daily Transcript on August 5, 2022 and mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property and interested parties on August 5, 2022.

Environmental Review
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project. The EIR was circulated for a 45- day public review period from September 9, 2020, to October 26, 2020.

Project 2018-08 (Alvarado Specific Plan) Page 11 of 11
August 17, 2022
The Program EIR evaluated the potential project-related environmental impacts: aesthetics, agriculture resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/circulation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, wildfire, and mandatory findings of significance. Of the twenty potential impacts evaluated, the PEIR identified four environmental factors that are “potentially significant”: Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Paleontological Resources. Mitigation measures have been provided and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the four potentially significant impacts, thereby reducing the project impacts on the environment to a “less-than-significant” level. The evaluations, impacts, and mitigation measures are described in detail in the PEIR and is provided as Attachment C.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the proposed Alvarado Specific Plan (“Plan”), the staff report with attachments, evidence on the record, and testimony received, and provide direction to staff to return with a resolution reflecting the Planning Commission’s findings to:
a. Determine that the Plan is compatible with the area, neighborhood, and the City’s unique community identity and that the Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and General Plan, and the Urban Design Program, and recommend adoption thereof to the City Council; or b. Determine that the Plan is not compatible with the area, neighborhood, and the City’s unique community identity and that the Plan is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element or General Plan, and recommend denial of the application.

Submitted by:

Kerry Kusiak
Director of Community Development
Attachments:

A. Alvarado Specific Plan
B. Alvarado Specific Plan revised Chapter III and development and design standards C. Final Program Environmental Impact Report
D. Staff review letter dated October 18, 2019
E. Staff review letter dated August 10, 2020
F. Correspondence from the applicant
G. Public comments received
H. Conceptual grading plans

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Allen Matkins Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27" Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1525 File Number: 391389.00001/4885-0170-9870.1 Via Electronic Mail
August 15,2022
La Mesa Planning Commission
c/o La Mesa City Clerk
City Council Chambers
La Mesa City Hall
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Email: [email protected]
Re: August 17, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing - Alvarado Specific Plan (Project 2018-08)
Dear Chair Torpey and Planning Commission Members:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the applicant for the above-referenced Project. We apologize in advance for its length, and have addressed some issues in attachments in an attempt to keep the volume manageable. However, as outlined below, the Staff Report compels this detailed response.

I. SUMMARY
Rather than provide a recommendation for the Project, the Staff Report seeks input from the Planning Commission by posing a series of questions. The Staff Report goes on to criticize the Project and suggest that it fails to comply with the City’s General Plan and an assortment of City policies. As outlined herein, the Staff Report asks the wrong questions and provides inaccurate and incomplete information. Importantly, the Staff Report is silent with regard to the Project sites designation for high-density residential development and its critical role in fulfilling the City’s obligations set forth in its Housing Element to provide housing in satisfaction of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Staff Report also omits any reference to the Housing Accountability Act, which governs the City’s processing of this Project application. Most notably, the Staff Report fails to acknowledge that the City may only apply objective General Plan standards and criteria to the pending application.

The Staff Report asks the Planning Commission to consider whether the Project Site is appropriate for dense multi-family dwellings, when the General Plan, both in its Land Use and Housing Elements, has designated the site for such use. Indeed, the Housing Element Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1525 File Number: 391389.00001/4885-0170-9870.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
August 15, 2022
La Mesa Planning Commission
c/o La Mesa City Clerk
City Council Chambers
La Mesa City Hall
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Email: [email protected]
Re: August 17, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing - Alvarado Specific Plan (Project 2018-08)
Dear Chair Torpey and Planning Commission Members:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the applicant for the above-referenced Project. We apologize in advance for its length, and have addressed some issues in attachments in an attempt to keep the volume manageable. However, as outlined below, the Staff Report compels this detailed response.

I. SUMMARY
Rather than provide a recommendation for the Project, the Staff Report seeks input from the Planning Commission by posing a series of questions. The Staff Report goes on to criticize the Project and suggest that it fails to comply with the City’s General Plan and an assortment of City policies. As outlined herein, the Staff Report asks the wrong questions and provides inaccurate and incomplete information. Importantly, the Staff Report is silent with regard to the Project sites designation for high-density residential development and its critical role in fulfilling the City’s obligations set forth in its Housing Element to provide housing in satisfaction of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Staff Report also omits any reference to the Housing Accountability Act, which governs the City’s processing of this Project application. Most notably, the Staff Report fails to acknowledge that the City may only apply objective General Plan standards and criteria to the pending application.

The Staff Report asks the Planning Commission to consider whether the Project Site is appropriate for dense multi-family dwellings, when the General Plan, both in its Land Use and Housing Elements, has designated the site for such use. Indeed, the Housing Element

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

conservatively assigns 900 housing units to the site. The Project site is ideally located adjacent to Interstate 8 and steps away from a trolley station, both of which are reasons why the Housing Element establishes the land as an “Opportunity Site” and relies on the Project to provide much needed housing.

Under the procedures and rules of the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not deny the Project or reduce its density unless it makes specific findings that the Project will result in health or safety hazards. To the contrary, the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project finds that it will not create any unmitigated environmental impacts. The Staff Report suggests that the proximity of the Project site to the Interstate might make people sick from traffic-related emissions or harm them because of noise. Both of these issues are thoroughly addressed in the FEIR, and no such impacts will occur. The Staff Report also claims that the Project is not in keeping with the neighboring community and will result in significant visual impacts. These claims also are debunked by the FEIR.

The Staff Report attacks the Specific Plan itself with criticism that the document is too lengthy, difficult to read and doesn’t have adequate design standards. Yet, all these issues have been addressed by the applicant with the assistance of a highly regarded architectural and planning firm, the Dahlin Group, with extensive expertise in the design and preparation of specific plans for large and complex projects. Other criticisms of the Project are all specifically addressed in an exhibit to this letter.

The applicant regrets that after more than four years of processing the application, and well over four million dollars spent on the planning effort (roughly one-half million dollars paid the City and its consultants), there is not consensus with staff on all issues. That certainly is the applicant’s wish. However, we are confident that the Planning Commission will see the merit of the Project, and seek your support for a recommendation of FEIR certification and approval of the Project.

II. THE STAFF REPORT PROPOSES INCORRECT STANDARDS FOR PLANNING

COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT
The role every planning commission in the review of a proposed specific plan is to provide a recommendation to the city council. (Gov. Code §§ 65453, 65354.) Normally, agency staff itself provides a recommendation to the planning commission for its consideration. In this case, staff asks for direction from the Planning Commission in formulating staff’s recommendation. As discussed in detail below, the staff report poses several issues in isolation — without providing the Planning Commission context of the critical importance of the Project to the City in satisfying its State mandated housing goals, or acknowledging that the questions posed already have been studied exhaustively in the Project Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”). But more importantly, the staff report poses the wrong questions.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

conservatively assigns 900 housing units to the site. The Project site is ideally located adjacent to Interstate 8 and steps away from a trolley station, both of which are reasons why the Housing Element establishes the land as an “Opportunity Site” and relies on the Project to provide much needed housing.

Under the procedures and rules of the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not deny the Project or reduce its density unless it makes specific findings that the Project will result in health or safety hazards. To the contrary, the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project finds that it will not create any unmitigated environmental impacts. The Staff Report suggests that the proximity of the Project site to the Interstate might make people sick from traffic-related emissions or harm them because of noise. Both of these issues are thoroughly addressed in the FEIR, and no such impacts will occur. The Staff Report also claims that the Project is not in keeping with the neighboring community and will result in significant visual impacts. These claims also are debunked by the FEIR.

The Staff Report attacks the Specific Plan itself with criticism that the document is too lengthy, difficult to read and doesn’t have adequate design standards. Yet, all these issues have been addressed by the applicant with the assistance of a highly regarded architectural and planning firm, the Dahlin Group, with extensive expertise in the design and preparation of specific plans for large and complex projects. Other criticisms of the Project are all specifically addressed in an exhibit to this letter.

The applicant regrets that after more than four years of processing the application, and well over four million dollars spent on the planning effort (roughly one-half million dollars paid the City and its consultants), there is not consensus with staff on all issues. That certainly is the applicant’s wish. However, we are confident that the Planning Commission will see the merit of the Project, and seek your support for a recommendation of FEIR certification and approval of the Project.

II. THE STAFF REPORT PROPOSES INCORRECT STANDARDS FOR PLANNING

COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT
The role every planning commission in the review of a proposed specific plan is to provide a recommendation to the city council. (Gov. Code §§ 65453, 65354.) Normally, agency staff itself provides a recommendation to the planning commission for its consideration. In this case, staff asks for direction from the Planning Commission in formulating staff’s recommendation. As discussed in detail below, the staff report poses several issues in isolation – without providing the Planning Commission context of the critical importance of the Project to the City in satisfying its State mandated housing goals, or acknowledging that the questions posed already have been studied exhaustively in the Project Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”). But more importantly, the staff report poses the wrong questions.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

The issue relevant to the Planning Commission’s task is whether the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan. (Gov. Code § 65454.) State law does not require precise conformity of a proposed project with the land use designation for a site, or an exact match between a project and the applicable general plan. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 717, Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 391, 406-407). A finding that a project is consistent with the general plan requires only that the proposed project be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in” the applicable plan. (Emphasis added; see Gov. Code § 66473.5.) The courts have required that a project be “in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with every detail” of it. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678.)
The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) also plays an important role, yet is not mentioned in the Staff Report. Insofar as the Project is a “housing development project” as the HAA defines that term (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2)), the City may only apply “objective general plan ... standards and criteria, including design review standards” in its consideration of the Project.! The HAA is addressed further below. The critical point for the Planning Commission to consider is that the staff report relies exclusively on subjective standards to support the statement that the Project “exhibits many inconsistencies with objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan.” (Staff Report, p. 5.) To be clear, the applicant disagrees with staff’s conclusion that the Project is not consistent or compatible with the General Plan, and the evidence does not support staff’s position. (See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, entitled “Applicant’s Response to Staff Report,” for a detailed analysis of all supposed inconsistencies). However, because the alleged Project inconsistencies are with subjective standards, they have no relevance to the Planning Commission’s determination.

III. THE CITY COUNCIL, BASED UPON PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION, ALREADY HAS DESIGNATED THE PROJECT SITE

FOR HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
The Staff Report asks the Planning Commission to determine whether the Project site is “suitable for high-density residential development,” suggesting that this fundamental question about permissible uses of the site is unresolved or at issue in the Planning Commission’s recommendation. (Staff Report, p. 1, “Issues.”) In fact, that decision has been made and is reflected in the City’s General Plan. There is no proposal before the Planning Commission to amend the General Plan to remove the site’s designation for high-density residential development.

In this regard the Staff Report is misleading and fails to provide the Planning Commission with complete and accurate information concerning the context of the current Project application. The information below is essential to understanding the importance of the Project in achieving the City’s

housing goals as reflected in the current General Plan.

I Gov. Code § 65589.5; see 9/15/2000 Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory provided to Planning Directors and Interested Parties by HCD at www.hcd.ca.gov.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

The issue relevant to the Planning Commission’s task is whether the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan. (Gov. Code § 65454.) State law does not require precise conformity of a proposed project with the land use designation for a site, or an exact match between a project and the applicable general plan. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 717; Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 391, 406-407). A finding that a project is consistent with the general plan requires only that the proposed project be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in” the applicable plan. (Emphasis added; see Gov. Code § 66473.5.) The courts have required that a project be “in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with every detail” of it. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678.)
The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) also plays an important role, yet is not mentioned in the Staff Report. Insofar as the Project is a “housing development project” as the HAA defines that term (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2)), the City may only apply “objective general plan ... standards and criteria, including design review standards” in its consideration of the Project.1 The HAA is
addressed further below. The critical point for the Planning Commission to consider is that the staff report relies exclusively on subjective standards to support the statement that the Project “exhibits many inconsistencies with objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan.” (Staff Report, p. 5.) To be clear, the applicant disagrees with staff’s conclusion that the Project is not consistent or compatible with the General Plan, and the evidence does not support staff’s position. (See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, entitled “Applicant’s Response to Staff Report,” for a detailed analysis of all supposed inconsistencies). However, because the alleged Project inconsistencies are with subjective standards, they have no relevance to the Planning Commission’s determination.

III. THE CITY COUNCIL, BASED UPON PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION, ALREADY HAS DESIGNATED THE PROJECT SITE

FOR HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
The Staff Report asks the Planning Commission to determine whether the Project site is “suitable for high-density residential development,” suggesting that this fundamental question about permissible uses of the site is unresolved or at issue in the Planning Commission’s recommendation. (Staff Report, p. 1, “Issues.”) In fact, that decision has been made and is reflected in the City’s General Plan. There is no proposal before the Planning Commission to amend the General Plan to remove the site’s designation for high-density residential development.

In this regard the Staff Report is misleading and fails to provide the Planning Commission with complete and accurate information concerning the context of the current Project application. The information below is essential to understanding the importance of the Project in achieving the City’s housing goals as reflected in the current General Plan. 1 Gov. Code § 65589.5; see 9/15/2000 Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory provided to Planning Directors and Interested Parties by HCD at www.hcd.ca.gov.