La Mesa City Council
July 25, 2023

LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

A Regular Meeting

Date: Tuesday, July 25, 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 Administrative Services Department 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 - VICE MAYOR PARENT

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

4. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS

5. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

6. PRESENTATIONS

6.1 2022 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT 1

6.2 2023 CITY OF LA MESA COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY 27

6.3 POLICE CHIEF'S QUARTERLY OPERATIONS REPORT 102

7. 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.

8. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES

9. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

9.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND/OR REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO

CITY OF LA MESA BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
111
Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:

Appoint and/or reappoint members to fill the openings on the City's Boards and Commissions, and adopt Resolution confirming the appointments and/or reappointments.

10. 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.

11. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 11.1 through 11.6)
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 11.1 through 11.6.

11.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT

OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

11.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING HELD SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 2023
119
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

11.3 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR

MEETING, LA MESA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY SPECIAL

MEETING, AND CITY OF LA MESA SUCCESSOR AGENCY SPECIAL
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2023
124
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

11.4 HOMELESS OUTREACH AND MOBILE ENGAGEMENT (HOME)
PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT (APRIL 2023 - JUNE 2023)
131
Staff Reference: Chief Sweeney
Recommended Motion:

Receive and file.

11.5 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR CLIMATE

ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES FOR THE
CIVICSPARK PROGRAM 2023-2024 SERVICE YEAR TO CIVICWELL
140
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

11.6 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES FOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLIANCE MONITORING
163
Staff Reference: Ms. Hazlewood
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

12. STAFF REPORT

12.1 REPORT ON THE LA MESA LIBRARY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
187
Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:

Receive the Library Expansion Feasibility Study and provide policy direction to staff regarding next steps.

13. COUNCIL INITIATED

13.1 CONSIDERATION OF AN EXCHANGE OF PUBLIC ART WITH THE

CITY OF BAR, MONTENEGRO - VICE MAYOR PARENT AND

COUNCILMEMBER DILLARD
228

14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)

14.1 REPORT ON POSSIBLE CITY COUNCIL SALARY ADJUSTMENT 229 City Council Salary Review Ad-hoc Subcommittee: Councilmember Dillard and Councilmember Shu
Recommended Motion:

The City Council Salary Review Ad-hoc Subcommittee recommends the Council direct the City Manager to create and select a five-member community panel (to be known as the Council Salary Adjustment Panel) to evaluate the current City Council salary as compared to other City Councils in the region, and bring back a recommendation within 90 days as to whether the City Council should adjust its salary (including the Mayor) and if so, identify an appropriate methodology and amount.

14.2 REPORT ON THE DIGITAL BILLBOARD NEGOTIATIONS 231
Digital Billboard Negotiating Ad-hoc Subcommittee: Councilmember Dillard and Councilmember Shu
Recommended Motion:

The Digital Billboard Negotiating Ad-hoc Subcommittee recommends the Council direct staff to develop and circulate, within 30 days, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the placement and installation of digital billboards in the City, to include: (1) a statement of facts identifying the process to authorize digital billboards; and (2) a listing of questions and concerns (for response) raised by the Digital Billboard Negotiating Adhoc Subcommittee.

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

16. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

17. ADJOURNMENT
DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Hilary Ego, Environmental Program Manager
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: City of La Mesa 2022 Climate Action Plan Annual Report Presentation In March 2018, City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which charts a course to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Development of a CAP was identified as a mitigation measure in La Mesa’s 2012 General Plan Update. La Mesa prepared the CAP and established targets consistent with State goals and guidance. The CAP provides a roadmap by which La Mesa can reduce its contributions of GHG emissions in energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and green infrastructure. The CAP requires Annual Reports and an update to City Council on CAP progress. A progress report to City Council occurs every six months.

The City of La Mesa’s 2022 CAP Annual Report (Attachment A) contains a high-level overview of accomplishments since the City Council adopted the CAP. More details on each measure are outlined in the 2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix to document additional implementation details on a measure-by-measure basis to track progress (Attachment B).

Attachment A: 2022 Climate Action Plan Annual Report
Attachment B: 2022 Climate Action Plan Annual Report Appendix

CITY OF LA MESA

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
2 0 2 2
ANNUAL
REPORT

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
L E T T E R F R O M T H E M A Y O R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A B O U T L A M E S A ' S C L I M A T E A C T I O N P L A N . . . . . . . . . . .

A B O U T T H E 2 0 2 1 A N N U A L R E P O R T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 1 G R E E N H O U S E G A S I N V E N T O R Y U P D A T E . . . . . . .

P R O G R E S S U P D A T E S B Y S T R A T E G Y
E N E R G Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S O L I D W A S T E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

G R E E N I N F R A S T R U C T U R E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

W A T E R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E D U C A T I O N & O U T R E A C H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 01
P A G E 2
P A G E 3
P A G E 4
P A G E 4
P A G E 5
P A G E 7
P A G E 9
P A G E 1 1
P A G E 1 3
P A G E 1 5

Dear La Mesa Community,
As we reflect on 2022, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the significant strides made by the City of La Mesa in advancing our Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals. With the adoption of our first CAP in 2018, the City Staff, City Council, and entire La Mesa community have been diligently working to put our plan into action. As we progress toward a sustainable future, we recognize that achieving environmental sustainability requires a holistic approach that spans multiple sectors and continuous collaboration between La Mesa staff and residents.

The 2022 CAP Annual Report showcases La Mesa's progress and achievements this past year, highlighting efforts in energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and green infrastructure.

Notable accomplishments include the successful rollout of citywide organics recycling in support of SB 1383, a 60% increase in issued solar permits, the acquisition of two new electric vehicles for the City's municipal fleet, the launch of the La Mesa Green Business Network, the adoption of an Urban Forest Management Plan, and many other noteworthy initiatives. In 2023, the City will be updating the original Climate Action Plan to enhance our goals and strategies in support of a healthy, thriving La Mesa community. There will be opportunities for the community to provide your input through a series of workshops and surveys.

This fourth Annual Report is a testament to our collective efforts and should serve as a source of inspiration for continued work. I am immensely proud of what we have accomplished together, and I eagerly anticipate witnessing La Mesa's continued growth as a more sustainable community. Let us remain steadfast in our commitment to tackling climate change and preserving our environment for generations.

LETTER FROM THE MAYOR
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT Page 4 of 231 02

GET TO KNOW LA MESA'S
2018 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 03
The growth highlighted in this report represents the diligence, resiliency, and partnership by many within the City, community, and its partners. Some of these groups include the Environmental Sustainability Commission (ESC), a commission made up of local experts, key stakeholders, CivicSpark and CollegeCorps Fellows, and residents. Additionally, within the City, there is the CAP Implementation Team, consisting of subject-matter experts from every department across the City.

As a whole, the City is creating a resilient community and moving the CAP forward while adjusting to policies that require prioritization.

In 2018, La Mesa released its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) and outlines a roadmap to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 53% by 2035 from the 2010 baseline. To accomplish this goal, the CAP outlines 25 measures and additional key actions and sustainability targets to guide the City's progress.

The 25 measures that help the City work towards these goals range from community engagement to interdisciplinary collaborations. While some of these measures are easily implemented and accomplished, others require planning and time. The City has prioritized efforts that require compliance with State mandates and GHG reduction potential.

The City is committed to updating
the CAP as key actions are met and
new developments occur within
the community and beyond.

Kickoff meetings for the first CAP
update began in 2022 to develop a
communications and engagement
plan. Community input is a key
component of the update, and
three public workshops are
planned for early 2023. Visit the
City of La Mesa website to learn
more about how to get involved.

P U R P O S E O F T H E C A P U P D A T E :

REVISION OF MEASURES AND KEY ACTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATE ADAPTATION IN

ADDITION TO CLIMATE ACTION

INCLUSION OF A CLIMATE EQUITY ELEMENT

REASSESSMENT OF GHG REDUCTION GOALS &
ALIGNMENT WITH THE NEW STATE GOALS: 48% BELOW
1990 EMISSIONS BY 2030 AND NET ZERO BY 2045

In partnership with SANDAG, the City received snapshots of the GHG inventory updates for 2016 and 2018 and has seen a decrease in community-wide emissions — 10.93% below the 2010 baseline. The 2020 snapshot was received in early 2023 and is unique as the Covid-19 pandemic had impacts on daily activities. The 2020 GHG inventory is based on the best available data for electricity, natural gas, solid waste, water, and wastewater, but excludes on-road transportation.

This is because SANDAG's activity-based model (ABM) data estimates could not take into account the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). San Diego region wide peak period highway travel was observed to be down 16.7% in 2020 from 2019, but remains the largest contributor of GHG emissions. As seen below, transportation accounts for the majority of La Mesa's GHG emissions, followed by electricity and natural gas.

ABOUT THE ANNUAL REPORT
2020 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY UPDATE
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 04
In accordance with La Mesa's 2018 CAP, the City has published annual reports and bi-annual implementation plans. This Annual Report provides updates on its 25 CAP targets and identifies priorities moving forward. The City has significantly increased its climate-focused work in 2022.

The data reported in this Annual Report includes the most recent available GHG emission inventory data that was received from SANDAG. Relevant updates and project highlights are included in the pages that follow and more detailed information on each measure within the CAP can be found in the Appendix on the City's Environmental Sustainability webpage.

The City endeavors to keep residents involved and informed about the progress the City is making towards its CAP and reach the City's goal of reducing current GHG emissions by 53% by 2035 from the 2010 baseline.

ENERGY
Accounts
27,702
Participation
Rate

95.4%
Opt-ups to
Power100
118
SDCP SDGE You
The City continues to encourage residents to monitor energy use at home through the DIY Energy Saving and Sustainability Toolkit program. In 2022, 14 toolkits were checked out by residents. The City developed a survey for feedback and designed new tool highlight outreach materials.

DIY ENERGY SAVING & SUSTAINABILITY TOOLKIT
San Diego Community Power (SDCP) offers renewable electricity to residents and businesses through PowerOn (55%) and
Power100 (100%). All municipal accounts are Power100.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 05

USING CLEAN ELECTRICITY

SOLAR & BATTERY STORAGE
678
60% increase
from 2021

4.41 Megawatts of Solar
Installed
60 Battery Storage
Permits Issued
La Mesa Stats for 2022:

Solar Permits
Issued

ENERGY
Natural Gas Usage (Therms) Electricity Usage (kWh)
49,332 22,524 3.70M 3.74M
2021 2021
2022
2022
ONSITE

RENEWABLE
ENERGY

MUNICIPAL ENERGY USE
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 06
In 2022, the City began exploring a large comprehensive energy program for all municipal facilities which will begin in 2023. The purpose of the program is to conduct building energy audits, and identify and construct the following projects:

In 2022, the City of La Mesa decreased its natural gas usage in municipal facilities by 54% from the previous year due to savings from municipal pool repairs and upgrades. Since March 2021, all municipal accounts use 100% renewable electricity through Power100.

LA MESA COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY PROGRAM

BATTERY

STORAGE

ELECTRIC

VEHICLE

CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE

CALGREEN BUILING CODE UPDATE
The California Green Building Code, also known as CALGreen, is a set of mandatory standards that promote environmentally sustainable and energy-efficient building. It was first implemented in 2010 and is updated every three years. The City of La Mesa has adopted the 2022 Edition of CALGreen in the City of La Mesa Municipal Code (Chapter

14.04), which will go into effect Jan 1, 2023.

ENERGY

CONSERVATION

MEASURES

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
Grant Funding for
Improvements
Miles of Class 2
Bike Lanes
33 $439K

MUNICIPAL CLEAN ENERGY FLEET

TRANSPORTATION
& LAND USE
New
Commercial
EV Chargers
Residential
Charging
Permits
Issued
10 17
277
Total Miles of
Sidewalk in La Mesa
In September 2022, Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) unveiled their first 17 all-electric buses and new Transportation Services Center. The new fleet is estimated to save over $2 million in annual fuel costs.

SCHOOL BUS ELECTRIFICATION
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 07
The City acquired hybrid vehicles for the Police Department, as well as 2 new electric vehicles to replace aging gas-powered vehicles used by City building inspectors. This acquisition marks the first full-electric vehicles on the City fleet.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION & VISION ZERO
In 2022, the City installed 12 new pedestrian crossings and upgraded 12 pedestrian signals to improve accessibility for all pedestrians in La Mesa. The City has also added bike boxes at stoplights along University Avenue, which increases bicyclist visibility and safety at intersections.

La Mesa is proudly a Vision Zero City since 2018, aiming to eliminate traffic fatalities and increase safety and accessibility for all road users, including pedestrians and bicyclists.

La Mesa Walks
Participants
376
28 Miles of Class 3
Bike Lanes

TRANSPORTATION
& LAND USE

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

BIKE MONTH EVENTS & SAFETY FAIR
In 2022, the City received a GO by Bike Mini-Grant through SANDAG's iCommute program. This funding allowed the City to host a number of events during Bike Month in May, with over 140 total attendees.

Bike Safety Fair
Bike to Work Day Pitstop
Employee Bike Tune-Up Bike Repair Station,
outside City Hall
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 08
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential development within walking distance of transit and other services, lessening the need for personal vehicle trips. The City has two TOD projects:

In May 2022, SANDAG announced the Youth Opportunity
Pass program, which offers riders 18 & under free transit passes. The City also continues to promote the Pronto app.

PUBLIC TRANSIT
La Mesa has 7 bus routes and 5 trolley stations that connect residents to the major areas in the San Diego region.

WHAT IS
TDM?
Telework options
Flexible work hours
Subsidized
Carpool priority parking
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) refers
to strategies that reduce
single occupancy vehicle
trips. This includes:
transit passes 8181 Allison: 147 units
under construction
Jefferson La Mesa: 230 units
completed 2022

TRANSPORTATION
& LAND USE

98% Recycling for Multi-Family Units
99% Organics Recycling for Residential Collection
95% Recycling for Businesses
34% Organics Recycling for Commercial Collection

6.6% Decrease From 2021
As part of Senate Bill (SB) 1383 and Assemby Bill (AB) 1826, all single family homes, multi-family residential dwellings, and commerical businesses are required to subscribe to recycling and organics recycling as of January 2022. This supports La Mesa's CAP goal to divert 75% of waste from the landfill by 2025. La Mesa's 2022 compliance rates are:

La Mesa Passed Ordinance 2022-
2895 on Mandatory Organics
Recycling and Edible Food
Recovery.

SOLID WASTE

CITY WIDE

DIVERSION RATE

26.5%

WASTE COLLECTED

BY EDCO
53,150
Tons

COMPOST BIN

VOUCHER PROGRAM
35 Coupons Issued
Diverting food from landfills reduces methane emissions (a GHG at least 25x as potent as CO₂).

Food scraps, food-soiled paper, and yard waste are placed in curbside green organic waste carts.

EDCO transports the organics to the anaerobic digestor facility.

Bacteria breaks down organic matter without oxygen — the final product being digestate (like compost) and renewable natural gas.

What Happens to Your Organic Waste
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 09

RECYCLING COMPLIANCE
*Core rollout of business and multi-family
organics compliance will be in early 2023.

0.7% Lower Than 2021

Paper of at least 30% recycled content
Compost
SB 1383-eligible mulch
The City adopted an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (EP3) to support the CAP and meet SB 1383 requirements.

When possible, purchases should be recyclable, energy-efficient, water-saving, and non-toxic. The EP3 requires the purchase of:

SOLID WASTE
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 10

SOLID WASTE EVENTS

MUNICIPAL ORGANICS RECYLING
The City adopted organics recycling in all municipal building with clearly labeled bins. To support this program, the CAP team hosted a lunch-and-learn event for City Staff.

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy
The City installed new
recycling bins in parks.

Household Hazardous
Waste Events (HHW)
936 participants
8 Tons of Mulch
Provided to the
Community
25 Lbs of Paper
Shredded Across
3 Events
14,840
Organics Recyling
Educational Webinar
for Businesses
1

GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE
La Mesa's Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) — prepared by Dudek and funded by a 2019 Cal Fire Grant — was adopted on May 24, 2022. Overarching goals include:
68 Trees Planted
in 2022
10,059
Trees Maintained
by the City
New Park: Waite Drive

URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 11
La Mesa has been a Tree City USA for 43 years. Through the 2019 CAL Fire Grant, the City inventoried trees, counducted outreach, and planted trees in public spaces. The City continues to look into best practices for maintaining and growing the urban forest.

LA MESA'S URBAN TREE CANOPY
The City prioritizes canopy expansion as trees provide many benefits; they reduce air pollution, capture stormwater, store carbon dioxide, conserve energy, increase property values, and improve public health.

RENOVATIONS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT
Collier Park, La Mesa's oldest park, is in the midst of renovations, which include low water vegetation, a bioswale, a nature-themed play area, and new trees in the parking lot.

The Waite Drive draft park master plan was finalized in December. This new 2.84 acre park will inlude a naturethemed playground, solar-powered security lighting, an outdoor water station, native and low-water plants, bioswales, and a landscape tree grove buffer.

Community
engagement
opportunities
A sustainable,
resilient,
equitable
urban forest
Achievable
canopy cover
goals
Increased canopy
cover on private
property &
inclusion of trees
in development
Best
management
practices for
city tree
maintenance

GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE
La Mesa Earth Day Festival
April 9, 2022
Park Appreciation Day
November 5, 2022
Staff Tree Training
June 2, 2022
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 12
EVENTS
Tree planting demonstration
and tree education activities.
400+ people attended.

Staff training on proper tree
planting and maintenance. 18
staff completed the training.
150 volunteers cleaned parks,
and 2 new trees were planted
in MacArthur Park.
41 Garden Beds
170
Garden Participants
50+
Volunteers
150
Workshop
Participants
8 Workshops

LA MESA COMMUNITY GARDEN

WATER
685

WATER CONSERVATION
19 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 13

PURE WATER PROJECT
Students attended the student education
program on water hosted by Helix Water.

La Mesa residents participated in in-home water
use evaluations by Helix Water District.
95 La Mesa residents
used on average
gallons of water a day.

WATER FACT SHEETS
The City revamped the water conservation web
page and created indoor and outdoor water
conservation fact sheets. Each sheet provides best
practices, rebates, and giveaways. Visit the City
website to see more.

The City is part of the regional Pure
Water Project, which aims to convert
at least 83 million gallons of
wastewater each day into potable
drinking water. Phase 1 construction
of pipelines, pump stations, and
treatment facilities has started.
200
Students attended I Love A Clean San Diego's
Watershed Education Presentations.
(4% decrease from 2021)
Water device rebates were given to residents
through Helix Water District. 77
28,750 sq ft
of turf was replaced in 2022.

TURF REPLACEMENT
This amounts to savings of 1.2 million
gallons of water per year and 36
million gallons over a lifetime.

WATER

COASTAL CLEANUP EVENTS

STORMWATER PROJECTS WHAT IS
STORMWATER POLLUTION?

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
In collaboration with I Love A Clean San Diego as
part of the San Diego Bay Watershed Program,
the City hosted a Coastal Cleanup Day in
September and a Creek to Bay Cleanup event in
April at University Channel in La Mesa.

Approximately 25 community members
participated in each event, removing trash from
the waterway and surrounding area.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 14
To reduce storm water pollution, city staff, developers, contractors, businesses, and residents are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs include but are not limited to:

When it rains, water flows over parking lots,
streets, and other surfaces, collecting
everything from cigarette butts to motor oil,
washing them into the storm drain.

Everything that washes into a storm drain
eventually ends up in lakes, rivers, creeks,
and the ocean because storm drains are not
connected to treatment systems.

Conducted 150 FOG (fats, oil, grease)
checks for restaurants
Provided stormwater information to the
community through park kiosks
Inspected 360 restaurants for
stormwater compliance
Inspected private construction projects'
Best Management Practices
In 2022, the City:

Pick up after your pet
Minimize fertilizers
Store chemicals in a safe place
Dispose of unwanted chemicals at HHW Events
Eliminate over-irrigation of landscape
Recycle used motor oil & antifreeze

8 Green Business
Network Sign-ups
Green Business
Certification
The La Mesa Green Business Network (GBN) was launched in August 2022 with the goal of promoting environmentally-friendly business practices and supporting the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP).

As part of the La Mesa Green Business Network, the City offers a local green business certification program — free of cost — to La Mesa businesses through a partnership with the San Diego Regional Green Business Network. Through the GBN, businesses are provided with free sustainability resources, educational events, a monthly GBN newsletter, and opportunities to network.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 15

OUTREACH & EDUCATION

GREEN BUSINESS NETWORK
Homes With MY Realty
November 2022
Community engagement is integral to La Mesa's CAP, and the City is always looking for more ways to connect with the community.

CAP VIDEO
36 CAP-Related Social Media
Posts Across Platforms In July, the City released an educational video to engage the La Mesa community on CAP
implementation efforts.

STAFF TRAININGS
The City hosted staff trainings on bike safety,
organics recycling, and tree planting.

Increased CAP-Related
Posts in the City
Manager Update.

COMMUNITY EVENTS & TABLING
The City hosted Bike Safety events, Tree
Steward Trainings, HHW drop-offs, Farmer's
Market tabling, and more.
1

The City of La Mesa continued to participate in the CivicSpark program, taking on 2 new Fellows in September after the first 2 finished their term in July. La Mesa also started hosting 2 College Corps Fellows from the University of San Diego to work on additional climate action projects.

Fellow projects include:

Environmental Justice Report
Citywide Organics Recycling
La Mesa Green Business Network
La Mesa Earth Day Kids Zone
Tree Planting Projects
Transportation Resources
CAP Annual Report
Comprehensive Energy Program
Bicycle Education Events
CivicSpark '22 - '23
CivicSpark '21 - '22
College Corps
Water Conservation Workshops
Bike Safety Classes for Residents
Implement Urban Forest Plan
Climate Action Plan Update
Comprehensive Municipal
Energy Program
100% Organics Recycling Compliance
CAP Communications Guide
Litter Free La Mesa
Community Cleanup Series
Host CivicSpark Fellows & Interns
CAP-Themed City Walks Program La Mesa Complete Streets Project Expansion of Green Business Network
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022 ANNUAL REPORT 16
2023 PRIORITIES

CIVICSPARK &

COLLEGE CORPS FELLOWS

E N V I R O S V C S @ C I T Y O F L A M E S A . U S
WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER!
The City of La Mesa is committed to addressing climate change and fostering a sustainable and resilient community for generations to come.

2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix
ID Measure Description 2020 Target 2035 Target Status 2022 Updates Energy
E-1
Building Retrofit Program
Reduce residential and commercial energy
use
Reduce electricity
consumption by 36.4 million
kWh/yr.

Reduce natural gas
consumption by 260,000
therms from the 2010 baseline
Reduce electricity
consumption by 91.6 million
kWh/yr. from the 2010
baseline
Reduce natural gas
consumption by 962,500
therms from the 2010 baseline
On-Track
Education and Outreach
• In September 2019, the City launched the DIY Energy and Sustainability Toolkit. The DIY Toolkit gives residents the tools and resources they need to complete an at home DIY energy audit. The toolkit contains no-cost giveaways including showerheads, LED light bulbs, and weather stripping, and teaches users the importance of energy, water, and waste efficiency. 14 residents checked out a toolkit in 2022, and over 100 toolkits have been checkout since the toolkit was launched.
• The Toolkit program was made possible thanks to a grant from SDG&E’s Emerging Cities program and in October 2020, the City received an additional $29K to replenish toolkit supplies and increase education and outreach. This included two videos and social media posts about an updated sanitized and contactless checkout process and resident testimonial.
• The City was awarded the SDG&E 2020 Energy Showcase Award and was recognized for CAP efforts and the DIY Energy Saving and Sustainability Toolkit.

The Toolkit inspired the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista to create similar programs • The City continues to update the website to include information and resources to encourage energy conservation efforts and promote rebate and incentive programs.

E-2
Shade Tree Program
Develop a shade tree program
250 new shade trees planted 1,575 new shade trees
planted On-Track
Community Forestry Plan
• The City was awarded a $385,000 grant from Cal Fire in 2019 to fund the development of a Community Forestry Plan. The City completed and City Council adopted the La Mesa Urban Forest Management Plan in June 2022. This will guide municipal policies and efforts for the next 40 years to ensure the growth of a healthy urban forest. The City also works with Tree San Diego and other community partners to provide education and outreach to the public on key urban forestry concepts and hosted tree planting education events for City Staff and La Mesa residents at the 2022 Earth Day Fair.

Tree Planting
• In partnership with Urban Corps and Tree San Diego, the City is coordinating the Cal Fire grant funded tree planting program and communicated with over 700 residents to plant 350 trees in the public right of way throughout the City. Residents sign a tree watering agreement to assist in watering the tree and are also encourage to participate in a Tree Steward Training provided by Tree San Diego.

Tree Canopy Analysis
• Through the CalFire grant, the City continues to evaluate the City's tree canopy to better understand opportunities for enhanced growth for years to come.

Education and Outreach
• Urban forestry information continues to be updated has been added to the City's website. • A "Tree Interest Form" is on the City's website to encourage residents to share their interest in expanding the urban canopy and are provided information on upcoming tree planting workshops and volunteer opportunities.

E-3
Municipal Energy Efficiency
Reduce municipal energy use.

Reduce electricity
consumption at municipal
facilities by 124,000 kWh from
2005 municipal inventor levels
Reduce natural gas
consumption at municipal
facilities by 1,275 therms form
the 2004 municipal inventory
Implement all improvements
recommended in the La
Mesa Energy Roadmap
Reduce electricity
consumption at municipal
facilities by 248,000 kWh from
2005 municipal inventory
levels
Reduce natural gas
consumption at municipal
facilities by 2.550 therms form
the 2004 municipal inventory
On-Track
Energy Efficiency Upgrades
• The City continues to indoor lighting fixtures to efficient LED's as they burn out.

Municipal Energy Use
• Electricity consumption in municipal facilities continue to be monitored to identify saving opportunities, with 3.74 million kWh in 2022. • Natural gas consumption in municipal facilities continue to be monitored to identify saving opportunities, with 22,524 Therms in 2022. In 2022, natural gas usage decreased by 54% from 2021 due to savings from the municipal pool repairs and upgrades.

Comprehensive Energy Program
• In 2022, the City began exploring a large comprehensive energy program for all municipal facilities which will begin in 2023. The purpose of the program is to conduct building energy audits, and identify and construct projects for energy conservation measures, onsite renewable energy, battery storage, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

This update represents the best available data at the time the report was prepared.

2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix
E-4
Public Lighting
Reduce energy consumption in the City's
traffic signals, street lights, and park lighting
Retrofit all City-owned traffic
and street lights to energy
efficient alternatives
Reduce public lighting
energy consumption by 50%
from 2005 levels
On-Track
Exterior Lighting
• All City-maintained street lights were retrofitted to high-efficiency induction street lights in 2011. • Streetlights continued to be switched out to LED lights when a light burns out. • All City-owned street and park lighting were benchmarked in the City's asset management database to track outages, upgrades, and other efficiency opportunities.
• The City's park/athletic field lights, street lights and traffic lights were added to a scope of work for a comprehensive energy program to begin in 2023.

E-5
Solar Photovoltaic Program
Install solar PV systems on residential and nonresidential property, and identify opportunities for municipal installations

6.4 MW solar capacity
installed community wide

12.9 MW solar capacity
installed community-wide On-Track
Solar Installations
• A total of 678 photovoltaic solar permits were issued in 2022. This is a 60% increase from 2021. • 4.41 MW (DC) of solar capacity were installed in La Mesa in 2022.

Battery Storage Installations
• A total of 60 battery permits were issued in 2022
Education & Outreach
• The City website continues to be updated with information and resources on solar programs and incentives to encourage increased adoption of distributed renewable energy.

Permitting Process
• The City continues to expedite permit review for roof-mounted solar installations of 10kW or less on one and two-family dwellings. This initiative has been in place since 2015.

City Facilities
• The City continues to explore adding onsite renewable energy and battery storage and were added to a scope of work for a comprehensive energy program to begin in 2023.

E-6
Solar Hot Water Heater Program
Install solar water heaters in new construction
and building retrofits
5,100 therms/yr. saved 6,300 therms/yr. saved Ahead
Solar Hot Water Installations
• There were no solar hot water heater permits issued in 2022.

Education
• The City website continues to be updated with information and resources on solar hot water heating programs.

City Facilities
• The City continues to explore adding solar hot water heating at City facilities, especially at the Municipal Pool and Spa, and were added to a scope of work for a comprehensive energy program to begin in 2023.

E-7
Solar-Ready Construction
Incorporate solar-ready design into new
construction.
- - On-Track
Green Building Standards
• In 2022, Council adopted the 2023 Green Building Code, which define zero net energy and renewable energy building requirements. These standards are being enforced starting January 2023. Staff will continue monitoring State building code updates and ensure the City's building code provides for Green Building Standards consistent with updated regulations.

E-8
Zero Net Energy Construction
Implement California's zero net energy
building standards for new residential
construction starting in 2020 and new nonresidential construction starting in 2030 -
14,800 MWh of new residential
electricity demand is off-set
708,450 therms of new
residential natural gas
demand is off-set
5,800 MWh of new nonresidential natural gas
demand is off-set
83,000 therms of new nonresidential natural gas
demand is off-set
On-Track
Green Building Standards
• In 2022, Council adopted the 2023 Green Building Code, which define zero net energy and renewable energy building requirements. These standards are being enforced starting January 2023. Staff will continue monitoring State building code updates and ensure the City's building code provides for Green Building Standards consistent with updated regulations.

This update represents the best available data at the time the report was prepared.

2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix
E-9
100% Clean Energy
Partner with other San Diego County
jurisdictions to develop a regional
Community Choice Aggregation program
with 100% renewable energy
-
80% of La Mesa residents and
businesses participate in a
CCA or similar program that
provides 100% renewable
electricity
On-Track
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA or community choice)
• In October 2018 the cities of Chula Vista, La Mesa, and Santee partnered on a CCA Feasibility Study. The Study was completed in July 2019 and found that a community choice program could offer competitive rates to La Mesa residents and business and support the City's CAP goals. • In September 2019, La Mesa City Council approved community choice through a regional program in partnership with Chula Vista, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, and San Diego. The regional program, called San Diego Community Power (SDCP), will began serving municipal customers in 2021 and business and residential customers in 2022. SD Community Power's founding documents also commit the agency to serve customers with 100% renewable electricity by 2035.
• The City of La Mesa upgraded to Power100 and powers all City faciliities with 100% renewable electricity, instead of the defaul program PowerOn at 55%. • In 2022, there are 27,702 SDCP accounts with a 95.4% participation rate, and 118 Power100 customers.

Transportation and Land Use
T-1
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure
Continue to plan for and construct safe,
attractive bicycle and pedestrian paths and
facilities.

Install 3 miles of new Class II
bike lanes (in addition to
existing 12.8 miles)
Install 10 miles of new Class II
bike lanes (in addition to
existing 12.8 miles)
Increase percentage of bike
commuters by 0.3% from 2010
levels
On-Track
Bike Lanes and Sidewalks
• Although no bike lanes were installed in 2022, the City has added bike boxes along the Class 2 bike lane along University Ave which increases bicyclist visibility and safety at intersections.
• Due to new methodology used to analyze bike and pedestrian infrastructure, the City updated its inventory of bike lanes and sidewalks with more accurate data. To date, the City' has 33 miles of Class 2 bike lanes and 28 miles of Class 3 bike lanes. • To date, the City has 277 miles of sidewalk
Infrastructure Improvements
•The City received grant funding to install a new public bike repair station outside City Hall. •The City received grant funding to install pedestrian crossings in 12 new locations and pedestrian signal upgrades in another 12 locations. •The City continues to apply and receive grant funding for sidewalk and bike lane installations. • As streets and intersections are repaired, the City adds bike lanes and traffic and safety improvements if feasible.

Grants
• The City was awarded $250,000 from the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant with a local match in funds exceeding 100% for 12 new pedestrian crossings across the City.
• The City was awarded a $189,000 grant for pedestrian signal updates in 12 locations across the City. The purpose of the updates is to increase pedestrian accessibility.

This update represents the best available data at the time the report was prepared.

2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix
T-2
Bicycle Safety Program
Implement a bicycle program to advance
community-wide bikeability through safety
programs, bicycle tune-up clinics, and
partnerships with bicycle advocacy groups,
local school, and cycling clubs.
- - On-Track
Vision Zero
• In September 2018, City Council adopted a Vision Zero Policy. The policy strives to reduce traffic fatalities to zero by 2035 through infrastructure improvements, data analysis, education, and planning. In support of this initiative, the City:
• The City coordinated with a consultant to develop a La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant.

Public workshops occurred in 2022 for Phase 1. The City continues to draft and finalize the Plan. •Continues to implement the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, which allows residents to petition for traffic calming measures on their streets. • The City has an internal Vision Zero team that meets quarterly GO by Bike Mini-Grant
• In 2022 the City was awarded a GO by Bike Mini-Grant from SANDAG’s iCommute program. This funding allowed for a number of in-person and virtual bike safety events for the public and City staff during Bike Month in May, as well as a new bike repair station. The in-person events included:
•Held a Bike Safety Fair that included a bike rodeo, with 60 attendees •Held a Bike to Work Day Pitstop, with 80 attendees
•Held a Bike Maintenance Tune-Up event for City employees La Mesa Walks!
• La Mesa Walks! is a community walking group that meets Wednesday mornings. The walks are used as a forum to educate residents of City projects, programs and events while also promoting walking as a fun means of transportation. In 2022, La Mesa Walks had 376 participants who walked 109.39 miles.

Safe Routes to School
• The City continued its work with 6 elementary schools and 1 middle school through the Safe Routes to School Program which educates students and parents on safe biking and walking habits as a way to commute to and from school.

T-3
Transportation Safety and Demand
Management Program
Utilize SANDAG's iCommute program to
reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips
community-wide
-
Reduce VMT per capita by
6% compared to 2010 levels
(25.1 daily VMT per capita in
2010)
On-Track
City of La Mesa + iCommute Collaboration
• In 2022 the City was awarded a GO by Bike Mini-Grant from SANDAG’s iCommute program. • The City was awarded the Gold Award for the iCommute Diamond Awards, which recognizes employers in San Diego region who have made strides to promote alternative commute choices in the workplace
Education and Outreach
• The City website includes information and resources about SANDAG's iCommute program to make residents aware of the free programs and incentives available through iCommute.
• The City shares iCommute information and resources with City staff.

T-4
Mixed-Use and Transit-Oriented
Development
Continue to encourage mixed-use and transitoriented development through land use and zoning designations to support alternative
transportation opportunities.
-
Reduce VMT per capita by
6% compared to 2010 levels
(25.1 daily VMT per capita in
2010)
On-Track
TOD Projects
• In 2022 the first TOD project was completed in the City. Jefferson La Mesa has 230 units. • In 2022 a TOD project located at 8181 Allison, was approved. The new development will have 147 units, all affordably priced.

Development
• The City issued 63 ADU permits in 2022, providing more efficient housing options for La Mesa residents. Applications are continuously being reviewed and approved.
• The City received State Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant funds to engage a consultant to assist in preparation of a guide on development of ADUs focused on single-family homeowners interested in adding an ADU to their property. The guide is currently being developed and will be released early 2023.

This update represents the best available data at the time the report was prepared.

2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix
T-5
Alternative Refueling Infrastructure
Development
Support community-wide use of alternative
fuel vehicles through expansion of alternative
vehicle refueling infrastructure.
-
Reduce VMT per capita by
6% compared to 2010 levels
(25.1 daily VMT per capita in
2010)
On-Track
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
• 17 residential electric vehicle (EV) charging station permits were issued in 2022. • 10 commercial EV charging station permits were issued in 2022. • In partnership with SDG&E's Power Your Drive program for parks and beaches, the City installed 4 Level 2 EV chargers at MacArthur Park. • There are now 18 public EV charging stations in La Mesa as of 2022, and 10 workplace chargers were made available through SDG&E's Power Your Drive Program.
• In 2022, the City began exploring a large comprehensive energy program for all municipal facilities which will begin in 2023. The purpose of the program is to conduct building energy audits, and identify and construct energy efficiency projects, including but not limited to EV charging infrastructure for City fleet vehicles.

Education and Outreach
• The City's website was updated with information on EV incentives and resources.

T-6
Municipal Fleet
Continue to transition the municipal vehicle
fleet from gasoline- and diesel-powered
vehicles to alternative-fuel or other lowemissions vehicles. 220 gallons of gasoline/yr.
saved from passenger vehicle
replacement
340 gallons of gasoline/yr.
saved from light-duty truck
replacement
On-Track
Fleet Upgrades
• In 2022, the City acquired two Chevrolet Bolts, which mark the first full-electric vehicles on the City fleet. The EVs replaced aging gas-powered vehicles used by City building inspectors.
• The City acquired new hybrid vehicles for the Police Department fleet. • Alternative fuel vehicles continued to be explored for fleet replacement, with technical assistance support from a CEC-funded Empower Procurement program.
• The City partnered with SDG&E to install 10 Power Your Drive electric vehicle charging stations at City Hall. These chargers are available to all Civic Center Complex staff and the new electric vehicles. The units were available for workplace and fleet charging starting January 2019.

Grossmont Union High School District Fleet
• In September 2022, GUHSD unveiled their first 17 all-electric buses and new Transportation Services Center, which features 9 bus maintenance bays, a drive-through bus wash, rooftop solar panels, and electric charging infrastructure to support further fleet electrification. •This work is based on a fleet electrification roadmap which charts a course to a fully electric school bus fleet over the next 20 years.

Transition to Renewable Diesel
•In 2019 the City transitioned its diesel fleet to renewable diesel, an environmentally sustainable, nonpetroleum fuel sourced from food waste and agricultural products. The change to renewable diesel will reduce GHG emission from the City's diesel fleet by approximately 65%.

Water
W-1
Urban Water Management Plan Programs
Support Helix Water District in outreach and
community education
Achieve water use levels of
103 gallons per capita per
day
Achieve water use levels of
89 gallons per capita per day Ahead
Community-wide Consumption
• In 2022, La Mesa's average residential gallons per capita per day (GPCD) was 95.3, a 4% decrease from 2021. This surpasses the 2020 CAP Target of 103 GPCD.

Education and Outreach
• The City website includes information and resources on water conservation opportunities. • The City's water conservation fact sheets, published in 2022, promote Helix rebates and incentives. • The City also continues to cross promote Helix Water District educational opportunities via social media and other communication strategies. • Helix Water District continues to offer numerous programs to La Mesa residents and businesses, including in-home water use evaluations, student education programs, and local rebates and incentives. These efforts are cross-promoted where feasible. In 2022, 685 students attended Helix's education program on water.
• Helix Water District has a demonstration landscape garden at their La Mesa office, available for residents to learn more about the types of water saving plants and trees to plant in La Mesa's environment.

This update represents the best available data at the time the report was prepared.

2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix
W-2
Water wise Landscape Design and
Irrigation
Conserve water through efficient
landscaping design and irrigation
- - On-Track
Education and Outreach
• City Building staff continue to promote water conservation measures. Additional resources have been made available on the City's website for residents and businesses.
• In 2022, the City created indoor and outdoor water conservation fact sheets with best practices and rebates and incentives. These fact sheets are available on the City website, and physical copies are available at City tabling events.

W-3
Pure Water Program
Participate in the Pure Water Program to
convert wastewater to potable drinking
water
- - On-Track
• City Council approved La Mesa's participation in the Pure Water San Diego program in July 2018. Pure Water San Diego is a phased, multi-year program that will use proven water purification technology to clean recycled water to produce safe, high-quality drinking water locally by 2035. This is a key initiative to provide reliable, sustainable water supply to the region. •The Pure Water Project aims to convert a minimum of 83 million gallons of wastewater each day into potable drinking water, providing nearly 50% of the City's drinking water by 2035.
•Phase I construction is underway. It includes 11 construction projects, including the North City Pure Water Facility and Pump Station, which is being built across the road from the North City Water Reclmation Plant.

Solid Waste
SW-1
Food Scrap and Yard Waste Diversion
Work with local waste hauler to develop
residential organics collection program
Household and businesses
divert 5% of food scraps and
compostable paper
Households and businesses
divert 85% of yard waste
See Measure SW-3 On-Track
Education and Outreach
• The City and EDCO continue to conduct education and outreach to the public and large waste generators. EDCO continues to conduct on-site and virtual site visits to educate multi-family complexes and businesses on best management practices. • The City, in conjunction with I Love a Clean San Diego, offered an informational webinar about organic waste and SB 1383 to businesses. • 26.5% of the waste generated by La Mesa residents was diverted from landfill in 2022.

Organic Waste Recycling
• The City worked with its franchise waste hauler, EDCO, to ensure all business and residential customers received organic waste service. Service started in 2021 for residential, multi-family, and commercial customers; preparations are underway to ensure all customers are enrolled in the service by 2023. • 11,979 households have been enrolled in organics recycling service. • 310 businesses have been enrolled in organics recycling service. • The City began its municipal rollout of organic waste collection in City facilities. • The City adopted a Mandatory Organics Recycling and Edible Food Recovery ordinance, Ordinance 2022-2895, in its Municipal Code.

Backyard Composting Program
• The City continues to offer a backyard composting voucher program, which offers La Mesa residents a half-off voucher for a backyard compost bin. The City issued 35 vouchers to La Mesa residents in 2022.

Community Mulch
• The City and EDCO started a new program providing free mulch to La Mesa community members. The first delivery of mulch available for self-service was in May 2022 at Harry Griffen Park, and mulch was also available at the City's Public Works Operations yard.

SW-2
Construction & Demolition Waste
Diversion
Continue to enforce the City's construction
and demolition waste diversion ordinance.

Projects divert 75% of
construction and demolition
waste from landfill, per City
ordinance
See Measure SW-3 On-Track
Construction and Demolition Ordinance Implementation
• The City continues to implement the 75% C&D diversion requirement for applicable projects. • Additional resources and information on C&D are available on the City's website, including resource recovery information.

SW-3
Divert 75% Waste from Landfill
Maximize waste diversion efforts communitywide with particular focus on organic and recyclable waste
-
12,500 tons or less of solid
waste disposed in landfills
(75% waste diversion)
On-Track Recycling Receptacles
• The City used its Beverage Container Recycling City Grant to purchase new City recycling receptacles for use at City parks.

This update represents the best available data at the time the report was prepared.

2022 CAP Annual Report Appendix
Green Infrastructure
GI-1
Urban Forest Master Plan
Support the development and maintenance
of a healthy urban forest
500 net new trees planted
from 2015 onward See measure GI-2 On-Track
Community Forestry Plan
• The City was awarded a $385,000 grant from Cal Fire in 2019 to fund the development of a Community Forestry Plan. The City worked with Dudek, a consulting company, to create an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). Dudek hosted 6 working group meetings comprised of members of the community in addition to conducting a survey, receiving 116 responses from La Mesa residents. The UFMP was officially adopted in May 2022 and will guide municipal policies and efforts for the next 40 years to ensure the growth of a healthy urban forest. • The City is actively analyzing the UFMP recommendations to determine feasible next steps to increase urban canopy cover, including exploring options to adopt a comprehensive tree protection ordinance for public and private trees and implementing a private property tree planting program. •The City continues to work with Tree San Diego and other community partners to provide education and outreach to the public on key urban forestry concepts.

City Tree Inventory Update
• The City continues to add to the 2019 inventory of all City-maintained trees. The City maintains 10,059 trees across the City as of the end of 2022. The updated information will provide key data on the size and health of trees in parks and the right of way, and also identify new locations suitable for additional trees in the future.
• As of 2022, La Mesa has been a Tree City USA through the Arbor Day Foundation for 43 years.

GI-2
Expanded Urban Forestry
Increase La Mesa's urban forest canopy
coverage
-
Increase tree canopy by
1,400 acres from 2014
baseline
On-Track
Tree Planting
• In partnership with Urban Corps and Tree San Diego, the City is coordinating the Cal Fire grant funded tree planting program and has communicated with over 700 residents to plant 350 trees in public rights-of-way throughout the City. • In exchange for the tree, residents sign a tree watering agreement, committing to watering the tree for a period of 4+ years. Residents are also encouraged to participate in Tree Steward Trainings provided by Tree San Diego. • In 2022, 68 new trees were planted in La Mesa, 43 of which were a part of the Cal Fire grant program. •To ensure the health of the existing canopy, the City has had to remove trees due to pest and diseases.

Tree Canopy Analysis
• Through the CalFire grant, the City continues to evaluate the City's tree canopy to better understand opportunities for enhanced growth for years to come.

Education and Outreach
• Urban forestry information is continually updated on the City's website. • A "Tree Interest Form" has been added to the City's website to encourage residents to share their interest in expanding the urban canopy. Residents are provided with information on upcoming tree planting workshops and volunteer opportunities. • The City conducted outreach for the 2019 CAL Fire Grant free street tree program through social media, the City Manager newsletter, and tabling at events.

This update represents the best available data at the time the report was prepared.

DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Greg Humora, City Manager
VIA: Lyn Dedmon, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: 2023 City of La Mesa Community Opinion Survey
______________________________________________________________________________ In 2006, the City began conducting a statistically valid public opinion community survey to identify key resident concerns and measure overall satisfaction with City operations.

Since then, the survey has been conducted every two years which has enabled the City to track trends. The survey is designed to gather opinions on specific topics, including public safety, City services, code enforcement, communication and overall quality of life.

For the 2023 Community Opinion Survey, the independent survey research firm True North Research (True North) randomly selected 1,069 La Mesa residents to participate.

True North designed the sampling methodology to ensure that respondents were equally represented from four quadrants of the City. Respondents were offered the option (in English and Spanish) to participate by telephone or online between May 1 and May 9, 2023. True North used a combination of mailed invitations, email, and phone calls to recruit participation in the survey from the randomly selected residents.

Attached is the 2023 Community Opinion Survey Summary Report (Summary Report).

The Summary Report provides an overview of key findings (page 4), a detailed discussion of each question (starts on page 10), and describes the methodology utilized for collecting and analyzing the data (page 54).

Dr. Timothy McLarney, President of True North, will present the results of the survey and be available to answer any questions.

Attachments:

A: Summary Report: 2023 City of La Mesa Community Opinion Survey

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table of Contents
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Ways to Improve Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Performance Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Public Safety & Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Perceived Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Neighborhood Watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Ratings of Police Department’s Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Professionalism, Trust, Accountability & Equal Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Interactions with Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Code Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Traffic Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Staff Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Preferred Social Media Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table of Contents
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 City’s Website. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

List of Tables
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Top Changes to Improve La Mesa by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2 Importance of Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 3 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 4 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfaction With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 5 Resident Service Needs & Priorities Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 6 Perceptions of Personal Safety by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 7 Opinion of Police Performance by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 8 Agreement With Statements About Police Department by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 9 Perception of Traffic Circulation by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 10 Opinion of City Staff by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 11 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Age & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table 12 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Satisfaction With Communication & Opinion of Police Department (Showing % Very Effective) . . . . . 48 Table 13 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Very Effective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table 14 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Quadrant of City & Child in Hsld (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table 15 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

List of Figures
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quadrants Identified in Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 Overall Quality of Life by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3 Overall Quality of Life by Years in La Mesa, Home Ownership Status & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 4 Overall Quality of Life by Age & Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 5 Overall Quality of Life by Quadrant of City, Child in Hsld, Gender & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 6 Changes to Improve La Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 8 Overall Satisfaction by Years in La Mesa, Home Ownership Status & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 9 Overall Satisfaction by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 10 Overall Satisfaction by Quadrant of City, Child in Hsld, Gender & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 11 Importance of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 12 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 13 Resident Service Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 14 Perceived Safety of City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 15 Perceived Safety of City by Years in La Mesa, Home Ownership & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 16 Perceived Safety of City by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 17 Perceived Safety of City by Quadrant of City, Child in Hsld, Gender & Overall Satisfaction24
Figure 18 Perceptions of Personal Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 19 Perceptions of Personal Safety by Age & In Neighborhood Watch Program . . . . . . 26 Figure 20 Perceptions of Personal Safety by Quadrant of City & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 21 Perceptions of Personal Safety by Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 22 Perceptions of Personal Safety by Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 23 Involved in Neighborhood Watch Program by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 24 Involved in Neighborhood Watch Program by Years in La Mesa, Home Ownership Status & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 25 Involved in Neighborhood Watch Program by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 26 Involved in Neighborhood Watch Program by Quadrant of City, Child in Hsld, Gender & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 27 Opinion of Police Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 28 Agreement With Statements About Police Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 29 Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 30 Opinion of Police Department by Years in La Mesa, Perceived Safety of City & In Neighborhood Watch Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 31 Opinion of Police Department by Home Ownership Status, Gender & Quadrant of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 32 Opinion of Police Department by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 33 Opinion of Police Department by Contact With Staff, Interacted WIth Police Department in Past 2 Years, Child in Hsld & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 34 Interactions With La Mesa Police Department in Past 2 Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 35 Interactions With La Mesa Police Department in Past 2 Years by Age & In Neighborhood Watch Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 36 Interactions With La Mesa Police Department in Past 2 Years by Quadrant of City & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 37 Interactions With La Mesa Police Department in Past 2 Years by Opinion of Police Department & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 38 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

List of Figures
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Figure 39 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Years in La Mesa, Home Ownership Status & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 40 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 41 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Quadrant, Child in Hsld, Gender & Perceived Safety of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 42 Reason For Dissatisfaction With Code Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 43 Perception of Traffic Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 44 Perception of Traffic Circulation Overall by Quadrant of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 45 Perception of Traffic Circulation on Major Streets by Quadrant of City. . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 46 Perception of Traffic Circulation in Residential Areas by Quadrant of City . . . . . . . 40 Figure 47 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 48 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Age & Quadrant of City . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 49 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity, Overall Satisfaction & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 50 Opinion of City Staff (Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 51 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 52 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in La Mesa, Visited City Website & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 53 Satisfaction With Communication by Age & Quadrant of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 54 Satisfaction With Communication by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 55 Satisfaction With Communication by Perceived Safety of City, Interacted With Police Department in Past 2 Years & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 56 Effectiveness of Communication Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 57 Preferred Social Media Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 58 Preferred Social Media Site by Years in La Mesa & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 59 Preferred Social Media Site by Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status, Quadrant of City & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 60 Preferred Social Media Site by Opinion of Police Department & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 61 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 62 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Years in La Mesa, Contact With City Staff & Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 63 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Quadrant of City, Age & Child in Hsld. . . . 52 Figure 64 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Home Ownership Status, Gender & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 65 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Introduction
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
Known as the Jewel of the Hills, the City of La Mesa encompasses approximately nine square miles in the rolling hills of southern San Diego County. Incorporated as a general law city in 1912, La Mesa has a rich and colorful history that extends more than a century from its agricultural origins in the late 1800s and has been well-preserved throughout the City with more than three-dozen historical landmarks. Today, La Mesa is home to an estimated 60,418 residents1 and has a team of full-time and part-time employees that provides a full suite of services to the community through seven primary departments: City Manager’s Office, Community Development, Community Services, Finance, Fire, Police, and Public Works.

As part of its commitment to provide high quality services and responsive local governance, the City of La Mesa engages its residents on a daily basis and receives regular feedback on issue, policy, and performance matters. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recognize that they do not necessarily provide a statistically accurate picture of the community as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias. The City receives feedback only from those residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased with the service they have received, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current study was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services and facilities provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report will provide Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas, including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, policy, and planning. To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to:
• Identify key issues of concern for residents, as well as their perceptions of the City. • Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, as well as their satisfaction with a variety of specific services. • Determine the effectiveness of the City’s communication with residents. • Gather opinions on specific topics including public safety and policing, traffic, and code enforcement.
• Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding residents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

This is not the first statistically reliable ‘resident satisfaction’ survey conducted for the City— similar studies have been implemented in prior years dating back to 1989, with the most recent being completed by True North in 2006, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Because of

1. Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, January 2023.

Introduction
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 the natural interest in tracking the City’s performance in meeting the evolving needs of its residents, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions included in previous studies.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE Many figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2023 alongside the results found in prior surveys for identical questions. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the most recent prior survey (2021) and the current (2023)—as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at random. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2023.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 54). In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 1,069 adults who reside within the City of La Mesa. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English and Spanish between May 1 and May 9, 2023, the average telephone interview lasted 20 minutes. For sampling and analytical purposes, all respondents were grouped into one of four geographic subareas (quadrants) shown in Figure 1 based on the location of their residence.

FIGURE 1 QUADRANTS IDENTIFIED IN STUDY
n¤
n¤
n¤
n¤
n¤
Lake Murray
!"#$8
!"#$8
!"#$8
!"#$8
·|}þ125
·|}þ125
·|}þ125
·|}þ94
Jackson Drive
Spring Street
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
Northwest
Data Sources:

Parcels. SanGIS: January 2011
Roads: SanGIS: July 2010
Quadrants: City of La Mesa: February 2011
1 inch = 2,617 feet
0 1,400 2,800 700
I Feet

OPINION SURVEY

QUADRANTS
City of
San Diego
City of El Cajon
County
of
San Diego City of
Lemon Grove

Introduction
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer format. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 57), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the staff at the City of La Mesa who contributed their valuable input during the design stage of this study. Their collective experience, local knowledge, and insight improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors—Dr.

Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles at True North Research—and not necessarily those of the City of La Mesa. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, organizational development, establishing fiscal priorities, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of La Mesa with a statistically reliable understanding of the opinions, priorities, and concerns of its residents. Operating from the philosophy that you can’t manage what you don’t measure, since 1989 La Mesa has periodically used the survey as a community needs assessment and performance measurement tool. In short, the study presents an opportunity to profile residents’ needs and priorities, measure how well the City is performing in meeting these needs through existing services and facilities, and gather data on a variety of quality-of-life, issue, and policy-related matters. More than just a profiling exercise, the City has been a leader in using the information gained from the surveys to adjust and improve its services—all toward the goal of building and sustaining a high level of community satisfaction.

Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer the key questions that motivated the research.

What is the context for
the 2023 Community
Opinion Survey?
The past few years leading up to the 2023 Community Opinion Survey were punctuated by a series of difficult and dramatic events in La Mesa.

The coronavirus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened livelihoods, and forced dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. Although many of the public health restrictions were eased in 2021 with the advent of vaccines, the negative impacts of the pandemic continued near full force in terms of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and economic disruptions. Indeed, 2021 proved to be an even deadlier year for the pandemic than 2020, and 2022 started with the number of 7-day average cases and deaths higher than anything witnessed in 2020.

Although the public health impacts of the pandemic eased in 2022, the economic fallout (labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, and inflationary trends) continued and in some cases increased. Inflation hit a 40- year high, equities remain well below where they began the year, and both the cost of housing and the cost of borrowing for a mortgage trended sharply upward.

Of course, the pandemic and related economic impacts were not the only challenges during this period. The killing of George Floyd in May 2020 during an arrest in Minneapolis sparked outrage, prompted thousands of protests across the nation, and prompted a national discussion about structural racism and calls for social justice reforms. Adding to the charged atmosphere felt nationally was a local arrest that prompted a weekend of protests in La Mesa that were initially peaceful but later devolved into violence, looting, vandalism, and clashes between protesters and police.

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Even nature conspired to make this a difficult period, with weather ranging from severe drought and heat waves to unseasonably low temperatures with higher than average rain and flooding—straining residents’ utility budgets and patience.

The events of the past three years form the backdrop necessary for understanding and interpreting the results of the 2023 Community Opinion Survey. Although the vast majority of La Mesa residents continue to have positive opinions about the overall quality of life in the City and are satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, many of the metrics tracked in the survey were understandably lower in 2023 when compared to past surveys.

How do residents view
the quality of life in La
Mesa and the City’s performance?
Approximately three-quarters (73%) of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in La Mesa in 2023, with 17% reporting it is excellent and 56% stating it is good. An additional 24% of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, while less than 3% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in the La Mesa. Over the past few years, the percentage who rated the quality of life in the City as excellent or good declined significantly (-12%), while the percentage who rated it as fair increased 10% (see Quality of Life on page 10). It is noteworthy that during this same period, concerns about homelessness, lack of affordable housing, and public safety also increased.

Likewise, approximately seven-in-ten residents (71%) surveyed in 2023 indicated they were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services. Although a solid satisfaction score considering the circumstances, it is approximately 10% lower than the level recorded in 2021, with all of that movement coming from the very satisfied category (see Overall Satisfaction on page 14).

When asked to rate the City’s performance in providing 21 specific services, the vast majority of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City performance for all but three (3) service areas, with satisfaction being highest for fire protection services (92% very or somewhat satisfied), emergency medical services (88%), keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (84%), maintaining parks and sports fields (81%), providing community events (80%), and providing animal control services (80%). Although satisfaction levels remained high for most service areas in 2023, the levels of satisfaction were lower this year when compared to 2021 (see Specific Services on page 16).

How do residents view
City staff’s performance?
Staff members at the City of La Mesa are often the “face” of the City for residents who are using city facilities, participating in various programs or events, or in need of assistance from the City on any number of matters. City staff were a bright spot in the 2023 Community Opinion Survey. Close to one-quarter (24%) of respondents indicated that they had

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 contacted La Mesa staff at least once during the 12 months prior to the interview, and at least 85% of residents indicated that staff members were professional (93%), responsive (86%), and helpful (85%) during these interactions. The positive findings for staff’s performance in 2023 are consistent with those recorded in prior survey cycles (see Staff Interactions on page 41).

Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a key goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust services, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although residents were generally satisfied with the City’s performance in many areas (as described above), there is always room for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they feel city government could do to make La Mesa a better place to live (see Ways to Improve Quality of Life on page 12), as well as the list of services and their respective priority status for future city attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 20), the top priorities for residents are addressing homelessness, facilitating the creation of affordable housing, maintaining and repairing streets, providing neighborhood police patrols, and creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community.

With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, as in past years it is equally important to stress that when it comes to improving satisfaction in service areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better communication and actual service improvements. That is, in some cases service improvements are needed to raise satisfaction with the City’s performance. In other cases, particularly those that involve policies affecting services and facilities which are not readily apparent, the key may instead be to communicate better with residents about current efforts and future plans with respect to a particular service area. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware that the City has taken action to address homelessness through its 2021 to 2026 Homeless Action Plan and Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) Program developed through recommendations provided by the Citizen's Task Force on Homelessness. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvements, policy changes, and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfaction in the short- and long-term.

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 What do the survey
results reveal about residents’ perceptions of the
Police Department?
The 2021 and 2023 surveys addressed public perceptions of safety and the La Mesa Police Department head-on. In addition to questions that were included in past surveys designed to track the Department’s performance in maintaining a low crime rate, providing crime prevention programs, and providing neighborhood police patrols, a suite of new questions was added to provide a more nuanced understanding of how residents perceive the Department’s interactions with the community and how they characterize the Department when it comes to professionalism, trustworthiness, and accountability (2021 & 2023), as well as equal treatment of residents (new in 2023).

With respect to the safety of La Mesa as a place to live, 85% of residents described the City as either very safe or somewhat safe, and this pattern was strikingly consistent across most demographic subgroups (see Perceived Safety on page 23). However, the percentage of residents who felt very safe experienced a statistically significant decline between 2021 and 2023 (-7%), as did their overall perception of safety (85% vs. 88%).

Interestingly, however, in more specific safety scenarios there were no statistically significant changes during the past two years. During daylight hours, nine-in-ten residents who provided an opinion felt safe walking alone in their neighborhood (93%) or in business and retail areas (90%), and eight-in-ten (80%) felt safe walking alone in parks and on paths and recreation trails during the day. After dark, fewer residents felt safe walking alone in business and retail areas of the City (58%) and in their neighborhood (56%).

When asked to rate various aspects of the La Mesa Police Department’s performance, between 63% and 71% of residents indicated they were generally satisfied with the Department’s efforts to enforce traffic laws (71%), maintain a low crime rate (70%), provide crime prevention programs (69%), and provide neighborhood police patrols (63%). From 2021 to 2023, resident satisfaction with the Department’s efforts to enforce traffic laws (-10%) and provide neighborhood police patrols (-6%) experienced significant declines, whereas ratings were consistent for maintaining a low crime rate and providing crime prevention programs.

The Police Department also received high marks from many respondents for maintaining a presence and being visible (48% excellent or good), engaging and interacting with the public (42%), working with the community to solve problems (41%), and communicating with La Mesa residents and local businesses (41%). Ratings for the Department’s efforts to investigate crimes were softer (36%). From 2021 to 2023, performance ratings declined for investigating crimes (-7%) and maintaining a presence and being visible (-6%), but remained statistically consistent across the other three performance areas (see Ratings of Police Department’s Performance on page 29).

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Turning to perceptions of conduct and culture, most La Mesans agreed that they trust the Police Department to protect and serve the public (68%) and perceived that the Department demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public (64%), while opinions were more divided regarding whether the Department treats people the same regardless of their race, income, or identity (46% in agreement, 27% in disagreement, 27% unsure) and how well it holds its officers accountable (46% in agreement, 21% in disagreement, 33% unsure). From 2021 to 2023, agreement with the statements tested in both years (trust, professionalism, and accountability) remained statistically unchanged.

Considering how each respondent rated the Department on the aforementioned dimensions, close to six-in-ten (59%) generally held positive perceptions of the Police Department, whereas 19% generally held negative perceptions, 16% were mixed, and 6% did not provide an opinion (see Professionalism, Trust, Accountability & Equal Treatment on page 30). Attitudes about the La Mesa Police Department are somewhat related to interactions with the Department, with those who had personally interacted with a Police officer during the past year being more likely to express positive views of the Department. These same attitudes also appear to be associated with broader opinions about the community and the City’s performance. Those with positive (or even mixed) views of the Police Department were much more likely than those with negative views to rate the quality of life in the City as excellent or good and indicate that they are satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services.

How well is the City communicating with residents?The importance of city communication with residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of La Mesa’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of La Mesa’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, website, and CivicMedia channels.

Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies in recent years. As the number of information sources and channels available to the public have dramatically increased, so too has the diversity in where residents regularly turn for their information. Not only have entirely new channels arisen to become mainstream and nearly ubiquitous (e.g., social media), within these channels there exists a proliferation of alternative services. To add to the challenge, resident preferences for information sources are also dynamic, subject to change as new services are made available while others may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communication a moving target for public agencies.

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The trends noted above likely underlie some of the changes in resident satisfaction with the City of La Mesa’s communication efforts over the past 15 years. In 2006, for example, eight-in-ten residents (80%) indicated that they were generally satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with them through newsletters, the Internet, and other means, with 45% stating that they were very satisfied. The corresponding figures in the 2023 survey were 54% and 17%, respectively. La Mesa is not alone in this area, as many other municipalities have displayed similar trends in satisfaction with city-resident communication.

The above notwithstanding, the 2023 study did find a significant percentage of respondents who were unsure (21%) when asked about their satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts, much higher than the 12% to 15% range recorded since 2015. Factoring those responses out of the analysis reveals greater consistency in city-resident communication over the past two years (2021: 72%, 2023: 69%). The relationship between city-resident communication and perceptions of the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services was also pronounced, with those satisfied with the City’s communication efforts also being much more likely than their counterparts to be satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services (see Communication on page 44).

It should be noted that La Mesa has made a concerted effort to enhance its communication efforts in recent years by live streaming City Council meetings on Facebook, adding Instagram as another social media engagement tool, and improving access to archived information on the City's website. To help improve how well it communicates with residents and businesses, in 2021 a Community Engagement Plan was adopted that included the creation of a Communications Manager position. To continue to stay ahead of the curve, La Mesa, like other cities, should periodically conduct a careful review of its communications strategies and budget to ensure that both are evolving accordingly.

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about the quality of life in La Mesa, and what city government could do to improve the quality of life in the City, now and in the future.

QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the City using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 2 below, close to three-quarters (73%) of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in La Mesa, with 17% reporting it is excellent and 56% stating it is good. Approximately 24% of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, while less than 3% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in the City. When compared to 2021, there were statistically significant declines in the percentage who rated the quality of life in the City as excellent or good and a corresponding increase in the percentage who rated it as fair.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor? FIGURE 2 OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

For the interested reader, figures 3-5 on the next page show how ratings of the quality of life in the City varied by years living in La Mesa, home ownership status, opinions of La Mesa’s Police Department, age of the respondent, ethnicity, the quadrant of the City where the respondent resides, presence of a child in the home, gender, and perceptions of safety. Quality of life ratings showed the most variation by age of the respondent, their opinions about the Police Department, and the overall safety of La Mesa. Older residents (65+) and those who felt La Mesa was safe and had positive or mixed opinions on the Police Department expressed the highest ratings for the quality of life in the City, whereas younger residents (18 to 29) and those with negative views on city safety and/or the Police Department were less positive about the overall quality of life in the City.

23.6 30.9 29.8 32.0

40.7 32.3 34.1

61.5 58.7 60.9 58.2

50.7 57.0 55.1

13.4 9.5 7.8 8.1 7.3 8.7 9.1

16.6†

56.1†

23.8†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FIGURE 3 OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OPINION OF POLICE

DEPARTMENT
FIGURE 4 OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 5 OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY QUADRANT OF CITY, CHILD IN HSLD, GENDER & PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY

16.9 15.8 20.3 14.9

58.6 55.4

58.6 63.4

43.3 51.2

20.3 8.5 13.6
Excellent

18.9 7.6 12.1

57.6 53.5
Good 62.7

46.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents

24.2 15.8 20.8 16.2

63.3 60.2 49.0 51.0 59.5

48.1 11.9 9.5
Excellent

11.9 17.7 14.6 15.3
Good

47.3 58.3 58.6 57.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or
older
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents

14.8 17.5 17.1 17.3

57.3 56.3 52.7 59.3 60.4

31.9 18.9 14.7 15.1
Excellent

17.5 19.4

0.4 58.0 60.8 57.0 Good

48.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 WAYS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE Respondents were next asked to indicate the one thing the City could change to make La Mesa a better place to live, now and in the future.

Question 3 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any change that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 6.

Approximately 15% of respondents said they could not think of a change they desire for the City of La Mesa. Among specific changes mentioned, the most common was addressing homeless issues (22%), followed by improving and repairing roads (13%), limiting growth and development (9%), increasing public safety (7%), and adding/improving sidewalks (7%). No other single improvement was mentioned by at least 5% of respondents overall, although there were specific references to additional public safety-related items including improving police presence/ response (4%), enforcing traffic laws (4%), and increasing support for the Police Department (2%).

Question 3 If the City government could change one thing to make La Mesa a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 6 CHANGES TO IMPROVE LA MESA

22.1 14.8

13.4 9.2

7.3 6.5

4.4 4.4

3.6 3.5

3.4 3.4

3.1 2.2

2.2 2.1

1.8 1.8

1.8 1.8

1.7 3.4

3.6 0 5 10 15 20 25
Address homeless issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve, repair roads
Limit growth, development
Increase public safety
Add, improve sidewalks
Provide affordable housing
Clean up public areas, facilities
Improve police presence, response
Enforce traffic laws
Add more bike lanes
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve public transportation
Improve parking
Add, improve parks
Provide more healthcare, social services
Improve landscaping
Increase support for Police Department
Implement rent control ordinance
Provide special, cultural events
Improve street lighting
Fix, upgrade rundown buildings, graffiti
Support small, local businesses
% Respondents

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 1 below shows the top five response categories from 2023, as well as each of the previous studies. The qualitative nature of recording, categorizing, and coding verbatim responses limits the ability to perform statistical significance testing between surveys. That said, homeless issues, which first appeared in the top-5 list in 2015, have moved up the ranks to be the most frequently mentioned issue in 2023. Limiting growth/development, which dropped to sixth place in 2021, moved back into the top five this cycle.

TABLE 1 TOP CHANGES TO IMPROVE LA MESA BY STUDY YEAR
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Address
homeless issues
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Address
homeless issues
Address
homeless issues
Improve, repair
roads
Increase public
safety
Increase public
safety
Increase public
safety
No problems /
Everything is fine
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Address
homeless issues
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Increase public
safety
Limit growth,
development
Increase public
safety
Provide
affordable
housing
Improve, police
presence,
response
Address
homeless issues
No problems /
Everything is fine
Reduce taxes,
fees
Reduce traffic
congestion
Increase public
safety
Clean up public
areas, facilities
Limit growth,
development
Increase public
safety
Add, Improve
parks
Reduce taxes,
fees
No problems /
Everything is fine
Improve, repair
roads
Study Year

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring perceptions of the quality of life in La Mesa, the survey turned to assessing residents’ opinions about the City’s performance in providing various municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 7 below, 71% of La Mesa residents indicated that they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 20% saying they were very satisfied. Approximately 20% of residents reported that they were dissatisfied, whereas 9% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. When compared with 2021, overall satisfaction (very + somewhat) declined 10%, with all of that movement coming from the very satisfied category.

Question 4 Next, I'm going to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of La Mesa. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

The next three figures display satisfaction levels with the City’s performance among respondents who provided an opinion. When compared to their respective counterparts, overall satisfaction with the City’s performance was generally highest among those who had lived in the City ten years or less, renters, those holding a positive view of the Police Department or who did not provide an opinion, those 65 and older, respondents with an ethnicity other than African-American or mixed/other, those living in the Northwest or Southwest areas of La Mesa, respondents who did not have a child in the home, and those who perceive the City to be safe. Opinions regarding the Police Department and general safety of La Mesa bore a reasonably strong relationship to opinions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services.

30.3 41.7 41.5 43.5

51.6 47.0 52.5

50.7 43.8 45.6 42.8

40.0 43.1

40.6 9.7

3.2 2.4 2.4 6.0 6.4 1.5

20.2†

50.7 6.4

15.2†

2.6 6.2 4.8 2.9

1.1 4.8†

1.1 1.4

1.9 8.8† 5.4 9.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 FIGURE 8 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OPINION OF POLICE

DEPARTMENT
FIGURE 9 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 10 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY QUADRANT OF CITY, CHILD IN HSLD, GENDER & PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY

19.3 26.8 30.3

13.0 5.3

16.2 56.1

55.0 52.1

61.5 60.1

65.7 21.0 19.4 19.6
Very
satisfied

30.4 56.3 49.7

59.9 Smwt
satisfied

52.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

25.7 19.7

31.7 18.8 23.4

8.8 60.9

59.4 51.3

45.0 58.7

49.6 Very
satisfied

25.9 19.3 18.3 22.1
Smwt
satisfied

50.0 59.9 55.0 54.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

21.8 23.1 24.1 21.8 25.5

4.4 48.3

58.8 54.3 55.9

59.0 39.0

21.6 18.2 22.4
Very
satisfied

27.2 52.2 64.0 51.0
Smwt
satisfied

55.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 4 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next series of questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked if they thought a service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Respondents were then asked about their satisfaction with these same services. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.

Figure 11 presents the services sorted by order of importance according to the percentage of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. Overall, La Mesa residents rated providing fire protection services as the most important (94% extremely or very important) among the 21 services tested, followed by providing emergency medical services (93%), addressing homelessness (90%), maintaining and repairing streets (90%), and maintaining a low crime rate (90%). At the other end of the spectrum, providing programs for adults (40%), animal control services (47%), and community events (48%) were viewed as less important.

Question 5 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

FIGURE 11 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES

55.9 60.8

65.9 53.7

63.5 47.4

41.9 39.0

41.4 45.9

40.2 37.3

32.5 38.3

27.9 24.6

36.0 24.3

20.8 14.7

15.3 38.4

32.2 24.1

36.2 26.0

39.4 34.3

36.9 34.2

28.4 29.6

29.5 33.2

26.5 29.4

29.2 17.7

27.6 27.0

32.4 24.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection services
Providing emergency medical services
Addressing homelessness
Maintaining and repairing streets
Maintaining a low crime rate
Maintaining parks and sports fields
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Providing adequate traffic signs and signals
Preparing the community for emergencies
Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community
Providing crime prevention programs
Providing programs for youth
Enforcing traffic laws
Providing neighborhood police patrols
Reducing stormwater pollution
Providing programs for seniors
Facilitating the creation of affordable housing
Maintaining landscaped street medians
Providing community events
Providing animal control services
Providing programs for adults
% Respondents
Extremely important Very important

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 For the interested reader, Table 2 displays the percentage of respondents who viewed each service as extremely or very important by study year, as well as the difference between 2021 and 2023. Over the past two years, there was a statistically significant increase in the importance rating assigned to one of the services tested (enforcing traffic laws, +6%), and decreases in importance ratings for six services (largest decline for providing programs for youth, -11%).

TABLE 2 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 12 on the next page sorts the same list of 21 services according to the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service.2 Overall, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection services (92% very or somewhat satisfied), provide emergency medical services (88%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (84%), maintain parks and sports fields (81%), provide community events (80%), and provide animal control services (80%). Respondents were notably less satisfied with the City’s efforts to address homelessness (23%), facilitate the creation of affordable housing (38%), and maintain and repair streets (48%).

Table 3 at the bottom of the next page displays the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service by study year, and shows there were 12 statistically significant declines from 2021 to 2023.

2. Note that to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison of the satisfaction ratings, only respondents who held an opinion (either satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in Figure 12. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage who held an opinion for each service is shown to the right of the service label in brackets.
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Enforcing traffic laws 65.7 60.2 67.5 67.5 61.8 65.2 63.7 77.8 +5.5† Providing special events like community festivals 47.8 43.8 45.6 45.6 43.0 38.9 33.9 57.7 +4.0 Maintaining parks and sports fields 86.8 84.6 80.2 78.4 71.5 70.3 67.1 71.2 +2.2 Providing fire protection services 94.4 92.2 94.2 92.9 95.2 94.5 91.2 91.0 +2.2 Addressing homelessness 89.9 88.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A +1.5 Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community 74.3 73.9 74.2 78.3 76.6 69.9 65.1 N/A +0.4 Maintaining and repairing streets 89.9 89.7 93.8 91.1 88.6 87.2 86.8 83.8 +0.2 Maintaining landscaped street medians 51.9 52.5 53.9 46.9 47.9 50.7 39.2 61.8 -0.6 Providing emergency medical services 93.0 94.3 89.9 93.9 89.1 91.4 91.3 87.9 -1.3 Providing animal control services 47.1 48.6 51.6 45.9 41.5 46.6 46.1 61.0 -1.5 Maintaining a low crime rate 89.5 91.4 97.0 93.9 98.1 93.6 94.2 91.1 -1.9 Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 76.2 79.2 77.6 78.1 72.6 69.8 62.3 75.8 -3.0 Providing adequate traffic signs and signals 75.9 79.1 80.0 78.0 76.3 74.8 73.0 79.9 -3.2 Facilitating the creation of affordable housing 53.7 57.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -3.7 Providing programs for adults 40.1 44.9 45.5 46.9 40.6 38.6 35.3 N/A -4.8 Providing neighborhood police patrols 64.8 71.6 79.0 79.0 80.3 79.5 78.5 84.4 -6.8† Providing crime prevention programs 69.8 77.8 75.8 78.8 75.3 74.5 74.6 82.9 -8.0† Providing programs for seniors 53.8 62.1 63.5 58.4 66.4 59.5 52.0 N/A -8.2† Preparing the community for emergencies 75.6 83.9 84.2 83.1 81.0 73.1 71.3 N/A -8.3† Reducing stormwater pollution 57.3 66.7 70.5 74.2 67.9 63.7 59.3 70.4 -9.4† Providing programs for youth 66.8 77.3 75.5 74.7 68.5 69.9 66.4 N/A -10.5† Change in
Extremely + Very
Important
'21 to '23
Study Year

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 6 For the same list of services I just read I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 12 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
TABLE 3 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

52.5 41.9

27.9 26.1

25.3 26.5

16.2 28.3

14.1 15.8

17.5 19.0

26.3 24.0

21.7 18.7

13.0 15.4

7.6 8.9

4.6 39.7

45.7 55.8

54.5 55.0

53.5 62.4

48.4 61.7

58.0 55.9

51.9 44.0

45.5 47.5

48.8 50.1

47.0 40.3

29.0 18.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Provide fire protection services [82%]
Provide emergency medical services [73%]
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive [91%] Maintain parks and sports fields [92%]
Provide community events [76%]
Provide animal control services [65%]
Reduce stormwater pollution [56%]
Provide adequate traffic signs and signals [92%]
Provide programs for adults [52%]
Provide programs for youth [61%]
Provide programs for seniors [54%]
Enforce traffic laws [83%]
Maintain landscaped street medians [90%]
Maintain a low crime rate [89%]
Provide crime prevention programs [67%]
Prepare the community for emergencies [68%]
Provide neighborhood police patrols [81%]
Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community [88%]
Maintain and repair streets [95%]
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing [69%]
Address homelessness [88%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Reduce stormwater pollution 78.6 74.1 79.0 68.7 92.7 91.1 86.1 85.2 +4.5 Provide special events like community festivals 80.4 78.6 88.1 82.1 91.6 93.0 95.2 87.6 +1.7 Provide programs for adults 75.8 75.5 87.8 85.0 87.6 93.1 90.3 N/A +0.3 Keep public buildings and facilities clean, attractive 83.7 86.8 87.3 86.2 93.4 96.7 94.9 90.2 -3.1 Provide programs for youth 73.9 77.1 84.3 82.2 90.8 91.4 88.9 N/A -3.2 Maintain a low crime rate 69.5 73.2 87.5 81.5 86.4 85.8 79.5 85.7 -3.7 Provide crime prevention programs 69.2 73.1 85.7 82.2 87.4 88.9 84.7 86.5 -3.8 Prepare the community for emergencies 67.5 71.4 78.8 78.1 85.8 86.1 84.0 N/A -3.9 Maintain parks and sports fields 80.5 85.1 88.3 85.1 90.1 94.0 92.2 91.8 -4.5 Provide fire protection services 92.2 96.8 99.3 98.8 98.7 98.2 97.1 94.8 -4.6† Provide programs for seniors 73.4 78.7 87.2 84.5 92.6 93.2 93.4 N/A -5.3† Provide neighborhood police patrols 63.1 69.4 83.6 77.5 87.1 87.1 83.5 83.7 -6.2† Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 37.9 45.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -7.1† Address homelessness 22.8 29.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -7.1† Provide animal control services 80.0 87.5 83.1 90.9 85.7 93.6 87.6 87.4 -7.5† Provide emergency medical services 87.6 96.0 92.0 94.1 98.8 98.1 97.1 93.0 -8.4† Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community 62.4 72.6 71.4 71.3 80.2 84.8 84.8 N/A -10.2† Enforce traffic laws 70.9 81.2 82.4 90.3 87.4 89.7 90.2 88.2 -10.3† Maintain landscaped street medians 70.4 81.7 85.6 84.6 90.7 94.4 91.1 89.1 -11.3† Provide adequate traffic signs and signals 76.8 89.5 87.3 91.9 92.0 93.6 94.8 87.6 -12.7† Maintain and repair streets 47.9 62.5 68.5 66.7 80.5 79.7 72.0 80.6 -14.6† Change in
Satisfaction
'21 to '23
Study Year

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 4 displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 6 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 14). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Question 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared with their counterparts, those who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the services tested in Question 6. That said, the greatest specific differentiators of opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to provide programs for youth and prepare the community for emergencies, followed by maintain a low crime rate, reduce stormwater pollution, provide programs for seniors, and maintain parks and sports fields.

At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection services, provide neighborhood police patrols, and facilitate the creation of affordable housing.

TABLE 4 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Provide programs for youth 83.2 38.3 44.9
Prepare the community for emergencies 79.3 34.9 44.3
Maintain a low crime rate 80.4 42.9 37.5
Reduce stormwater pollution 85.5 48.2 37.3
Provide programs for seniors 81.3 44.5 36.8
Maintain parks and sports fields 88.0 51.5 36.5
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 89.1 57.1 32.0 Provide emergency medical services 94.2 63.4 30.8
Provide programs for adults 82.5 52.3 30.2
Maintain and repair streets 54.5 27.1 27.5
Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community 68.0 41.0 27.0 Maintain landscaped street medians 76.8 54.1 22.6
Provide community events 85.2 64.8 20.3
Enforce traffic laws 76.4 56.4 20.0
Address homelessness 26.6 6.9 19.7
Provide crime prevention programs 75.5 55.9 19.6
Provide adequate traffic signs and signals 80.8 61.3 19.5 Provide animal control services 84.6 65.4 19.2
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 42.7 27.8 14.9 Provide neighborhood police patrols 67.4 56.3 11.1
Provide fire protection services 94.5 84.7 9.7
Satisfaction With
City's Overall Performance (Q4) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 P ERFORMANCE N EEDS & P RIORITIES With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify for which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents’ needs.

Rather than rely on averages to conduct this analysis, True North has developed an individualized approach to identifying priorities. This approach is built on the recognition that opinions will vary from resident to resident and that understanding this variation is required for assessing how well the City is meeting residents’ needs.
3 Table 5 on the next page presents a grid based
on the importance and satisfaction scales. The horizontal axis corresponds to the four importance options, and the vertical scale corresponds to the four satisfaction options. The 16 cells within the grid are grouped into one of six categories based on how well the City is meeting, or not meeting, a resident’s needs for a particular service. The six groups are as follows:

Exceeding Needs The City is exceeding a respondent’s needs if a respondent is satisfied and the level of expressed satisfaction is higher than the importance that the respondent assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs, ModeratelyThe City is moderately meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied and the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs, MarginallyThe City is marginally meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but their level of satisfaction is lower than the level of importance assigned to the service.

Not Meeting Needs, MarginallyThe City is marginally not meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is somewhat dissatisfied, but the service is also viewed as just somewhat or not at all important.

Not Meeting Needs, ModeratelyThe City is moderately not meeting a respondent’s needs if a) a respondent is very dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service is viewed somewhat or not at all important, or b) a respondent is somewhat dissatisfied and the service is very important.

Not Meeting Needs,
Severely
The City is severely not meeting a respondent’s needs if a) a respondent is dissatisfied and the service is viewed as extremely important, or b) a respondent is very dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very important.

3. Any tool that relies on the opinions of the average respondent will provide a limited and occasionally distorted picture of how well an agency is performing. The simple fact is that a city is not comprised of average residents—it is comprised of unique individuals who vary substantially in their opinions of the City’s performance in different service areas. Thus, although the arithmetic average of these individuals’ opinions is a useful statistic, it does not capture the variation in opinions that occurs among residents, and it is this variation that is critical for truly assessing how well the City is meeting the needs of its residents.

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TABLE 5 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS & PRIORITIES MATRIX Using this framework, True North categorized each respondent individually for each of the 21 services tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that addressing homelessness was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., facilitating the creation of affordable housing) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.

Figure 13 on the next page presents the 21 services tested, along with the percentage of respondents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 13 is consistent with that presented in Table 5. Thus, for example, in the service area of addressing homelessness, the City is exceeding the needs of 1% of respondents, moderately meeting the needs of 6% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 15% of respondents, marginally not meeting the needs of 2% of respondents, moderately not meeting the needs of 10% of respondents, and severely not meeting the needs of 65% of respondents.

As shown in Figure 13, the City is meeting the needs of at least 70% of residents for 14 of the 21 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is moderately or severely not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted in order of priority. Thus, addressing homelessness is the top priority, followed by facilitating the creation of affordable housing, maintaining and repairing streets, providing neighborhood police patrols, and creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community.

Not at all
important
Somewhat
important Very important
Extremely
important
Very satisfied Exceeding needs Exceeding needs Meeting needs, moderately
Meeting needs,
moderately
Somewhat satisfied Exceeding needs Meeting needs,
moderately
Meeting needs,
marginally
Meeting needs,
marginally
Somewhat dissatisfied Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Very dissatisfied
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Not meeting
needs, severely
Importance
Satisfaction

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 13 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS 11 7 12 13
7 1
578
15 3
8 56356
1 12
1 54
44 31
41 42
35 34
30 39
30 35
26 24
30 20
24 23
25 14
13 6
37 43
45 28
26 37
46 39
29 38
20 45
39 35
42 43
35 32
33 14
15 9
42 32
1 7
2 5
69 45977
7 4
8 11
4 9
11 11
12 10
78 14
14 11
14 14
15 19
19 17
25 26
24 40
42 65
1 0
2 54
41 743
4 6
3 1
3 8
67 119
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection services
Providing emergency medical services
Keeping public buildings, facilities clean, attractive
Providing animal control services
Providing special events like community festivals
Reducing stormwater pollution
Maintaining parks and sports fields
Providing programs for seniors
Providing programs for adults
Providing adequate traffic signs and signals
Maintaining landscaped street medians
Providing programs for youth
Enforcing traffic laws
Providing crime prevention programs
Preparing the community for emergencies
Maintaining a low crime rate
Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community
Providing neighborhood police patrols
Maintaining and repairing streets
Facilitating the creation of affordable housing
Addressing homelessness
% Respondents who Provided Opinion
Exceeding needs
Meeting needs
moderately
Meeting needs
marginally
Not meeting
needs marginally
Not meeting
needs moderately
Not meeting
needs severely

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

P UBLIC S AFETY & P OLICE
Ensuring the personal safety of residents is the most basic function of local government. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that public safety is as much a matter of perception as it is a matter of reality. Regardless of actual crime statistics, if residents do not feel safe then they will not enjoy the many cultural, recreational, and shopping opportunities available in the City of La Mesa that will enhance their quality of life.

PERCEIVED SAFETY The survey included several questions designed to measure respondents’ perceptions of safety, La Mesa’s Police Department, and code enforcement. The first of these questions simply asked residents to describe how safe La Mesa is as a place to live. As shown in Figure 14 below, 85% of respondents rated the City as either very safe (28%) or somewhat safe (57%). Approximately 12% described the City as somewhat unsafe, while 2% felt La Mesa is a very unsafe place to live. The percentage of residents who felt very safe experienced a statistically significant decline from 2021 to 2023 (-7%), as did their overall perception of safety (85% vs. 88%).

Question 7 Overall, how safe is the City of La Mesa as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
FIGURE 14 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

Figures 15-17 demonstrate that opinions regarding the safety of La Mesa as a place to live were generally consistent, ranging from 79% to 92% across most subgroups. Noticeably lower ratings were reported among respondents with a mixed/other ethnic background (55%) and those dissatisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services (60%). Opinions regarding the safety of La Mesa were not strongly tied to opinions about the Police Department in 2023 like they were in 2021. Regardless of their opinion of the Police Department, at least eight-in-ten respondents felt the City is a safe place to live, with only a 6% point difference between those holding a negative view of the Department (81%) and those with a positive view (87%).

34.3 53.6

10.2 2.4 1.6

27.7†

57.3 12.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023 2021
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Somewhat safe
Very safe

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FIGURE 15 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP & OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT FIGURE 16 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 17 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY QUADRANT OF CITY, CHILD IN HSLD, GENDER & OVERALL SATISFACTION

26.3 30.7 28.6 33.1

57.4 58.4 58.3 50.1

61.7 53.2

29.1 19.7
Very
safe

29.2 31.3

21.7 26.3
Smwt
safe

61.6 54.3

60.2 56.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents

34.7 30.8

23.1 37.4

55.1 55.9

62.8 46.6

63.7 41.1

22.3 22.8 27.2
Very
safe

31.4 19.6 13.7

55.9 60.9 54.3
Smwt
safe

60.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents

20.1 31.0 28.8 27.6

63.3 55.9 53.9 60.5

59.8 46.9

12.8 31.9 Very
safe

24.7 31.4 29.5 25.3
Smwt
safe

56.7 52.9 54.0 65.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Satisfied Dissatisfied Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) % Respondents

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Having measured respondents’ opinions regarding the overall safety of the City, the survey next focused on perceived safety in each of the five scenarios described at the bottom of Figure 18.

As shown in the figure, residents’ feelings of safety varied considerably depending on the setting. Nine-in-ten residents who provided an opinion indicated that they feel safe walking alone in their neighborhood (93%) or in business and retail areas (90%) during the day, and eight-in-ten (80%) feel safe walking alone in parks and on paths and recreation trails during the day. After dark, however, less than six-in-ten residents stated they feel safe walking alone in business and retail areas of the City (58%) and in their neighborhood (56%).

Question 8 Next, I'd like to ask a few questions about personal safety and security in the City of La Mesa. When you are:_____, would you say that you feel very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? FIGURE 18 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY
Among those who had an opinion, Table 6 displays the percentage of respondents who stated they feel very or reasonably safe in each scenario by study year, as well as the difference between 2021 and 2023. Between the two most recent studies, there were statistically significant declines in perceived safety within each scenario.

TABLE 6 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

Figures 19-22 on the next page display how perceived safety (showing the percentage who felt very or reasonably safe) varied by respondent age, participation in a neighborhood watch program, quadrant of residence, gender, opinions of the La Mesa Police Department, and ethnicity.

49.1 32.4

13.6 14.0

40.7 47.9

44.4 42.3

6.0 8.3

15.1 28.2 30.3

13.8 13.4

50.2 42.6

4.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Neighborhood
during day
Business and retail
areas during the
day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Business and retail
areas after dark
Neighborhood
after dark
Q8 Perceived safety of walking alone . . .
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Reasonably
safe
Very safe
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Neighborhood during day 92.8 95.6 95.6 96.1 94.4 97.1 96.8 97.5 -2.9† Business areas after dark 58.0 62.3 70.5 71.3 66.4 78.7 77.4 76.0 -4.3† Parks, paths, rec trails during the day 80.2 86.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -6.0† Business areas during day 89.8 97.3 97.3 95.1 94.8 97.5 96.8 97.9 -7.5† Neighborhood after dark 56.3 64.1 70.1 73.1 72.5 78.8 74.7 75.1 -7.8† Change in
Very + Reasonably
Safe '21 to '23
Study Year

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Consistent with the relationship between overall safety ratings for the City and opinions about the Police Department (see Figure 15), individual feelings of safety in the specific scenarios tested in Question 8 show only a slight to modest relationship with opinions about the La Mesa Police Department (Figure 21 on next page).

FIGURE 19 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY AGE & IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM FIGURE 20 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY QUADRANT OF CITY & GENDER 97 91 94 91 93 91 94 92
87 92 91 92 88 91 92
79 80 78 77
69 83
66 55 58 59
55 56 60
56 54
60 59 56 60 58
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No
Age (QD1) In Neighborhood Watch Program
(Q9)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Neighborhood
during day
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Business and
retail areas after
dark
Neighborhood
after dark
93 90 92
96 93 93
89 84
92 95
91 89
79 79 79
85 83
78 55 51
58 68 66
52 56 54 55
60 66
49 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Male Female
Quadrant of City Gender (QD4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Neighborhood
during day
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Business and
retail areas after
dark
Neighborhood
after dark

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 21 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT FIGURE 22 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY ETHNICITY
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH Neighborhood watch is a crime prevention program that enlists the active participation of residents in cooperation with law enforcement and other community agencies to reduce crime, solve problems, and improve the quality of life in their area.

The Police Department serves as one of many such resources, although ultimately program success requires sustained resident participation and effort. First presented in 2013 was a question that simply asked La Mesa residents if they were involved in a neighborhood watch program.

Overall, 11% of survey respondents indicated that they were involved in a neighborhood watch program in 2023, which is statistically consistent with the percentage recorded in 2021 (see Figure 23 on the next page). As shown in figures 24 to 26, residents who have lived in La Mesa at least 11 years, home owners, those with a positive or mixed opinion of the Police Department, residents at least 40 years of age, African-American/Black residents, those with a child in the household, and those who feel the City is unsafe were the most likely to report involvement in a neighborhood watch program.
96 90
85 94 92
87 83
94 82 80 76
71 59
55 58
49 60
54 45
62 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Positive Mixed Negative None provided
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Neighborhood
during day
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Business and
retail areas after
dark
Neighborhood
after dark
94 91 91
99 83
94 82
93 93
65 82
76 87 86
70 61
53 69
50 44
57 56
62 50
46 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Caucasian / White Latino / Hispanic African-American /
Black
Asian Mixed / Other
Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Neighborhood
during day
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Business and
retail areas after
dark
Neighborhood
after dark

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 9 Are you involved in a neighborhood watch program? FIGURE 23 INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 24 INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS &

OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT
FIGURE 25 INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY AGE & ETHNICITY

12.5 16.0 15.3 12.3 13.8 13.8

87.7 84.0 84.7 87.7 86.2 85.9

10.6 89.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2013
Study Year
% Respondents
Not involved in
neighborhood
watch program /
Not sure
Yes, involved in
neighborhood
watch program

14.5 5.7

13.0 12.0

4.3 2.1

14.8 17.3

7.1 4.2
0 5
10 15
20 25
Less than
4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Involved in
Neighborhood Watch Program

12.4 10.5

7.9 19.7

7.8 13.6

3.3 6.9

14.2 17.5
0 5
10 15
20 25
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or
older
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Involved in
Neighborhood Watch Program

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 FIGURE 26 INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY QUADRANT OF CITY, CHILD IN HSLD, GENDER &

PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY
RATINGS OF POLICE DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMANCE All respondents were next asked to rate the La Mesa Police Department’s performance on a variety of dimensions, including investigating crimes, engaging and interacting with the public, and working with the community to solve problems. Overall, the Police Department received its highest mark for maintaining a presence and being visible (48% excellent or good), followed by engaging and interacting with the public (42%), working with the community to solve problems (41%), communicating with La Mesa residents and local businesses (41%), and investigating crimes (36%). The percentage who rated the Department as poor or very poor on a dimension ranged from 16% for investigating crimes to 20% for engaging and interacting with the public, and the percentage unsure ranged from 8% (maintaining a presence and being visible) to 22% (investigating crimes).

Question 10 Thinking of the La Mesa Police Department, please tell me how well you feel the Department performs in the following areas.

FIGURE 27 OPINION OF POLICE PERFORMANCE

15.0 9.0 9.0

12.6 9.1

19.6 13.9

7.9 9.5

11.0 0
5 10
15 20
25 Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents Involved in
Neighborhood Watch Program

14.2 11.7

9.6 10.5

9.4 33.7

30.5 31.7

30.4 26.8

27.1 26.2

23.5 24.4

26.3 7.1

6.5 15.6

10.3 12.8

11.5 12.6

9.2 6.4

8.2 6.4

8.4 11.7

15.4 21.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Maintaining a presence/being visible
Engaging and interacting with the public
Working with the community to solve problems
Communicating with La Mesa residents and local
businesses
Investigating crimes
Q10b Q10c Q10e Q10d Q10a
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Prefer not to answer

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 From 2021 to 2023, performance ratings declined for investigating crimes (-7%) and maintaining a presence and being visible (-6%), and remained statistically consistent across the other three performance areas.

TABLE 7 OPINION OF POLICE PERFORMANCE BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

PROFESSIONALISM, TRUST, ACCOUNTABILITY & EQUAL TREATMENT In addition to rating the La Mesa Police Department’s performance (see above), the survey also explored respondents’ perceptions of the Department when it comes to professionalism, trustworthiness, accountability, and equal treatment. For each of the statements shown along the bottom of Figure 28, respondents were simply asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Close to seven-in-ten respondents (68%) agreed with the statement I trust the La Mesa Police Department to protect and serve the public, whereas 21% disagreed with the statement and 11% were unsure. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) also agreed that The Police Department demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public, while 15% disagreed and 21% were unsure. Respondents were more mixed when it came to the statements The La Mesa Police Department treats people the same regardless of their race, income, or identity (46% in agreement, 27% in disagreement, 27% unsure) and The Police Department holds its officers accountable (46% in agreement, 21% in disagreement, 33% unsure).

Question 11 Next, I'm going to read you a few statements about the La Mesa Police Department. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

FIGURE 28 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT POLICE DEPARTMENT 2023 2021
Working with the community to solve problems 41.3 39.8 +1.4 Engaging and interacting with the public 42.2 41.3 +1.0 Communicating with La Mesa residents and local businesses 40.9 41.9 -1.0 Maintaining a presence/being visible 47.9 54.0 -6.1†
Investigating crimes 36.3 43.8 -7.6†
Study Year Change in
Excellent + Good
'21 to '23

34.0 28.7 24.8

29.6 17.5 21.1

10.0 8.0

15.2 10.1

11.0 7.4

11.5 10.9

10.8 21.0 27.1 33.0

34.1 34.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
I trust the La Mesa
Police Department to
protect and serve the
public
Police Dept
demonstrates
professionalism when
interacting with the
public
The La Mesa Police
Department treats
people the same
regardless of their
race, income, or
identity
The Police Department
holds its officers
accountable
Q11 Agreement with statements about Police Department . . . % Respondents
Not sure/Prefer not
to answer
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 From 2021 to 2023, agreement with each of the statements tested in both years (trust, professionalism, and accountability) remained statistically consistent (Table 8).

TABLE 8 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT POLICE DEPARTMENT BY STUDY YEAR To help clarify how opinions and perceptions of La Mesa’s Police Department vary among La Mesa residents, each survey participant was classified into one of four categories (positive, negative, mixed, or none provided) based on how they responded to the statements tested in Question 11. Those who generally disagreed with the statements were classified as negative, those who generally agreed with the statements were classified as positive, whereas those with a mix of responses (agree and disagree) were grouped into the mixed category.4 FIGURE 29 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT
Nearly six-in-ten La Mesa residents (59%) generally held positive perceptions of the Police Department, whereas 19% generally held negative perceptions, 16% were mixed, and 6% did not provide an opinion (Figure 29). When compared to their respective counterparts, positive perceptions of the Department were most frequently found among those who had lived in the City 11 years or longer, respondents who perceived the City to be safe, those in a neighborhood watch program, home owners, seniors, Latino/Hispanic, Asian, and Caucasian respondents, residents who had interacted with the Police Department in the past two years, those with a child in the home, and respondents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services (see figures 30-33).

4. More specifically, respondents who agreed with all of the statements or three of the statements with the fourth being unsure were classified as positive. Respondents who disagreed with all of the statements or three of the statements with the fourth being unsure were classified as negative. Respondents who did not provide an opinion to all four of the statements were classified as none provided. Any other combination of answers was classified as mixed.
2023 2021
Police Dept demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public 63.6 64.2 -0.6 I trust the La Mesa Police Department to protect and serve the public 68.2 69.9 -1.7 The Police Department holds its officers accountable 45.9 47.9 -2.0 La Mesa Police Dept treats people the same regardless of race, income, identity 46.2 N/A N/A Study Year Change in
Strong + Smwt
'21 to '23
None provided

6.1 Negative

18.7 Positive

58.8 Mixed

16.4

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FIGURE 30 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY YEARS IN LA MESA, PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY & IN NEIGHBORHOOD

WATCH PROGRAM
FIGURE 31 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & QUADRANT OF CITY

54.3 62.9 64.8 60.2

51.5 72.4

56.3 16.7

20.5 15.6

16.1 17.7

18.8 16.5

21.7 10.8 16.9 17.9

23.4 7.6

20.4 9.8 7.3 5.8 2.6 5.9 7.4 1.2 6.8

52.7 15.5

21.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15 Safe Unsafe Yes No Years in La Mesa (Q1) Perceived Safety of City (Q7) In Neighborhood Watch Program (Q9)
% Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

52.1 62.1 59.3 60.6 58.5 55.4 60.8

16.4 15.9 15.8 13.9 13.9 21.8 16.0

26.0 15.6 19.5 16.3 20.7 17.4 20.3

6.0 5.5 6.4 5.5 9.2 6.9 5.4 2.9

66.0 16.1

11.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent Male Female Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Home Ownership Status (QD3) Gender (QD4) Quadrant of City % Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 32 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY AGE & ETHNICITY FIGURE 33 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY CONTACT WITH STAFF, INTERACTED WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS, CHILD IN HSLD & OVERALL SATISFACTION
INTERACTIONS WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT New to the 2023 survey, respondents were asked whether they had interacted with the Police Department by calling the Department, interacting at a community event, or being pulled over or stopped by an officer over the past two years. Approximately four-in-ten residents had called the La Mesa Police Department for assistance (41%) or talked or interacted with a La Mesa Police Officer at a community event or other setting (39%), whereas 7% had been stopped or pulled over by a La Mesa Police Officer (see Figure 34 on next page).

54.0 59.8 60.8

73.0 59.3 65.4

46.0 61.0 53.1

18.2 19.2 22.8

13.1 14.8

15.4 25.2

12.5 11.9

21.1 13.0 11.0 8.1

19.3 16.0

22.1 14.4 28.8

4.6 6.7 8.1 5.4 5.9 6.7 3.1 6.7 12.1 6.2

48.1 11.3

36.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

59.3 62.3

54.5 65.5

56.3 64.3

48.7 15.9

18.8 13.0

18.8 15.5

15.4 18.6

18.0 16.3

20.9 11.0

21.9 15.4

28.8 4.4 6.9 2.6

11.7 4.8 6.4 5.0 3.9

59.8 18.1

17.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes No Yes No Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied
Contact With Staff (Q16) Interacted With Police Dept in Past Two Years (Q12)
Child in Hsld (QD2) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 12 In the past two years, have you: _____?
FIGURE 34 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS Figures 35 to 37 displays residents’ interactions with the Police Department over the past two years by age, involvement in a neighborhood watch program, quadrant of the City, gender, opinion of Police Department, and ethnicity. As one might expect, residents in a neighborhood watch program were the most likely to have talked or interacted with a La Mesa Police Officer at a community event or other setting or called the Department for assistance. Respondents with a positive or mixed opinion of the Department were also more likely than those with a negative opinion or no opinion to have interacted in those two ways. Those with a negative opinion were more likely to have been stopped or pulled over than those with a positive opinion, and those 18 to 29 years of age reported the highest percentage of being pulled over or stopped by police (16%).

FIGURE 35 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS BY AGE & IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH

PROGRAM

39.3 7.3

59.3 91.9

40.7 58.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Called the La Mesa Police
Department for assistance
Talked or interacted with a
La Mesa Police Officer at a
community event or other
setting
Been stopped or pulled
over by a La Mesa Police
Officer
Q12 Interactions with La Mesa Police Department in past 2 years . . . % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
No
Yes
38 48 47 45
27 53
37 36
43 48 47
30 67
35 16
7 4 5 3 4
8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No
Age (QD1) In Neighborhood Watch Program (Q9)
% Respondents Who Interacted With Police
Department in Past 2 Years
Called the La
Mesa Police
Department for
assistance
Talked or
interacted with a
La Mesa Police
Officer at a
community event
or other setting
Been stopped or
pulled over by a
La Mesa Police
Officer

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 FIGURE 36 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS BY QUADRANT OF CITY & GENDER FIGURE 37 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS BY OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT & ETHNICITY
CODE ENFORCEMENT Respondents were next informed that the City has created codes to address and prevent a variety of issues that can affect a neighborhood, including illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction, junk storage, and properties not being properly maintained. They were then asked if, in general, they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations, or if they do not have an opinion on the matter.

Figure 38 on the next page provides the responses to Question 13 among those who provided an opinion. In 2023, 27% of residents did not have an opinion. Among those with an opinion, approximately 63% indicated they were satisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts, while the remaining 37% were dissatisfied. The overall level of satisfaction with the City’s code enforcement efforts in 2023 (63%) was statistically lower than 2021 (68%), and was driven by a statistically significant increase in the perception who reported being very dissatisfied. 41 35
43 43 42 40
36 34 36
51 42
37 2
8 9 10 8
4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Male Female
Quadrant of City Gender (QD4)
% Respondents Who Interacted With Police
Department in Past 2 Years
Called the La
Mesa Police
Department for
assistance
Talked or
interacted with a
La Mesa Police
Officer at a
community event
or other setting
Been stopped or
pulled over by a
La Mesa Police
Officer
45 42
34 18
39 45 44
37 25
44 48
26 7
38 42 41 38 37
5 8
13 9
5 11
16 4
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed / Other
Opinion of Police Department (Q11) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Interacted With Police
Department in Past 2 Years
Called the La
Mesa Police
Department for
assistance
Talked or
interacted with a
La Mesa Police
Officer at a
community event
or other setting
Been stopped or
pulled over by a
La Mesa Police
Officer

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 13 The City of La Mesa has created codes to address a variety of issues that can affect a neighborhood, such as illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction, junk storage, and properties not being properly maintained. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to enforce code violations, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 38 SATISFACTION WITH ENFORCEMENT BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

Figures 39 to 41 demonstrate how satisfaction with the City’s code enforcement efforts varied by length of residence, home ownership status, general opinion of La Mesa’s Police Department, age, ethnicity, quadrant of residence, presence of a child in the home, gender, and perceived safety of La Mesa. There is a striking correlation between perceived safety of La Mesa and opinions regarding the City’s code enforcement efforts, with those who perceive the City as a safe place to live being much more likely to also be satisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts.

Respondents with a positive opinion of the Police Department were also much more likely than those with another viewpoint to be satisfied with code enforcement.

21.8 29.0

36.4 31.8

49.5 45.1 50.6

46.2 41.5

39.6 44.9

39.9 37.8

41.4 20.7 19.3

15.8 15.6

5.7 9.0

8.2 4.7 7.6 5.0 8.1 3.3

19.4 43.6

21.9 11.3 10.1 15.1†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023
[73% provided
opinion]
2021
[71% provided
opinion]
2019
[65% provided
opinion]
2017
[64% provided
opinion]
2015
[64% provided
opinion]
2013
[63% provided
opinion]
2011
[66% provided
opinion]
2006
[82% provided
opinion]
Study Year
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FIGURE 39 SATISFACTION WITH ENFORCEMENT BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OPINION OF

POLICE DEPARTMENT
FIGURE 40 SATISFACTION WITH ENFORCEMENT BY AGE & ETHNICITY FIGURE 41 SATISFACTION WITH ENFORCEMENT BY QUADRANT, CHILD IN HSLD, GENDER & PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY

14.6 26.6 24.8

8.3 13.0 9.1

47.2 38.9 46.5

40.7 36.2 44.4
Very
satisfied

25.3 22.3

12.6 16.4
Smwt
satisfied

39.1 40.8

43.9 47.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

23.3 19.1 22.4 26.2

11.6 12.5

44.9 42.7

44.1 51.4

53.5 38.5

15.4 13.2 15.1
Very
satisfied

26.8 52.2 48.9

34.8 Smwt
satisfied

44.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

15.2 21.3 18.4 22.1 22.7

1.3 42.7

44.0 42.2

43.0 46.1
Very 29.2
satisfied

19.0 17.1 19.6 21.9
Smwt
satisfied

36.9 44.8 44.0

48.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Respondents who reported they were dissatisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts were subsequently asked if their dissatisfaction was motivated by a particular issue or violation. Illegal parking and unattended/abandoned vehicles (28%) and homeless issues (25%) were the most frequently mentioned, followed by unmaintained properties and lawns (16%) and violations not being enforced fairly (11%). Approximately one-in-ten residents (11%) who were dissatisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts could not provide a particular reason for their sentiment.

Question 14 Is there a particular issue or code violation that the City isn't addressing that leads you to be dissatisfied?
FIGURE 42 REASON FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT

27.9 24.6

16.2 10.7

10.7 9.1

6.6 5.7

4.5 2.2

1.6 1.5

0.8 2.5

1.6 0.5
0 10 20 30
Illegal parking, unattended, abandoned vehicles
Homeless issues
Unmaintained properties, lawns
Violations not enforced fairly
No particular issue
Safety, security issues
Littering, trash cans left outside
Speeding cars, traffic violations
City not responding fast to city resident issues
Road, street maintenance
Noise violations
Vandalism, graffiti
Illegal housing rental, multiple families
Dogs off-leash
Dog waste on properties, streets
Using garage as auto shop
% Respondents Who Are Dissatisfied With Code Enforcement

Traffic
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

T RAFFIC
In most southern California cities, traffic congestion has traditionally ranked among the most pressing problems that residents would like local and regional governments to solve. La Mesa has been exceptional over the past decade in that traffic congestion has not been among the top five issues that residents felt were needed to make the City a better place to live (see Table 1 on page 13). Nevertheless, the survey took the opportunity to probe residents’ perceptions regarding traffic circulation and identify how they vary by geographic quadrant.

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION As shown in Figure 43, 71% of residents in 2023 rated traffic circulation in residential areas of La Mesa as excellent or good. Approximately six-in-ten respondents (59%) also rated traffic circulation in the City overall as excellent or good, whereas just over half (52%) held similarly positive views of circulation on major streets in La Mesa.

Question 15 Next, I'd like to ask you a few questions about traffic circulation. By traffic circulation, I mean the ability to drive around La Mesa without encountering long delays. Would you rate: _____ within the City of La Mesa as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor? FIGURE 43 PERCEPTION OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Table 9 provides the percentage of respondents who regarded traffic congestion as excellent or good overall, on major streets, and in residential areas by study year. Compared with the 2021 survey, there was a statistically significant decline in the percentage of residents who rated traffic circulation in each of the three categories as excellent or good.

TABLE 9 PERCEPTION OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

12.2 26.3

39.8 44.8

27.2 28.4

17.9 6.3

9.8 5.8

15.1 44.2

5.1 7.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Overall On major streets In residential areas
Q15 Rating traffic circulation . . .
% Respondents
Not sure / Prefer
not to answer
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Traffic on major streets 52.0 63.9 63.7 67.1 61.2 73.8 70.3 63.7 -11.9† Traffic in residential areas 71.1 84.4 81.7 86.0 83.0 88.2 87.5 81.6 -13.3† Traffic overall 59.3 73.9 69.1 72.1 73.2 75.4 72.5 70.8 -14.6† Change in
Excellent + Good
'21 to '23
Study Year

Traffic
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figures 44 through 46 present ratings of traffic circulation overall, on major streets, and in residential areas according to the quadrant of the City in which respondents reside.

FIGURE 44 PERCEPTION OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION OVERALL BY QUADRANT OF CITY FIGURE 45 PERCEPTION OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ON MAJOR STREETS BY QUADRANT OF CITY FIGURE 46 PERCEPTION OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY QUADRANT OF CITY

18.3 10.6 13.9

45.1 49.6 36.8

24.9 25.5 28.9

29.7 9.9

18.9 17.6

45.2 10.2 6.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast
Quadrant of City
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
Poor /
Very poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

19.0 10.3 6.1

41.6 43.5

34.6 31.6

26.4 25.3

30.4 19.8

28.5 13.3

39.7 13.2 8.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast
Quadrant of City
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
Poor /
Very poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

31.8 21.9 18.7

43.3 47.8

44.0 13.7 15.6 20.4

22.1 8.7 14.8

32.9 44.0

6.1 5.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast
Quadrant of City
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
Poor /
Very poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Staff Interactions
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

S TAFF I NTERACTIONS
Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide services, like other progressive cities La Mesa recognizes there is more to good governance than simply providing satisfactory services and facilities. What percentage of residents have interacted with staff in the past year? Do they perceive that staff is responsive to their needs? Does staff serve their needs in a professional manner? Answers to questions like these are as important as service- or policy-related questions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting the needs of its residents. Accordingly, they were the focus of the next section of the survey.

The first of these questions asked respondents if they had been in contact with city staff in the 12 months prior to the interview. As shown in Figure 47, 24% of residents indicated that they had contact with city staff in the 12 months prior to the interview. The percentage of residents who interacted with city staff in the past year declined significantly when compared to 2021. For the interested reader, figures 48-49 on the next page provide the responses to Question 16 by respondents’ age, area of residence, home ownership status, ethnicity, overall satisfaction, and perceived safety of the City.

Question 16 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of La Mesa staff? FIGURE 47 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

30.1 35.9 30.7 27.9 33.3 37.4

65.7 61.2 66.9 69.3

66.1 62.3

24.0†

71.1†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011
Study Year
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
No contact
with staff in
past 12
months
Yes, contact
with staff in
past 12
months

Staff Interactions
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 48 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY AGE & QUADRANT OF CITY FIGURE 49 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY, OVERALL

SATISFACTION & PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY
The next question in this section asked respondents who had been in contact with staff to rate staff members’ helpfulness, professionalism, and responsiveness. The findings of this question are presented on the next page in Figure 50, and show that staff received high ratings for all three dimensions tested. Approximately 93% of respondents who had interacted with staff in the past 12 months and provided an opinion felt staff were very (64%) or somewhat (29%) professional. Similarly, 86% felt staff was very or somewhat responsive and 85% found them very or somewhat helpful. Table 10 on the next page provides the responses to this question for the current study compared with 2021. The percentage who provided ratings of very or somewhat professional, helpful, or responsive changed very little from 2021 to 2023.

25.8 21.0 21.6

25.0 28.2

10.6 21.2

34.2 32.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Age (QD1) Quadrant of City
% Respondents That Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months

20.7 21.9

31.6 21.3

37.5 21.4

36.9 20.5

24.1 15.7

29.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 Own Rent Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican
/ Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Satisfied DissatisfiedSafe Unsafe
Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Ethnicity (QD5) Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Perceived Safety of
City (Q7)
% Respondents That Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months

Staff Interactions
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Question 17 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all ______.

FIGURE 50 OPINION OF CITY STAFF (AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION) TABLE 10 OPINION OF CITY STAFF BY STUDY YEAR

49.8 50.7

36.0 34.7

6.6 14.2 14.6

64.0 29.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Professionalism Responsiveness Helpfulness
Q17 Rating city staff on . . .
% Respondents Who Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011
Responsiveness 85.8 84.7 93.1 93.6 93.2 96.9 95.3 1.1
Helpfulness 85.4 85.5 92.1 93.0 93.6 96.9 94.4 -0.1
Professionalism 93.4 93.4 97.1 95.8 97.3 98.5 97.0 0.0
Change in
Very + Somewhat
'21 to '23
Study Year

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

C OMMUNICATION
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of La Mesa’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of La Mesa’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, and its website. In this section, we present the results of several communication-related questions.

OVERALL SATISFACTION Question 18 asked residents to report their overall satisfaction with city-resident communication in the City of La Mesa. Overall, 54% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, or other means, 25% indicated they were dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect, and 22% were not sure or chose not to provide an opinion (see Figure 51). Driven by a statistically significant increase in the percentage who were unsure, satisfaction declined from 2021 (61%) to 2023 (54%). However, when the percentage of respondents who were unsure or declined to provide an opinion were factored out of the analysis, satisfaction with communication was statistically consistent from 2021 (72%) to 2023 (69%).

Question 18 Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, and other means? FIGURE 51 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

Figures 52 to 55 on the next page display how overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents among those who provided an opinion varied by resident subgroups.

Satisfaction with communication was most strongly correlated with respondents’ overall performance rating for the City and perceived safety of La Mesa as a place to live.

17.7 24.1 25.1 22.8

35.5 32.4

45.3 42.9

38.2 38.6 46.3

44.2 39.1

34.6 16.4 17.7 16.1

13.9 10.2

13.2 6.4

14.6 13.9 12.2 12.0 7.2 6.0 8.1

16.9 36.6†

16.4 2.6

6.7 8.1

5.6 6.9 4.5 21.1† 9.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 52 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN LA MESA, VISITED CITY WEBSITE & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 53 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE & QUADRANT OF CITY

19.5 25.2 20.4 23.1

50.9 40.4 47.1 46.6
Very
satisfied

24.5 16.2

26.4 22.2
Smwt
satisfied

46.2 49.0

46.2 45.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15 Yes No Yes No Years in La Mesa (Q1) Visited City Website (Q21) Child in Hsld (QD2) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion

24.4 22.4 18.2 23.1 22.5

53.2 44.3 56.0 45.4 43.3

22.6 17.4 16.3
Very
satisfied

27.2 46.4 47.9

46.5 Smwt
satisfied

43.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Age (QD1) Quadrant of City
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FIGURE 54 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & OVERALL

SATISFACTION
FIGURE 55 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY, INTERACTED WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS & OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES To help the City identify the most effective means of communicating with residents, it is helpful to understand which methods of communication residents prefer. Accordingly, for each of the methods shown to the left of Figure 56 on the next page, respondents were simply asked to indicate if it would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them.

Overall, respondents indicated that the most effective methods were email (79% very or somewhat effective), electronic newsletters (76%), and text messages (72%), followed by local news media (67%), direct mail postcards, letters, and newsletters (66%), social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor (66%), the City’s website (65%), and Townhall meetings (61%).

12.7 15.1

29.4 19.7 23.7 27.2

7.9 39.2

54.5 37.7

48.8 46.5

50.6 37.4
Very
satisfied

21.5 20.9

41.5 12.9
Smwt
satisfied

44.8 63.9

27.3 53.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Own Rent Male Female Satisfied Dissatisfied
Ethnicity (QD5) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Gender (QD4) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

26.6 11.1 15.8 14.2

46.1 61.2

36.6 36.0

23.9 20.4

8.6 Very
satisfied

23.9 34.3

48.2 45.0
Smwt
satisfied

49.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Safe Unsafe Yes No Positive Mixed Negative None provided Perceived Safety of City (Q7) Interacted With Police Dept in Past Two Years (Q12)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Question 19 As I read the following ways that the City of La Mesa can communicate with residents, I'd like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

FIGURE 56 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS
The following tables demonstrate how communication preferences varied (showing the percentage of respondents that viewed each method as very effective) by respondents’ age, overall satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing municipal services, satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts, opinion of La Mesa’s Police Department, ethnicity, home ownership status, quadrant of residence, and presence of a child in the home. To ease comparisons, the top three methods within each subgroup are highlighted green.

TABLE 11 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY AGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % VERY

EFFECTIVE)

41.5 33.8

40.9 23.4

27.7 25.2

24.3 21.8

37.6 42.5

31.3 43.2

38.7 40.9

40.2 39.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Email
Electronic newsletter
Text messages
Local news media
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home
Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door
City’s website
Townhall meetings
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dissatisfied Email 38.0 43.1 46.9 42.2 46.4 42.8 41.5
Text messages 48.2 39.2 48.4 40.4 34.7 42.0 44.4
Electronic newsletter 27.2 33.6 35.7 39.3 38.6 36.0 30.5 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 28.8 26.6 24.0 28.1 29.0 25.6 37.5 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 25.6 31.1 31.9 24.1 15.5 24.9 24.4 City’s website 26.7 25.6 20.2 23.6 25.3 25.2 22.9
Local news media 23.4 24.2 19.3 20.4 29.3 24.6 20.6
Townhall meetings 28.0 14.9 20.3 23.9 19.9 22.1 18.1
Age (QD1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 TABLE 12 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION & OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE)
TABLE 13 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING %

VERY EFFECTIVE)
TABLE 14 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY QUADRANT OF CITY & CHILD IN HSLD (SHOWING % VERY

EFFECTIVE)
PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE Respondents who indicated that social media was at least a somewhat effective method for the City to communicate with them were subsequently asked to identify the social media site that they use most often. Figure 57 on the next page shows responses to this question in the context of all respondents. Overall, Facebook (21%) and Instagram (20%) were the most common choices for social media, followed by Nextdoor (7%) and Twitter (5%). Overall, 43% of respondents indicated that they do not currently use social media and/or that it would not be an effective method for the City to communicate with them.

Satisfied Dissatisfied Not sure Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Email 46.9 38.9 31.7 45.9 38.4 33.0 32.4
Text messages 47.6 37.9 29.1 40.8 46.1 43.8 19.2
Electronic newsletter 38.5 33.7 23.3 35.2 37.1 30.7 21.2 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 30.5 32.0 15.9 31.5 29.0 19.3 13.4 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 29.2 22.8 18.6 26.0 29.4 21.7 15.9 City’s website 28.8 19.0 20.3 26.1 26.2 18.8 19.0
Local news media 26.9 24.2 13.4 27.3 16.1 19.4 17.8
Townhall meetings 24.3 22.2 13.6 22.2 23.1 22.2 12.6
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
Satisfaction With
Communication (Q18)
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black Asian
Mixed /
Other Own Rent
Email 40.7 41.4 45.3 41.5 55.8 41.8 43.6
Text messages 43.7 35.3 49.6 31.0 38.8 39.2 43.5
Electronic newsletter 33.7 35.0 36.6 25.2 29.9 33.4 35.1 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 28.6 23.9 30.3 22.7 41.9 27.8 27.9 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 23.4 29.1 31.3 21.2 26.4 21.5 31.8 City’s website 21.2 29.3 39.9 16.0 13.1 20.4 30.5
Local news media 20.5 32.2 25.3 13.9 21.4 19.0 29.1
Townhall meetings 22.8 17.4 35.4 12.3 27.6 16.6 27.7
Ethnicity (QD5)
Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No
Email 44.7 31.6 49.1 40.5 42.0 42.3
Text messages 37.7 33.7 46.6 45.6 40.6 41.4
Electronic newsletter 32.7 31.0 34.3 37.3 33.7 34.3
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 25.7 23.6 31.1 30.3 30.6 26.8 Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next Door 25.7 26.5 25.8 22.7 31.0 23.4 City’s website 19.3 26.8 25.4 25.8 25.3 24.4
Local news media 23.8 27.1 24.3 18.4 20.3 24.4
Townhall meetings 23.3 21.1 21.7 21.0 20.4 22.1
Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2)

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Question 20 What is your preferred Social Media site - the one you currently use most often? FIGURE 57 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE
For the interested reader, figures 58-60 present the results to Question 20 for various subgroups of La Mesa residents. It’s worth noting that the percentage who do not currently use social media and/or felt it would not be an effective method for the City to communicate with them reached majority status among seniors, those who perceived the City to be unsafe, respondents with a negative opinion of the Police Department or who did not provide an opinion either way, and those who identified their ethnicity as mixed/other.

FIGURE 58 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE BY YEARS IN LA MESA & AGE

21.3 19.6

6.7 5.3

1.9 1.8

0.6 42.9
0 10 20 30 40 50
Facebook
Instagram
Nextdoor
Twitter
Not sure / Prefer not to answer
Other
Nixle
Don’t currently use social media /
Not effective method
% All Respondents
27 25
29 3
11 4 4 4
10 3
6 7
2 4 4
12 8 8
13 0 1 11 00 0 1 2 1
4 3 0 0
3 22 2
41 41 41
46 40 39 39
42 52
18 19
25 25
16 16
22 26
15 24
13 32
24 11
5 5 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Age (QD1)
% All Respondents
Facebook Instagram Twitter Nextdoor Nixle Other Don’t currently use social media / Not effective method

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 FIGURE 59 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE BY CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, QUADRANT OF CITY &

PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY
FIGURE 60 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE BY OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT & ETHNICITY CITY’S WEBSITE The final substantive question of the survey asked if, in the 12 months prior to the interview, the respondent had visited the City of La Mesa’s website. As shown in Figure 61 on the next page, just over half (54%) of respondents in 2023 indicated that they had visited the site during this period, which is statistically similar to the percentage in 2021 (51%) and largely unchanged since 2011.
29 23 23
4 6 5 6
10 3
5 2
6 4
7 7 7 6
10 7 5
0 11 01 0 1 1 0 1
3 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 1
31 47
42 39
42 43
41 46
40 57
14 20 21
24 20 22 21
19 15
21 18 18 18
22 20 19
25 5 6 6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Yes No Own Rent Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Safe Unsafe Child in Household
(QD2)
Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Quadrant of City Perceived Safety of
City (Q7)
% All Respondents
Facebook Instagram Twitter Nextdoor Nixle Other Don’t currently use social media / Not effective method 25 22
26 4 4 3
6 6
0 4 5
8 7
3 2
4 2 1 0 00 1 0 0 00 2 3 1 1 2 222 0
40 40
51 53
46 35 35
43 58
22 16
25 20
16 11
22 13 15
23 24
34 26
24 17
10 7
4 12
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Opinion of Police Department (Q11) Ethnicity (QD5)
% All Respondents
Facebook Instagram Twitter Nextdoor Nixle Other Don’t currently use social media / Not effective method

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Question 21 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City of La Mesa's website? FIGURE 61 CITY WEBSITE VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR As displayed in figures 62 to 64, use of the City’s website varied across demographic subgroups.

Those most likely to have visited the website in the past 12 months were residents who had contact with city staff during the same period, respondents either satisfied or dissatisfied with cityresident communication (as opposed to not having an opinion), residents between 30 and 64 years of age, those with a child in the home, home owners, and Latino/Hispanic or mixed/other respondents.

FIGURE 62 CITY WEBSITE VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN LA MESA, CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF &

SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION

51.1 49.2 49.9 46.4 49.8 52.3

27.2 46.0 48.3 48.1 52.7 49.5 46.8

70.8 53.9

42.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Not sure
Did not visit
City website
in past 12
months
Yes, visited
City website
in past 12
months

72.7 47.3

61.5 56.4

33.0 54.6

50.4 53.5 55.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied Not sure
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Contact With Staff (Q16) Satisfaction With Communication (Q18) % Respondents That Visited City Website

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 FIGURE 63 CITY WEBSITE VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY QUADRANT OF CITY, AGE & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 64 CITY WEBSITE VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & ETHNICITY

49.5 63.2

57.1 59.2

45.0 63.6

50.1 50.2

54.8 50.8

60.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older
Yes No
Quadrant of City Age (QD1) Child in Household
(QD2)
% Respondents That Visited City Website

48.4 64.6

57.1 42.4

63.8 54.5 53.9

45.1 60.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Own Rent Male Female Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Gender (QD4) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents That Visited City Website

Background & Demographics
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS Table 15 presents the key demographic and background information collected during the survey. Because of the probability-based sampling methodology used in this study, the results shown in the table are representative of adult residents in the City of La Mesa. The primary motivation for collecting the background and demographic information was to provide a better insight into how results of the substantive questions of the survey vary by demographic characteristics. TABLE 15 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Total Respondents 1,069 1,257 1,218 1,023 825 800 800 800 QD1 Age
18 to 29 22.7 25.4 25.0 26.4 24.2 24.8 21.7 22.4
30 to 39 21.2 21.0 20.9 17.6 18.5 17.2 19.4 19.4
40 to 49 13.1 13.9 13.3 14.3 15.6 16.5 19.2 18.2
50 to 64 20.0 21.3 20.9 20.7 23.8 22.7 18.2 16.2
65 or older 17.1 17.5 19.7 19.7 17.4 17.4 21.3 20.5
Prefer not to answer 5.9 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.4 0.3 3.3
QD2 Children in hsld
Yes 27.1 28.1 28.2 28.1 27.9 30.8 33.2 31.2
No 69.7 70.2 70.6 69.5 71.5 67.0 66.4 65.4
Prefer not to answer 3.2 1.7 1.1 2.4 0.6 2.2 0.4 3.3
QD3 Home ownership status
Own 51.1 58.0 60.1 60.7 60.1 60.6 64.8 55.6
Rent 42.0 40.2 38.3 37.6 38.7 37.2 34.7 39.8
Prefer not to answer 6.9 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.2 2.1 0.5 4.6
QD4 Gender
Male 48.3 44.5 47.3 47.0 46.6 51.5 50.5 46.3
Female 45.8 52.1 51.6 52.3 53.2 48.5 49.5 53.7
Non-binary 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prefer not to answer 3.4 2.6 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
QD5 Ethnicity
Caucasian / White 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Latino / Hispanic 25.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
African-American / Black 7.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asian 5.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mixed / Other 3.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Prefer not to answer 3.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Study Year

Methodology
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of La Mesa to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who had interacted with city staff in the past 12 months (Question 16) were asked to rate aspects of their experience with staff (Question 17). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 57) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

Most of the questions asked in the 2023 survey were tracked directly from the 2021, 2019, 2017, 2015, 2013, 2011, and 2006 surveys to allow the City to track its performance over time.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City of La Mesa prior to formally beginning the survey.

The final questionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish to allow for data collection in English or Spanish according to the preference of the respondent.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of La Mesa households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in La Mesa had the opportunity to be selected to participate in the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents. Individuals were subsequently recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only La Mesa residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North placed telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled residents that had yet to participate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.

Methodology
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Telephone interviews averaged 20 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 1,069 completed surveys were gathered online and by telephone between May 1 and May 9, 2023.

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING By using the probability-based sample as discussed above and monitoring the sample characteristics as data collection proceeded, True North ensured that the sample was representative of adult residents in the City of La Mesa. The results of the sample can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents in the City.

Because not every adult in the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 1,069 adults for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 48,646 adults in the City5 had been interviewed.

For example, in estimating the percentage of adults who have been in contact with City of La Mesa staff in the past 12 months (Question 16), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a desired confidence level, and the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below.
where is the proportion of adults who said had been in contact with staff (0.24 for 24% in this example), is the population size of all adults (48,646), is the sample size that received the question (1,069), and is the upper point for the t-distribution with degrees of freedom (1.96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error of ± 2.5%. This means that with 24% of survey respondents indicating they had been in contact with city staff in the past 12 months, we can be 95 percent confident that the actual percentage of all adult residents in La Mesa in contact with staff during this period is between 21% and 27%.

Figure 65 on the next page provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response (i.e., = 0.5). For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.0% for questions answered by all 1,069 respondents.

Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demographic characteristics such as quadrant of the City and age of the respondent. Figure 65 on the next page is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

5. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, July 2022 estimate.
pˆ t Nn –
N------------   pˆ 1 – pˆ n – 1  ------------------- pˆ
N n
t   2 n – 1
pˆ

Methodology
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 FIGURE 65 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. Where appropriate, tests of statistical significance were conducted to evaluate changes in responses between the 2021 and 2023 studies.

The final data were weighted to balance the sample by key demographics according to Census estimates.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and figures for a given question. Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that sum to slightly more or less than 100%.
1,069 Respondents
± 3.0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES Copyright © 2023 True North Research, Inc. Page 1
City of La Mesa
Resident Satisfaction Survey
Final Toplines (n=1,069)
May 2023
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hello, may I please speak to _____. Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, a public opinion research company. We’re conducting a survey about issues in La Mesa (la MAYsuh) and we would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community – I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 13 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not convenient, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to the measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.

Section 2: Land Line (only) Screener for Inclusion in the Study SC1 To begin, are you at least 18 years of age?
1 Yes Qualified
2 No Ask to speak to someone in household
that is at least 18 years of age
99 Prefer not to answer Terminate
Section 3: General Perceptions of City & Local Issues
Q1 How long have you lived in the City of La Mesa?
1 Less than 1 year 6%
2 1 to 3 years 16%
3 4 to 5 years 12%
4 6 to 10 years 17%
5 11 to 15 years 11%
6 16 to 20 years 8%
7 More than 20 years 29%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 17%
2 Good 56%
3 Fair 24%
4 Poor 2%
5 Very Poor 1%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 2
Q3
If the City government could change one thing to make La Mesa a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Categories mentioned by at least 2% of respondents presented here.

Address homeless issues 22%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 15%
Improve, repair roads 13%
Limit growth, development 9%
Increase public safety 7%
Add, improve sidewalks 7%
Provide affordable housing 4%
Clean up public areas, facilities 4%
Enforce traffic laws 4%
Improve police presence, response 4%
Add more bike lanes 4%
Reduce traffic congestion 3%
Improve parking 3%
Add, improve parks 3%
Improve public transportation 3%
Improve street lighting 2%
Improve landscaping 2%
Provide special, cultural events 2%
Fix, upgrade rundown buildings, graffiti 2%
Support small, local businesses 2%
Increase support for police department 2%
Provide more healthcare, social services 2%
Implement rent control ordinance 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 3
Section 4: City Services
Next, I’m going to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of La Mesa.

Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 20%
2 Somewhat satisfied 51%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 15%
4 Very dissatisfied 5%
98 Not sure 9%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Split Sample for Q5 and Q6. Even PINS receive items A-K, Odd PINS receive items L-U.

Q5
For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

Make sure respondent understands the 4 point scale.

Randomize
Extremely Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not at all
Important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Maintaining and repairing streets 54% 36% 9% 0% 1% 0% B Maintaining landscaped street medians 24% 28% 41% 6% 1% 0% C Providing adequate traffic signs and signals 39% 37% 22% 1% 1% 0% D Enforcing traffic laws 32% 33% 26% 7% 1% 0%
E Maintaining a low crime rate 64% 26% 6% 3% 0% 0%
F Providing crime prevention programs 40% 30% 26% 3% 2% 0% G Providing neighborhood police patrols 38% 27% 23% 11% 1% 0% H Providing fire protection services 56% 38% 4% 0% 1% 0% I Providing animal control services 15% 32% 43% 8% 2% 0% J Preparing the community for emergencies 41% 34% 20% 2% 2% 0% K Providing emergency medical services 61% 32% 6% 1% 1% 0% L Keeping public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 42% 34% 21% 1% 1% 0%
M Maintaining parks and sports fields 47% 39% 12% 1% 0% 0% N Providing programs for youth 37% 30% 25% 4% 3% 0%
O Providing programs for adults 15% 25% 43% 14% 3% 0%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 4
P Providing programs for seniors 25% 29% 32% 10% 4% 0%
Q Providing community events 21% 27% 39% 12% 1% 0%
R Reducing stormwater pollution 28% 29% 30% 8% 4% 1%
S Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable
community 46% 28% 20% 4% 1% 0%
T Facilitating the creation of affordable
housing 36% 18% 22% 22% 2% 1%
U Addressing homelessness 66% 24% 7% 2% 1% 1%
Q6
For the same list of services I just read I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? (Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask): Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Maintain and repair streets 7% 38% 27% 23% 4% 1%
B Maintain landscaped street medians 24% 39% 16% 11% 9% 1% C Provide adequate traffic signs and signals 26% 45% 17% 4% 7% 1% D Enforce traffic laws 16% 43% 16% 8% 14% 3%
E Maintain a low crime rate 21% 40% 20% 7% 10% 1%
F Provide crime prevention programs 15% 32% 14% 7% 29% 3% G Provide neighborhood police patrols 11% 41% 19% 11% 16% 3% H Provide fire protection services 43% 32% 3% 3% 17% 1% I Provide animal control services 17% 35% 10% 3% 33% 2% J Prepare the community for emergencies 13% 33% 17% 5% 31% 1% K Provide emergency medical services 31% 34% 9% 1% 25% 1% L Keep public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 26% 51% 10% 5% 7% 1%
M Maintain parks and sports fields 24% 50% 11% 7% 7% 1% N Provide programs for youth 10% 35% 13% 3% 36% 3%
O Provide programs for adults 7% 32% 9% 4% 46% 2%
P Provide programs for seniors 9% 30% 9% 5% 45% 1%
Q Provide community events 19% 42% 12% 3% 21% 2%
R Reduce stormwater pollution 9% 35% 9% 3% 42% 2%
S Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable
community 14% 42% 22% 11% 10% 2%
T Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 6% 20% 19% 24% 26% 5% U Address homelessness 4% 16% 30% 38% 12% 1%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 5
Section 5: Public Safety & Police
Q7 Overall, how safe is the City of La Mesa as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
1 Very safe 28%
2 Somewhat safe 57%
3 Somewhat unsafe 12%
4 Very unsafe 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q8 When you are: _____, would you say that you feel very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
Randomize
Very Safe
Reasonably
Safe
Somewhat
Unsafe
Very Unsafe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Walking alone in your neighborhood during
the day 49% 42% 6% 1% 1% 1%
B Walking alone in your neighborhood after
dark 14% 41% 30% 13% 2% 1%
C Walking alone in business and retail areas
during the day 48% 40% 8% 2% 1% 1%
D Walking alone in business and retail areas
after dark 13% 42% 27% 13% 4% 1%
E Walking alone in parks, paths, and
recreational trails during the day 31% 46% 14% 4% 4% 1% Q9 Are you involved in a neighborhood watch program?
1 Yes 10%
2 No 83%
98 Not sure 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 6
Q10
Thinking of the La Mesa Police Department, please tell me how well you feel the Department performs in the following areas. Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Would you say the La Mesa Police Department does an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job in this area?
Randomize
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Prefer not to
answer
A Investigating crimes 9% 27% 26% 9% 6% 22%
B Maintaining a presence/being visible 14% 34% 27% 10% 6% 8% C Engaging and interacting with the public 12% 30% 26% 13% 7% 12% D Communicating with La Mesa residents and
local businesses 10% 30% 24% 13% 6% 16%
E Working with the community to solve
problems 10% 32% 24% 12% 8% 15%
Q11
Next, I’m going to read you a few statements about the La Mesa Police Department. For each, I’d like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
The Police Department demonstrates
professionalism when interacting with the
public
34% 30% 8% 7% 19% 2%
B I trust the La Mesa Police Department to
protect and serve the public 34% 34% 10% 11% 9% 1%
C The Police Department holds its officers
accountable 25% 21% 10% 11% 30% 3%
D
The La Mesa Police Department treats
people the same regardless of their race,
income, or identity
29% 18% 15% 11% 24% 3%
Q12 In the past two years, have you: _____?
Randomize
Yes
No
Prefer not
to answer
A Been stopped or pulled over by a La Mesa
Police Officer 7% 92% 1%
B Called the La Mesa Police Department for
assistance 41% 58% 1%
C
Talked or interacted with a La Mesa Police
Officer at a community event or other
setting
39% 59% 1%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 7
Q13
The City of La Mesa has created codes to address a variety of issues that can affect a neighborhood, such as illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction, junk storage and properties not being properly maintained.

Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations, or do you not have an opinion? (Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask): Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
1 Very satisfied 14% Skip to Q15
2 Somewhat satisfied 32% Skip to Q15
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 16% Ask Q14
4 Very dissatisfied 11% Ask Q14
98 Not sure 25% Skip to Q15
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q15
Q14
Is there a particular issue or code violation that the City isn’t addressing that leads you to be dissatisfied? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe it to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Illegal parking, unattended, abandoned
vehicles 28%
Homeless issues 25%
Unmaintained properties, lawns 16%
Violations not enforced fairly 11%
No particular issue 11%
Safety, security issues 9%
Littering, trash cans left outside 7%
Speeding cars, traffic violations 6%
City not responding fast to city resident
issues 4%
Road, street maintenance 3%
Noise violations 2%
Vandalism, graffiti 2%
Illegal housing rental, multiple families 2%
Dogs off-leash 2%
Using garage as auto shop 1%
Dog waste on properties, streets 1%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 8
Section 6: Traffic
Q15
Next, I’d like to ask you a few questions about traffic circulation. By traffic circulation, I mean the ability to drive around La Mesa without encountering long delays.

Would you rate: _____ within the City of La Mesa as excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
Read in Order
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Overall traffic circulation 15% 44% 27% 6% 5% 2% 0%
B Traffic circulation on major streets 12% 40% 28% 10% 8% 2% 0% C Traffic circulation in residential areas 26% 45% 18% 6% 3% 2% 0% Section 7: Staff Interactions
Q16 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of La Mesa staff? 1 Yes 24% Ask Q17
2 No 71% Skip to Q18
98 Not sure 4% Skip to Q18
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q18
Q17 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____. (Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read).

Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Helpful 49% 33% 14% 2% 2%
B Professional 62% 28% 6% 2% 2%
C Responsive 48% 34% 14% 2% 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 9
Section 8: Communication
Q18
Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, and other means? (get answer, then ask): Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 17%
2 Somewhat satisfied 37%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 16%
4 Very dissatisfied 8%
98 Not sure 21%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q19
As I read the following ways that the City of La Mesa can communicate with residents, I’d like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

Randomize
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Not
Effective
Not Sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Email 41% 38% 13% 5% 3%
B Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to
your home 28% 39% 24% 6% 3%
C Electronic newsletter 34% 43% 12% 8% 3%
D City’s website 24% 40% 26% 7% 3%
E Local news media 23% 43% 23% 8% 3%
F Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Next
Door 25% 41% 21% 10% 3%
G Townhall meetings 22% 40% 23% 12% 3%
H Text messages 41% 31% 15% 9% 3%
Ask Q20 if Q19F=(1,2). Otherwise skip to Q21.

Q20 What is your preferred Social Media site – the one you currently use most often? 1 Facebook 32%
2 Instagram 30%
3 Twitter 8%
4 Nextdoor 10%
5 Nixle 1%
6 Other 3%
7 Don’t use social media currently 13%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 10
Q21 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City of La Mesa’s website? 1 Yes 54%
2 No 43%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 9: Background& Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year of birth recoded into age categories shown below. 18 to 29 23%
30 to 39 21%
40 to 49 13%
50 to 64 20%
65 or older 17%
Prefer not to answer 6%
D2 Do you currently have any children under the age of 18 living in your home? 1 Yes 27%
2 No 70%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
D3 Do you own or rent your residence in the City of La Mesa? 1 Own 51%
2 Rent 42%
99 Prefer not to answer 7%
D4 What is your gender?
1 Male 48%
2 Female 46%
3 Non-binary 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey May 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 11
D5 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates.
1 Caucasian/White 55%
2 Latino/Hispanic 25%
3 African-American/Black 7%
4 Native American Indian or Alaskan
Native <1%
5 Asian -- Korean, Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Filipino or other Asian 6%
6 Pacific Islander <1%
7 Mixed Heritage 1%
8 Other 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of La Mesa.

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Quadrant
1 Northwest 25%
2 Northeast 25%
3 Southwest 25%
4 Southeast 25%

DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ray Sweeney, Chief of Police
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: LMPD Quarterly Report 2nd Quarter
Please see the attached 2nd Quarter Report for your review.

1 Crime Trends and Statistics
The 2nd quarter of 2023 concluded with 22.1 crimes per thousand residents compared to

23.2 crimes per thousand in the 2nd quarter of 2022, which represents a 5.2% decrease in the number of crimes. During this period violent crime increased 51.3% and property crime decreased 12.1%.

FBI Part 1 Crimes 2nd Quarter Year to Date
Historical Violent Crime Comparison, 2nd Quarter Year to Date

2 While incidents of homicide and rape remained relatively the same compared to last year, incidents of robbery and aggravated assault increased. Both commercial and street level robberies increased year-to-date in 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. Overall, robberies during the 2nd quarter of 2023 decreased 44% compared to the 1st quarter of 2023. Sixty-one (61) percent of all robberies were closed by arrest year-to-date in 2023.

Sixty (60) percent of aggravated assaults were domestic violence related in the 2nd quarter of 2023. Domestic violence related assaults increased 170% in the 2nd quarter of 2023 compared to the 2nd quarter of 2022.

Case Clearances
On April 26, 2023, a 40-year-old individual was shot in the arm while inside a residence in the 4900 block of Clearview Way. The shooter and his two companions fled the residence and the victim’s friend called 9-1-1. The victim was transported to the hospital and recovered from his injury. Detectives were called to the scene and during the course of their investigation were able to identify the suspect in this case. The suspect was taken into custody on June 1, 2023 and was booked at jail for attempted murder.

3 Historical Property Crime Comparison, 2nd Quarter Year to Date Compared to the previous year, residential burglary increased 29.4%, commercial burglary increased 11.4%, theft decreased 18.1%, and auto theft decreased 10.0%. Twenty-three (23) percent of residential burglaries in 2023 have been cleared by arrest.

Case Clearances
On March 30, 2023, at approximately 5:30 AM, two unknown suspects burglarized Duke’s Old-Fashioned Onion Burgers, located at 5020 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa. The suspects forced entry through the doors of the restaurant and stole the safe. The empty safe was later recovered in a nearby parking lot. La Mesa Police detectives obtained surveillance video from the restaurant and surrounding businesses and determined the suspects were driving a stolen vehicle. On April 3, 2023, at approximately 5:00 AM, the same suspects burglarized Marie Calendar’s located at 6950 Alvarado Road, La Mesa. The suspects broke into the office of the restaurant before stealing two liquor bottles. A “Be on the Lookout” flyer was distributed to local law enforcement agencies to attempt to identify the suspects.

In May, La Mesa Police detectives were contacted by detectives from Riverside Police Department (RPD). RPD had identified the La Mesa suspects and advised they were responsible for 24 burglary cases across San Diego and Riverside Counties. Both suspects had been arrested in Riverside. The La Mesa cases were added to their charges.

During the early morning hours of April 1, 2023, two unknown suspects broke into a residential garage in the 7300 block of Parkway Drive. The suspects stole an electric scooter and numerous tools. Two weeks later, the same two suspects burglarized a residence on Collins Avenue in La Mesa, stealing the resident’s laptop and passport. While conducting follow-up investigation on another case, a La Mesa Police Department Community Service Officer discovered video evidence depicted the suspects in the two

4 previously mentioned residential burglary cases. La Mesa Detectives were able to identify the two suspects and determine their whereabouts. Both suspects were taken into custody and a subsequent search of their vehicle and residence produced additional stolen property from other burglary cases. Ultimately, the suspects were tied to seven residential burglary cases in La Mesa and three residential burglary cases in San Diego. They have been charged with those crimes and are pending sentencing.

Supervised Persons in the City
Parolees and Probationers
Below is a graph representing the number of individuals on Parole that have resided in La Mesa over the last four years. Please note that the below graph does not include PostRelease Offenders (AB109).

Registered Sex Offenders
There are currently ninety-nine (99) active sex registrants in the city. Throughout the year, patrol officers conduct compliance checks on the registrants living in La Mesa. Three (3) registrants were out of compliance during the 2nd Quarter of 2023, meaning they have not completed their annual or monthly check-in and residency verification as required. One (1) of the registrants was discovered to have had a medical emergency and has since been able to register. Arrest warrants are pending for the other two (2) registrants who could not be located by La Mesa Police Detectives.

5 Traffic Unit
Traffic Collisions
2023
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD
Total Traffic Collisions 102 71 173
Collisions Involving Injury 63 39 102
Total Vehicle Occupants Reporting Injury 78 52 130
Occupants Reporting Serious Injury 4 1 5
Fatality 0 0 0
Top Three Collision Locations

1. Baltimore and Fletcher Parkway

2. Baltimore and El Cajon Blvd

3. Fletcher and Grossmont Center
Traffic Enforcement Operations 2nd Quarter
Date Enforcement Operations Focus Location Total Officers 04/07/2023 Traffic Enforcement Distracted Driving Citywide 2 04/28/2023 Traffic Enforcement Distracted Driving Citywide 2 04/21/2023 Traffic Enforcement Distracted Driving Citywide 3 05/26/2023 Traffic Enforcement Click it or Ticket Citywide 4 05/27/2023 Traffic Enforcement DUI Citywide 2
06/24/2023 DUI Enforcement DUI Citywide 3
Community Engagement and Information Sharing
Social Media
During the 2nd quarter, the Social Media Team shared information with the public related to driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana, distracted driving, legal restrictions on the use of marijuana, and information on the dangers of fentanyl.

Social Media Platform Followers
Nextdoor 22,544 La Mesa Residents
Facebook 7,380
Twitter 5,407
Instagram 3,556

6 Events and Presentations
On April 24th, the Department participated in the
National Prescription Drug Take Back Day. The dropoff site collected over 110 pounds of unwanted prescription drugs.

On May 30th, La Mesa Police Department staff,
alongside other San Diego County law enforcement
agencies, was honored to participate in The Law
Enforcement Torch Run in support of Special
Olympics. The annual Torch Run is the largest public
awareness vehicle and grassroots fundraiser for
Special Olympics, with more than 2,000 officers
participating in Southern California - championing
acceptance and inclusion.

On June 3rd, the Department participated and
supported the 24th Annual La Mesa Flag Day Parade.

Department staff walked in the parade distributing
badge stickers and meeting residents, and supported
parade operations with traffic control.

During second week of June, the Department held the
2023 La Mesa PD Youth Leadership Camp. This camp
is designed to teach high school students the
foundational elements of leadership, teamwork, ethics,
mindfulness, and self-awareness.

On June 18th, La Mesa Police Department staff
attended the La Mesa Juneteenth Foundation’s Jubilee
event at MacArthur Park.

School Resource Officer
The School Resource Officer position is currently
vacant.

Crime Prevention and Outreach Services
Neighborhood Watch Meetings 0
Community Presentations 2
Residential Security Inspections 0
Commercial Security Inspection 0
Senior Volunteer Guarnotta (left), CSO
Matthews-Blue (center), and Senior Volunteer
Boatright (right) providing support at the 24th
Annual La Mesa Flag Day Parade.

Officer J. Seydel carries the torch and Officer W.

Wilson carries the Special Olympics flag in the
Law Enforcement Torch Run on May 30.

Captain Matt Nicholass (left) and Captain Greg
Runge (far right) joined Chief Ray Sweeney at
the La Mesa Juneteenth Foundation and
Friend’s Jubilee celebration.

7 Staffing and Training
New Officers
No new officers completed field training this quarter.

Police Academy Graduates
No new officers graduated from the Academy this quarter.

Hiring Updates
Police Officer Ashley Ufers was hired during the 2nd quarter of 2023 and began her Field Training on June 4th. Police Officer Juan Rangel was also hired during the 2nd quarter and began his Field Training on June 11th.

Vacancies
The Department currently has five vacancies for police officer and one vacancy for police dispatcher. Applications are being accepted for the following positions: Police Officer Lateral/Academy Graduate, Police Officer Trainee, and Police Dispatcher. Please visit the City of La Mesa’s website for more information or to apply.

Promotions
No promotions during the second quarter.

Officer Training
During the 2nd quarter, all sworn personnel completed quarterly firearms qualifications and First Aid/CPR/AED recertification.

Department Demographics
Position Authorized Filled Vacancies
Sworn Officers 70 65 5
Dispatchers 12 11 1
Community Service Officers 4 4 0
Race/Ethnicity Total Officers Percent of Officers
Asian 1 1.5%
Black or African American 6 9.2%
Hispanic or Latino 16 24.6%
White 42 64.7%
Grand Total 65 100.0%

8 Department Wellness
The Department remains committed to the wellness of our staff and we offer a variety of resources to our police officers and professional staff. Our Peer Support Team responded to several call-outs during the past quarter to support staff who were impacted by critical incidents. Our Facility Dog, Declan, has also been called upon to provide his unconditional love and support to those team members impacted by trauma, stress, and the oftenchallenging realities of first responder work. The La Mesa Police Department contracts with a local mental health clinician who is culturally competent in assisting first responders with processing life and work trauma. This clinician is an invaluable asset and helps us protect our people so they can continue to protect you.

Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Reporting
The Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 prohibits racial and identity profiling by law enforcement, and requires all agencies to annually report vehicle and pedestrian stop information, as well as citizen complaints of profiling, to the California Attorney General’s office. The La Mesa Police Department began collecting stop information in 2022 in compliance with the legislation. Data for 2022 was reported to the Department of Justice at the beginning of the 2
nd Quarter of 2023. The latest report from the California RIPA Board can be found on the California Attorney General’s website by following the link below.
https://oag.ca.gov/ab953/board/reports

DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANTS TO CITY OF LA MESA BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
On July 11th, the City Council interviewed applicants who were interested in being appointed or reappointed to the City’s boards and commissions. At the Council meeting on July 25th, the Mayor and City Council will nominate and confirm the appointments. With the exception of the Community Services Commission and Planning Commission, the Mayor will make the appointments to the City’s boards and commissions with the approval of the City Council.

For the appointments to the Community Services Commission and Planning Commission, nomination forms will be distributed at the meeting. Each Councilmember will indicate his or her nominations on the form. The forms will be passed to the City Clerk who will read each nomination aloud. The nomination process will continue until there is a majority nomination by the Council.

Attached is a list of the boards and commissions with a brief description of the requirements for each one, the number of openings, and the names of each applicant seeking to be appointed.

Staff recommends the City Council appoint members to fill the openings on the City’s boards and commissions, and adopt the attached resolution confirming the appointments.

Attachments

ATTACHMENT A
A number of applicants listed more than one board or commission of interest.

Community Relations and Veterans Commission: 2 positions – four-year terms One position represents the veteran population (V) and one position represents the general population (G).

Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code. One appointee 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
Jeffrey Foertsch (G)(V)
Donald Long (G)(V) – incumbent 02/13/01 5+partial
Community Services Commission: 2 positions – four-year terms One position is recommended by the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) with term expiring June 30, 2026. A nomination from GUHSD has not been received.

One position will fill the unexpired term of Patrick Dean whose term expires June 30, 2025.

Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code. One appointee shall be nominated by the Grossmont Union High School District.

First Appointed Terms
Christopher Langdon
Andrew Reeves
Jana Schwartz
Design Review Board: 2 positions – three-year term
One position will fill the unexpired term of David Taylor Jr. whose term expires June 30, 2024.

Members shall be design professionals, which are defined as registered architect or landscape architect, building designer, urban designer or urban planner. Members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.

First Appointed Terms
No applications were received for the Design Review Board

Environmental Sustainability Commission: 3 positions – four-year terms One position represents the professional category (P) with experience related to environmental sustainability, one position represents the youth population (Y), and one position represents the older adult population (S).

Seven of the members shall be residents of the City of La Mesa and be comprised as follows: two members from the general populous; three members with professional experience related to environmental sustainability; one member representing the senior adult population (at time of appointment shall be not less than fifty-five years of age); and one member representing the youth population (at the time of appointment shall be not more than 21 years of age).

First Appointed Terms
Danielle Bautista (G)
Jeffrey Foertsch (G)
Ashton Genzman (G)(P)
David Harris (G)(S) – incumbent 03/14/23 partial
Steve Kitchen (G)(P)(S)
Kara Koehrn (G)(P)
Dasmine McFarlin (Y)
Mary Nooristani (G)(P) – incumbent 05/10/22 partial
Barbara Shustek (G)(S)
Historic Preservation Commission: 3 positions – four-year terms One position is recommended by the La Mesa Historical Society (HS).

Two of the members shall be registered voters and licensed architects, landscape architects, city planners, urban designers, architectural historians, individuals practicing structural or interior design; two are current resident electors of the City of La Mesa; and three are registered voters and recommended by the La Mesa Historical Society.

Members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.

First Appointed Terms
Don Cary (HS) – incumbent 07/09/19 1
Jeffrey Foertsch
Jan Wilcox – incumbent 10/13/15 2
Lori Wilcox – incumbent 11/08/22 partial
Jian-Sen Wu

La Mesa Community Parking Commission: 3 positions – four-year term Two positions are a business representative, property owner, or resident residing in the CD/D Downtown Commercial Zone (C/D) with one term expiring June 30, 2024.

One position will fill the unexpired term of Luke Martin whose term expires June 30, 2024, and was a general population representative (G).

Two members shall be at-large members and three members shall be business representatives, property owners, or residents residing in the CD/D Downtown Commercial Zone. Members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.

First Appointed Terms
Jonathan Baron (C/D) – incumbent 07/14/15 2
Jeffrey Foertsch (G)
Steve Kitchen (G)
Mobility Commission: 2 position – four-year terms
One position is the experience as a vulnerable road user, who frequently walks, rides a bicycle, or uses another vulnerable non-car mode of transportation representative (VRU) and one position is the climate/environmental issues experience representative (CE) with term expiring June 30, 2026.

Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.

First Appointed Terms
Kara Koehrn (VRU)(CE)
David Nichols (VRU) – incumbent 02/23/21 partial
Personnel Appeals Board: 2 positions – three-year terms Members shall be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.

First Appointed Terms
Peter Gregorovic – incumbent 2/24/15 2+partial
Tony Orlando – incumbent 7/11/17 2

Planning Commission: 2 positions – four-year terms
One position will fill the unexpired term of Cheryl Alvarado whose term expires June 30, 2025.

Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.

First Appointed Terms
Danielle Bautista
Kathleen Brand
Jeffrey Foertsch
Jonathan Frankel – incumbent 01/24/23 partial
David Harris
Joshua Helland
Steve Kitchen
Christopher Langdon
Andrew Reeves
Barbara Shustek

APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPOINTING

AND/OR REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO CITY OF LA MESA BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, terms on the following City of La Mesa Boards and Commissions have either expired or been vacated; and
WHEREAS, the list of persons below has been either recommended to or by the City Council for appointment or reappointment to said City of La Mesa Board and Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the following are hereby appointed and/or reappointed as members of the City of La Mesa Boards and Commissions, with their terms to commence after the oath or affirmation of allegiance for public officers or employees is executed as required by Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of California, and to expire on the dates stated below, or until their successors are appointed and qualified:

Community Relations and Veterans Commission: 2 appointments (Name) is appointed/reappointed as the veteran population representative for term ending June 30, 2027.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the general population representative for term ending June 30, 2027.

Community Services Commission: 1 appointment
(Name) is appointed to fill the unscheduled vacancy created by Patrick Dean for term ending June 30, 2025.

Environmental Sustainability Commission: 3 appointments (Name) is appointed/reappointed as the professional representative for term ending June 30, 2027.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the youth representative for term ending June 30, 2027.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the older adult representative for term ending June 30, 2027.

Historic Preservation Commission: 3 appointments
Don Cary is appointed as the La Mesa Historical Society representative for term ending June 30, 2027
.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the general population representative for term ending June 30, 2027.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the general population representative for term ending June 30, 2027.

La Mesa Community Parking Commission: 3 appointments
(Name) is appointed to fill the unscheduled vacancy created by Luke Martin for term ending June 30, 2024, and represents the general population. (Name) is reappointed as the CD/D Zone representative for term ending June 30, 2027.

Mobility Commission: 2 appointments
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the vulnerable road user representative for term ending June 30, 2027.
(Name) is appointed as the climate/environmental issues experience representative for term ending June 30, 2026.

Personnel Appeals Board: 1 appointment
(Name) is reappointed for term ending June 30, 2026.
(Name) is reappointed for term ending June 30, 2026.

Planning Commission: 2 appointments
(Name) is appointed to fill the unscheduled vacancy created by Cheryl Alvarado for term ending June 30, 2025.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed for term ending June 30, 2027.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 25th day of July 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)

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

Location:

June 10, 2023, 12:00 p.m.

La Mesa Community Center, 4975 Memorial Drive
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
Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m.

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.

3. SPECIAL MEETING - STRATEGIC PLANNING INTERACTIVE WORKSHOP

3.1 AN INTERACTIVE WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE

CITY'S STRATEGIC GOALS
City Manager Humora provided opening remarks and stated the purpose of the Strategic Planning Workshop ("Workshop") was to create a road map for the City with a clear path to the desired destination.

2 The Baker Tilly US, LLP ("Baker Tilly") consulting team presented the objectives, process overview, and feedback tool for the Workshop.

City Manager Humora presented the City's environmental scan which included information on La Mesa's demographics, fiscal stability, housing, economic climate, the 2023 community survey, communications, and accomplishments.

The Baker Tilly consulting team led the discussion on stakeholder input which included strengths, challenges, opportunities, and threats.

Council questions and comments ensued.

The Baker Tilly consulting team led the discussion on the City's Mission and Vision Statements.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Lee Sandvick spoke regarding public safety, neighborhood revitalization, housing, and the adult enrichment center.

Don Wood spoke regarding transit-oriented development.

Kathleen Brand spoke on homelessness and affordable housing.

Dawn-Marie Tol spoke on inclusivity and affordable housing.

Lauren Cooper spoke on creating a public square and urban trails, the walkability of La Mesa, and connecting the north and south side of La Mesa.

John Schmitz spoke regarding the format of the Workshop and updating City documents such as the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Civic Center Master Plan.

Dianne Osterling spoke regarding the City's Mission Statement, affordable housing, and design standards.

Eileen Schmitz spoke regarding the livability of La Mesa, open space, and parking.

Brenda Leek spoke regarding outside dining, homelessness, special events, and the community-oriented spirit of La Mesa.

Mary England spoke regarding the City's Vision Statement.

3 Joseph Cryer spoke regarding the beautification of La Mesa, inclusivity, the City's Mission and Vision Statements, and increasing awareness of the various City resources available to residents.

The Baker Tilly consulting team led the discussion on the proposed strategic goals and strategies:

1.) Safe Community - maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe:

Strategy 1: Maintain a low crime rate;
Strategy 2: Implement the Vision Zero Plan and traffic calming measures to increase safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists;
Strategy 3: Improve residents' capacity to prepare and respond to a major emergency or natural disaster; and
Strategy 4: Increase public safety presence in neighborhoods.

2.) Financial Sustainability - ensure a strong financial outlook through careful planning, sustainable service levels, and fiscal responsibility:

Strategy 1: Evaluate City services for efficiencies to establish sustainable service levels and practices;
Strategy 2: Evaluate staffing levels and the allocation of limited resources;
Strategy 3: Prepare for sunset of Measure L in 2028 (sales tax measure to maintain essential City services);
Strategy 4: Increase reliable revenue sources that will grow with expenditure trends; and
Strategy 5: Mitigate impacts of development on City infrastructure and services.

3.) Livability - promote a high quality of life for current and future generations:

Strategy 1: Maintain a system of services, regional shelters and housing for La Mesa's homeless population;
Strategy 2: Implement the City's Climate Action Plan;

4 Strategy 3: Ensure the City is visibly clean, to allow residents, business owners, and visitors to enjoy attractive community spaces;
Strategy 4: Enhance the Downtown Village as a thriving destination for residents and visitors;
Strategy 5: Ensure an adequate supply of housing that is affordable and accessible to current and future generations; and
Strategy 6: Ensure all residents have equitable access to City services and spaces.

4.) Infrastructure and Amenities - Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community:

Strategy 1: Ensure City streets and facilities are repaired and well maintained;
Strategy 2: Develop a roadmap to enhance technology resources citywide;
Strategy 3: Develop and enhance parks, trails and recreational facilities to better serve residents;
Strategy 4: Implement the Civic Center Master Plan; and Strategy 5: Pursue capital resources to fund public facilities.

5.) High-Performing Organization - nurture an organizational culture where employees are recognized for the delivery of high-quality services to the community:

Strategy 1: Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of City services;
Strategy 2: Increase employee engagement and opportunities for professional growth;
Strategy 3: Leverage a data-driven approach to ensure City activities are strategic;
Strategy 4: Strengthen public trust in City government by focusing on accountability and transparent engagement with the community; Strategy 5: Cultivate an organizational culture that demonstrates teamwork and customer service; and

5 Strategy 6: Address concerns about staffing capacity and succession planning, to improve service delivery and morale.

Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.

4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk

1 La Mesa City Council, La Mesa Public Financing Authority, and City of La Mesa Successor Agency
Meeting Minutes
Date:

Location:

June 27, 2023, 6:00 p.m.

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 6:01 p.m.

1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.

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.

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

5. PRESENTATION

5.1 PROCLAIMING JULY 2023 AS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH Mayor Arapostathis read the proclamation proclaiming July 2023 as Parks and Recreation Month.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Wendy Mihalic spoke regarding the update to the Climate Action Plan.

Alice Burger spoke in opposition to the proposed parole office at 8374-8376 Hercules Street.

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

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

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 9.1 through 9.11)
Moved by Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded by Councilmember Shu
Approve Consent Calendar Items 9.1 through 9.11.

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

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

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.

9.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS HELD TUESDAY, MAY 9 AND MAY 23, 2023
Approve.

3 9.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023
Approve.

9.4 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR

MEETING AND THE LA MESA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023
Approve.

9.5 2023-2026 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE

CITY OF LA MESA AND THE HEARTLAND FIREFIGHTERS OF LA
MESA LOCAL #4759
Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2023-2026 MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA AND
THE HEARTLAND FIREFIGHTERS OF LA MESA LOCAL #4759
Resolution No. 2023-075
Adopt Resolution.
b. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF LA MESA
COMPENSATION PLANS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023-24, 2024-
25, AND 2025-26 LISTING POSITIONS, SALARY

RANGES/BANDS, AND PAY STEPS
Resolution No. 2023-076
Adopt Resolution.

9.6 RESOLUTION APPROVING UPDATES TO THE CURRENT AMENDED

AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA)

FOR HEARTLAND COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AUTHORITY (HCFA)
Resolution No. 2023-077
Adopt Resolution.

9.7 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT FOR AN ORGANIC WASTE RECYCLING EDUCATION

PROGRAM AT SCHOOLS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA MESA TO I LOVE

A CLEAN SAN DIEGO
Resolution No. 2023-078
Adopt Resolution.

4 9.8 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
Resolution No. 2023-079
Adopt Resolution.

9.9 RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.28.030 (14.2) OF THE LA

MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING EXCEPTIONS TO LA

MESA BOULEVARD AS A THROUGH STREET
Resolution No. 2023-080
Adopt Resolution.

9.10 RESOLUTION TO AWARD RFQ 23-18 AUTHORIZING ENGIE
SERVICES, U.S., TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY

PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY THE SAVINGS AND COSTS OF AN ENERGY

SAVINGS PROGRAM
Resolution No. 2023-081
Adopt Resolution.

9.11 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID 19-19 RENEWAL OPTION 4, TYPE B

ASPHALT CONCRETE, TO SUPERIOR-READY MIX CONCRETE
Resolution No. 2023-082
Adopt Resolution.

10. STAFF REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY -

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

10.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE BIENNIAL BUDGET FOR 2023-2025 City Manager Humora provided a brief overview of the biennial budget process and announced it was the first year the City was using the new OpenGov financial software to prepare the budget. City Manager Humora summarized the initiatives that would be implemented and those that would continue with the proposed budget, which included the expansion of the Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) program, continued implementation of the Climate Action Plan, preparation of the environmental impact report for Waite Drive Park, completing the next phase of the Collier Park improvements, continuation of the Vision Zero policy, updating the strategic planning process, continued construction of

5 the 100% affordable housing project at 8181 Allison Avenue, and continued improvements to the private development process.

Finance Director Royales gave an overview of the 2023-2025 Preliminary Budget, highlighting the new budget system, the budget process, the Citywide revenue and expenditure funds, the General Fund revenues and expenditures, CalPERS Retirement contributions, the staffing changes reflected in the Preliminary Budget, the Council’s General Fund Reserve Policy, and the General Fund Reserves.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Moved by Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded by Councilmember Dillard
Adopt the 2023-2025 Preliminary Budget as proposed and direct staff to return in August with the 2023-2025 Final Budget.

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

10.2 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING (1) THE
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2023, AND (2) THE ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS USED TO

CALCULATE THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
Finance Director Royales also provided background on the Appropriations Limit and discussed the various adjustment factors used in the computations.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Resolution No. 2023-083
Moved by Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded by Vice Mayor Parent
Adopt Resolution pursuant to Propositions 4 and 111, establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and selecting the growth in the new non-residential construction in the City of La Mesa, and the population growth in the City of La Mesa as the annual adjustment factors used to compute the Appropriations Limit.

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

6 11. HEARING

11.1 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RATE

ADJUSTMENTS FOR EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 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 11.1.

Director of Public Works/City Engineer Throne gave a report on the rate proposal from EDCO, the Proposition 218 notification process, and the number of protest letters received. Director of Public Works/City Engineer also discussed the final report from an independent accounting firm that reviewed the rate increase request.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Nina spoke in opposition to the rate adjustments for EDCO Disposal Corporation.

Aaron Landau spoke in support of EDCO Disposal Corporation and the services it provides to the residents of La Mesa.

Council questions and comments continued.

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

Yes (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)
Resolution No. 2023-084
Moved by Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded by Vice Mayor Parent
Approve the two-year EDCO rates for refuse, recycling, and organic waste collection and adopt Resolution.

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

7 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))
Vice Mayor Parent reported on his trip to Sacramento on June 20, 2023, to testify at the Senate Housing Committee about legislation.

14. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.

15. ADJOURNMENT
At 6:56 p.m., Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting in honor and memory of former Councilmember Guy McWhirter, a lifelong resident of La Mesa who truly loved and cared for the City of La Mesa and its residents. _________________________
City Clerk

DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ray Sweeney, Chief of Police
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: HOME Program 2023 2nd Quarter Report
The Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) Team continues to interact with and serve those experiencing homelessness in La Mesa. As part of their continued efforts, they track the interactions and services provided in a quarterly report. The report depicts the total number of clients served, the number of calls for service handled, demographics, and a narrative that shares recent successes, partnerships, and community engagement. Thank you for the continued support for this program as we continue to assist those experiencing homelessness.

City of La Mesa
Homeless Outreach &
Mobile Engagement (HOME) Program
Quarterly Report: April – June 2023

HOME Program Overview
The Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) Team is an initiative of the City of La Mesa and the La Mesa Police Department (LMPD). The HOME Team provides a housing-first and traumainformed approach to addressing homelessness in La Mesa. The HOME Team utilizes progressive engagement and harm reduction to assist individuals who are unable to access homeless services on their own. This report breaks down the HOME Team efforts and successes during the second quarter of 2023.

Since the beginning of the quarter, the HOME program outreach specialists have:
• Contacted 72 total individuals experiencing homelessness and newly enrolled 39 adults and 14 children. Many of these newly enrolled adults are one-time contacts that were provided shortterm services as they passed through La Mesa. A total of 9 individuals contacted this quarter were connected to a temporary or permanent home.
• Responded to 384 service calls routed through LMPD dispatch, HOME hotline or city email, and as follow-ups to previous contacts. Historically, many of these calls would have been handled by city emergency response services and law enforcement. • Prioritized the most vulnerable individuals in the City of La Mesa, including individuals living on the street with chronic physical and mental health conditions, households with children, and individuals facing chronic homelessness.

Clients Served
The HOME Team operates out of LMPD headquarters in downtown La Mesa and responds to nonemergency calls for service related to homelessness that are generated through police dispatch, HOME email, and the HOME Hotline. Each of these calls is first attended by a HOME Team outreach specialist; PD or PERT officers are only requested for rare cases involving legal or safety concerns. 53 19
Total Number of Clients Served
New Clients in Quarter Continuing Clients
72 Instances of
Service*
494
Calls for
Service
384
HOME Team Assistance: 16
# of Calls LMPD Officers
requested HOME assistance
# of Calls the HOME team
requested:

Officer Assistance: 2
PERT Assistance: 0
*Instances of service are included in the total calls for service. This number represent interactions with clients that are enrolled in the county’s case management system. More than one client may be present during a single call for service.

Client Demographics and Household Composition
Housing Outcomes
7 households (Nine people) people left the HOME program to a temporary or permanent placement during the quarter.
5 households (Five people) exited to temporary housing, defined as an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or other location that provides housing/shelter without tenure.
2 households (Four people) exited to permanent housing, defined as a leased unit meeting United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) occupancy standards with or without supportive services, such as mental health counseling.
4 housing matches were provided through the Coordinated Entry System.

Single Person
Households
79 Adult Couple
Households
3 6
27 45
Female Male UNK
15 4
10 15
13 6
9 0
0 to 17 18 to 24
25 to 34 35 to 44
45 to 54 55 to 61
62 or Above Unknown
Total Clients Served Demographics
Chronically
Homeless
70% Households
with Children
42

Housing Matches
Housing matches provided through the Coordinated Entry System (CES) are an essential part of people attempting to access permanent housing. In short, a housing match is when a person is connected to a housing provider for assistance in the form of a subsidized room or ongoing rental assistance. Once a person has been matched through CES, the HOME Team does their best to help a client connect with the housing provider to complete the housing process. During this quarter, the HOME Team received 4 housing matches. Two of these matches were for the same person that HOME has lost contact with. Connecting people to housing without matches continues to be a significant struggle for the HOME Team.

Client Services
The HOME Team continues to excel in helping clients navigate and connect with a variety of existing services within the community. Some of these services include ongoing nutritional, medical, and financial support through programs such as Cal-Fresh, Medical, and General Relief.

The HOME Team was able to connect multiple people with these services by transporting and supporting these clients in navigating these services at the Family Resource Centers located in Lemon Grove and El Cajon.

The HOME Team also continues to assist with acquiring identifying documentation. Almost all of the clients who successfully exited the program during this quarter worked with the HOME Team to acquire both State Identification cards and/ or Social Security Cards; attaining these documents was an absolute necessity for their housing placements.

The HOME Team has begun working closely with a non-profit: 2 nd Chance. This non-profit provides a
Job Readiness Training (JRT) course for clients who struggle with connecting to employment due to their homelessness status and/ or involvement with the justice system. As part of the JRT, the participants are provided with professional interview attire. During the last week of JRT, the participants take part in a round of interviews with potential employers including but not limited to Western Towing, ACE Parking, and Sycuan Casino.

The HOME Team having consistent access to a van continues to be an important resource for clients.

During the quarter, the HOME Team utilized the van to view units for rent in El Cajon, Downtown San Diego, and San Diego County. Being able to go to units quickly and with little notice has resulted in clients being able to successfully exit our program into rental assistance programs. The HOME Team has also utilized this van to clear encampments by taking clients and their belongings to storage, housing opportunities, or alternative camping locations. Most importantly, this van is accessible to people that have disabilities or are experiencing mobility issues.

During this quarter, the HOME Team has provided some form of financial and/or basic-needs assistance to all enrolled clients with the dual objectives of moving them toward a housing outcome and keeping them safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. These objectives have not changed throughout this quarter.

All clients received COVID-19-related services, including updates related to local public-health guidelines, vaccine information, hygiene supplies, and personal protective equipment (PPE), such as face masks and hand sanitizer.

All clients received food, water, or other nutrition services, with approximately 72 prioritized for on-going meal support.

HOME program staff distributed $2,581.44 in direct financial assistance, including vehicle repair, and funds used to secure new rental units. 0 households received accommodation in a motel, designed to provide shortterm, bridge shelter for those with a concrete housing plan.

HOME program staff arranged 59 rides to apartment viewings, shelter stays, program intake interviews, and other critical appointments via ridesharing service.
3 clients were connected to ongoing physical, mental, and/or behavioral healthcare.

Ongoing Care
Throughout the life of the program, HOME has noticed that the majority of calls related to someone experiencing homelessness were generated because of another community members concern for a person’s mental, physical, or behavioral health. Because of this, the HOME Team has prioritized connecting people to ongoing healthcare through organizations such as Family Health Centers, East County Behavioral Health, and Jane Westin. All of these organizations provide low to no-cost services to people experiencing homelessness. Connecting people to ongoing and preventative care such as what is being offered at these organizations is essential to addressing issues that invariably result in emergent health situations for people experiencing homelessness. These situations result in overburdend emergency rooms, ambulances, and other emergency services. Additionally, due to the limited nature of HOME services provided to a person after they are housed, having connections to ongoing community support is an important part of someone maintaining housing stability.

Calls for Service
The HOME Team responded to 384 calls for service during the quarter. This number includes service calls routed through LMPD dispatch, HOME hotline or city email, and follow-ups to previous contacts.

Of these calls for service, 89 calls were new requests for assistance related to homelessness in the City. Historically, these calls would have been addressed by city emergency response services and law enforcement.

Of these calls, 212 were direct responses to calls to the HOME hotline and email requests made by community members regarding someone experiencing homelessness.

Additionally, 171 incidents of service included appointments with clients or proactive rapport-building contacts, in support of the HOME Team’s mission.

During the entirety of this quarter, the HOME Team was connected to the La Mesa Police Department’s dispatch center via police radio. Starting the 4th quarter of 2021, the HOME Team has been able to realize the benefits of the technology and partnerships with call-takers through decreased response times to current calls for service, improved support to police officers, enhanced understanding of the program workload and service provision through data tracking, and improved safety of the HOME Team members and the community.

Hotel Utilization
The HOME Team did not utilize any motel assistance during the quarter. Typically, motel assistance has been utilized by HOME as a form of bridge housing. Bridge housing is utilized when a unit has been secured, but, for a variety of reasons, cannot be utilized until a future date.

Client success stories
One of the success stories this quarter began with a Call for Service to a residence in La Mesa. A La Mesa resident called the police because their adult son was refusing to leave their residence after a family dispute. This dispute, ultimately, needed to be deescalated by a police officer. After the situation was stabilized, the officer asked the HOME Team to come speak with the son to discuss some homeless services as the son was being asked to leave the residence. The HOME Team came out to the scene, and spoke with the son about the various resources in the county and how to access them. The HOME Team began with providing this individual with a California ID voucher and a gas card to get to the DMV. Once this person reacquired their ID, they completed their housing assessment. While completing their housing assessment with the HOME Team, the HOME clinician was able to identify a program that specifically served the population that this client was a part of.

After being enrolled in this program, this client was able to move into an apartment. This client also began working at a grocery store in La Mesa. A percentage of this client’s paycheck will go towards rent while they are able to continue to grow in their career and figure out the next steps for themselves.

The HOME Team was also able to reconnect someone with their family in Florida. A young man reached out to the HOME Team because they had recently become sober and realized that they were stuck in California with no state ID, birth certificate, or social security card. Additionally, because this individual never had a California ID, the ID vouchers utilized by the HOME Team would not be sufficient to get this person a new California ID. The HOME Team and this person discussed various options, and the possibility of this person reuniting with their mother & brother in Florida presented itself. The HOME Team clinician was able to speak with this person’s mother & brother to verify that this person would have a place to stay provided the HOME Team would be able to cover the cost of transportation. In fact, this person’s brother told the HOME Team that this person would also begin working with them at their construction company.

Community Support Partnerships
• Journey Community Church continues to provide any and all food items to the HOME Program, allowing HOME staff to feed up to 60 people per week
• La Mesa Village Association
• La Mesa Thrift Shop

• La Mesa First United Methodist Church
• Empire Thrift Store of El Cajon
• Eagle Scouts
Community Resource Partnerships
• Home-Start, Inc.
• East County Behavioral Health
• Center Star ACT
• McAlister Inc.
• La Mesa – Spring Valley School District Social Workers • East County Homeless Task Force
• San Diego County Mental Health
• In addition, HOME staff has developed a word-of-mouth network of donors and residents and regularly interface with anyone interested in helping those facing hardship on the streets of La Mesa.
• Assisted Replacement Medication Therapy Medical Specialists • The Lodge of La Mesa (Transition Age Youth)
• Borrego Health-Centro Medico El Cajon
• New Found Homes ILF
• Mission Academy
• 2
nd Chance
HOME Program Historical Statistics
Client Enrollment
Quarter Total Clients
Served New Clients Continuing Clients
Q4 2020 56 n/a n/a
Q1 2021 108 61 47
Q2 2021 75 44 31
Q3 2021 86 44 31
Q4 2021 25 10 15
Q1 2022 69 48 21
Q2 2022 96 62 34
Q3 2022 73 38 35
Q4 2022 108 65 43
Q1 2023 71 28 43
Q2 2023 72 53 19
Grand Total 839 453 319

Calls for Service
Quarter Instances of
Service1
Calls for Service
Calls Officers
requested HOME
Assistance
Calls HOME
requested Officer
Assistance
Calls HOME
requested PERT
assistance
Q4 2020 191 110 --- 1 1
Q1 2021 397 187 --- 0 1
Q2 2021 349 355 --- 0 0
Q3 2021 393 134 --- 0 0
Q4 2021 237 81 --- 0 0
Q1 2022 373 617 24 10 0
Q2 2022 626 657 11 22 4
Q3 2022 584 549 26 5 1
Q4 2022 744 417 16 3 0
Q1 2023 633 435 19 7 0
Q2 2023 494 384 16 2 0
Grand Total 5021 3926 112 50 7
1 Instances of service are included in the total calls for service. This number represent interactions with clients that are enrolled in the county’s case management system.

More than one client may be present during a single call for service.

Services and Housing
Quarter HOME
Rides
Direct
Financial
Assistance
Clients who
Received
Motel
Vouchers
Clients
Permanently
Housed
Households
Permanently
Housed
Clients
Temporarily
Housed
Households
Temporarily
Housed
Q4 2020 18 $ 3,357.00 7 5 --- 3 ---
Q1 2021 16 $ 10,506.00 7 --- 4 --- 19
Q2 2021 7 $ 4,967.00 9 8 7 --- 5
Q3 2021 144 $ 16,623.42 7 8 3 --- 5
Q4 2021 84 $ 1,071.40 0 12 11 --- 4
Q1 2022 92 $ 6,579.56 5 10 9 6 6
Q2 2022 96 $ 3,727.96 2 16 11 5 3
Q3 2022 68 $ 3,445.75 3 8 6 4 4
Q4 2022 69 $ 3,411.55 3 15 6 2 2
Q1 2023 56 $ 2210.47 2 17 7 2 2
Q2 2023 59 $ 2581.44 0 4 2 5 5
Grand Total 709 $ 58,481.55 45 103 66 27 55
Total People Housed to Date: 130

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: July 25, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
SERVICES FOR THE CIVICSPARK PROGRAM 2023-
2024 SERVICE YEAR TO CIVICWELL
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a resolution to approve an agreement for Climate Action Plan implementation services for the CivicSpark program 2023-2024 service year to CivicWell for $62,000?
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution to approve an agreement for Climate Action Plan implementation services for the CivicSpark program 2023-2024 service year to CivicWell for $62,000.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost for this service is $62,000 and funds are available in the FY2023-2024 Environmental Services Operating Budget Account 208-64300-301-000000.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Continue to improve high quality municipal services
 Foster community health by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving environmental quality