18 created CWC.20 In 1928, Harritt advocated for the rebuilding of the flume with reinforced concrete and oversaw its construction.
Under Harritt’s tutelage, the CWC provided water
to farmland stretching from the San Diego city
limits through La Mesa to the El Cajon Valley.
Additionally, the CWC is known for building two
historical reservoirs. One was the Grossmont
Reservoir constructed in 1913 with a capacity of
30 million gallons, and the other was the Murray
Dam which replaced the La Mesa Dam. In 1926,
Ed Fletcher sold the CWC to the La Mesa,
Lemon Grove, and Spring Valley Irrigation District
for $1.4 million. In 1933, Harritt traveled back and
forth to Washington, D.C. to bring much-needed
federal funds to the City of La Mesa saving
taxpayers millions of dollars. Harritt followed to
the new utility company and became the general
manager, chief engineer, and secretary until his
death in 1948, amassing 38 years of leadership
over water planning and usage in La Mesa,
Lemon Grove, and Spring Valley.21
In his time at the Irrigation District, Harritt was
able to secure federal loans and grants to replace
a poorly functioning water main. The original
main, known as a flume and made of wood, was
replaced in a deal Harritt struck, saving taxpayers
nearly $4,000,000 over the course of the next 40
years.22
Additionally, Harritt negotiated to have 11 miles
of the new concrete water main designed to
siphon water leading directly to the Eucalyptus Reservoir as water storage for La Mesa residents. This deal was orchestrated at a reduced cost to customers and created enticing and profitable land for farmers, thus leading to substantial population growth. Without the political 20 Theodore Stratham. (n.d.). Land, Water, And Real Estate: Ed Fletcher and The Cuyamaca Water Company, 1910-1926. https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/v50-3/cuyamaca.pdf
21 San Diego Union and Daily Bee. Friday, July 30, 1949. “Irrigation Post Given Shelton.” 22 San Diego Union and Daily Bee. January 15, 1934. “Water Deal.”
19 acumen and engineering feat of Harritt’s effort, he was quoted that, “There would have been very dark days ahead for San Diegans.”23
In 1962, the Chet Harritt Dam and Reservoir was dedicated to the Hillcrest Avenue home’s first resident. The dam was built across Quail Creek leading to the formation of Lake Jennings, a popular recreation spot to this day. See the Articles section for more information.
During the research of Chester “Chet” L.
Harritt (1877 - 1948) it is clear he is sometimes
confused with his nephew Chet F. Harritt
(1908-1965) who was the first postmaster in
Santee, has a Santee elementary school
named after him, and died 17 years later than
Chet L. Harritt. This obituary of the nephew
points to his uncle with the same name and
states the Chet Harritt Dam (“Harritt
Reservoir”) was recently named after Chet F.’s
uncle.
23 Ibid.
2 Chet L. Harritt is often mistaken for his nephew
Chet F. Harritt, due to their prominence in their
respective communities. Their relationship is
described here.
20 B. Commander Theodore S. Coulbourn
The second Hillcrest Avenue homeowner after Harritt was Ret. Commander Theodore S.
Coulbourn, US Navy Ret., (1878-1959) who was the City of La Mesa’s Recreation Commissioner and volunteered as campaign chairman to raise funds for the City of La Mesa’s first Youth Center. They determined the locations should be atop the hill at Memorial Park, now known as McArthur Park. Along with hosting fundraisers for private monetary support, Coulbourn convinced the city that its new sales tax should support the facility. Coulbourn saw the building of the Youth Center through to its commissioning. Coulbourn also was appointed to lead the first Republican Club in La Mesa and hosted its first meeting in the living room of the Hillcrest Avenue home. See the Articles section for more information.
An article in the La Mesa Scout, Aug. 12, 1948, about an incident at the outdoor patio sink outside the east elevation of the Hillcrest Avenue home provides evidence that the location of the current barbeque and sink were either built original to the house or during Commander Coulbourn’s time as the homeowner. The article states Commander Coulbourn had just left the patio sink when a dynamite blast went off across the street, driving a 12-pound rock from a boulder through the sink.
Significance Conclusion
The 8406 Hillcrest Avenue property in La Mesa’s Boulder Heights community is historically significant as it reflects special elements of the City of La Mesa’s architectural, agricultural, community planning, and engineering history. The architectural significance lies in the Spanish Eclectic design and maintains its integrity from this historic period of significance of 1915 - 1940. The property is also historically significant as the home was designed by Master Architect Wheeler and built by Master Builder Dennstedt. Both craftsmen left an indelible mark on the architectural landscape of San Diego County. The subject dwelling exhibits characterdefining features of the Spanish Revival Eclectic style, as detailed in the architectural description, and through its restoration, regained integrity from its historic period of significance. The property is also historical since it embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, and craftsmanship.
The Hillcrest Avenue home reflects significance in agriculture, community planning, and engineering due to the first and second homeowners of the property. Chester L. Harritt. He was a hydraulic engineer who fought for and oversaw the replacement of the leaking San Diego flume that brought water to the region with a carefully engineered piping system. Harritt also brokered the water agreement with the City of San Diego, ensuring the City of La Mesa would always have access to water for its economic prosperity. In addition, he represented the region in Washington, D.C., to ensure federal funds were used for these upgrades, which
21 saved residents millions of dollars. The Chet Harritt Dam and Reservoir were named in his honor.
The significance community planning significance of the Hillcrest Avenue property's second homeowner Commander Theodore S. Coulbourn, US Navy Ret., was that he was appointed City of La Mesa’s Recreation Commissioner and volunteered as campaign chairman to raise funds for the City of La Mesa’s first Youth Center. Along with hosting fundraisers for private monetary support, Coulbourn convinced the city that its new tax sales should support the facility. Coulbourn saw the building of the Youth Center through to its commissioning atop the hill at Memorial Park, now known as McArthur Park. Coulbourn also was appointed to lead the first Republican Club in La Mesa and hosted its first meeting in the living room of the Hillcrest Avenue home.
22 IV. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Assessor’s Parcel Map
23
24
25
26 Subdivision Map
27 Sanborn Map
28 Residential Building Record
Building records show the home was built in 1935, storage and a half bath added in 1945, a 20’ x 20’ detached garage was built on an adjacent parcel in 1946, the existing attached garage at the basement level was converted to a “rumpus room” in 1946, a 16’ x 12’ patio added in 1955, three windows were installed in 1970 (location unclear), and the furnace was replaced in 2011.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 Chain of Title
● 1936 - 1945 Chester L. and Anne Harritt (the last year Anne lived there was 1943) ● 1946 - 1955 Commander Theodore S. Coulbourn
● 1956 - 1964 James G. Caterina (1963 William R. Caterina) ● 1965 - 1966 No return
● 1966 - 1969 Vacant
● 1970 - 1971 H. H. Plymale
● 1971 - 1972 Frank B. Flint24
● 1972 - 2022 Murray and Jeannine Feldman
● 2022 Murray and Jeannine Feldman Trust - Karen Feldman ● Oct. 2022 - present April Bolduc and Vince Yeh
24 Legacy.com. (n.d.). Obituary for Frances Flint. San Diego Union-Tribune Obituaries. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/name/frances-flint-obituary?id=27085291
38 City Directory Listings
The following City Directory Listings confirm the chain of title.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 Deed and Notice of Completion
The deed from S. C. and Lillian Grable, and the Harritt Notice of Completion are below. The current owner’s deed has been included as well.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68 Historic Resources Inventory
The 8406 Hillcrest Ave. house is currently listed on the La Mesa Historic Resources Inventory as “P” for Potential Landmark. The following documentation is located at the La Mesa Historical Society in a file about the home.
69
70
71
72
73
74 Previous Documentation
Article from June 5, 1935, states that the Hillcrest Ave. home was built by Dennstedt and designed by Wheeler for Harritt.
75
76
77 Articles
William Henry Wheeler – Master Architect
An advertisement in the local paper in 1934 features Wheeler as a well-known architect.
78 San Diego Union-Tribune
79 E. Dennstedt – Master Builder
While these Dennstedt articles and advertisements don’t specifically feature the Hillcrest Avenue home, they do underscore the number of Spanish Eclectic homes they were building in La Mesa during the same year as the Hillcrest residence.
80
81
82 Chester L. Harritt
Portrait of Harritt.
Photo Caption: Jan. 4,
1926, "Dramatic moment
in the history of La Mesa,
Lemon Grove, and
Spring Valley Irrigation
District. Treasurer H. C.
Park (left) of the district
is snapped by the
photographer in the act
of passing to Col. Ed
Fletcher (right) the
$1,201,980 check in
payment of the
Cuyamaca Water
System. Standing, left to
right, are Manager Harritt
of the district; President
H. A. Hall of the Board of
Directors, and J. C.
Scott, secretary. Director
J. H. Halley is seated at
right…" (Fletcher, 1952,
p. 174) Inscription Note
on back: Treasurer H. P.
Park, Ed Fletcher, J. H.
Hallen, Manager Harritt,
H. A. Hall, J. C. Scott.
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91 San Diego Union, Aug. 27, 1937
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Anne W. Harritt – Wife
Anne Harritt was a candidate for national historian and chaplain.
103
Joseph Alfred Harritt – Brother
Joseph Alfred Harritt was the brother to Harritt and superintendent of gas production for the San Diego Consolidated Gas & Electric Co., known today as San Diego Gas & Electric.
104
Commander Theodore S. Coulbourn, Ret. US Navy – Second homeowner
105
106
107
Historic and Transitional Photographs
There are few photographs of the 1964 south elevation of the real estate listing of the sale from Caterina. The sidewalk from the front door used to extend south to the street, whereas today, the yard is enclosed by a retaining wall with the entrance accessible via stairs from the east.
You can also see a shorter backyard wall than the wall that stands today.
108
1972 south elevation of the real estate listing from the sale from Flint to Feldman. Like the listing above, a shorter backyard wall than the wall that stands today is visible. To the left of the wall, there is a door that used to connect to the primary bedroom. Today, this door has been replaced by a window.
109
Current Photographs
South elevation from stairs to the front door.
South elevation from the edge of the property.
South elevation from street.
110
Aerial view of the west elevation.
Downstairs patio under the awning on the west elevation.
111
East elevation.
Patio wall along east elevation.
112
Barbeque on the interior patio along the east elevation.
Sink next to barbeque.
113
One of three murals inside the patio wall.
Two of three tile murals on the inside patio.
114
Three of three tile murals on the inside of the east patio.
Interior patio on the north facade.
115
Path with Spanish tile connecting the front of the home to the east patio.
116
Front door.
Front door hardware.
117
Exterior home features.
118
119
120
121
Interior design of the home, with tile work, arches, and inset shelves.
122
Interior door with original hardware. Doorbell.
123
Bathroom door with inset mirror and original door hardware.
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: November 14, 2023
SUBJECT: A. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID 24-10, 2023 ANNUAL
SLURRY PROJECT AND AWARDING A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO AMERICAN
ASPHALT SOUTH, INC.
B. RESOLUTION AWARDING A TASK ORDER TO
DUDEK TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR
THE 2023 ANNUAL SLURRY PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the attached Resolutions:
A. Accepting Bid 24-10, 2023 Annual Slurry Project and awarding a construction contract to American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $1,463,066.98?
B. Awarding a task order to Dudek to provide construction management and inspection services for the 2023 Annual Slurry Project in the amount of $78,975.00?
Recommendation:
A. Accept Bid 24-10, 2023 Annual Slurry Project and award the construction contract to American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $1,463,066.98.
B. Award the task order to Dudek to provide construction management and inspection services for the 2023 Annual Slurry Project in the amount of $78,975.00.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 2 of 4
Fiscal Impact:
Funding for the contracts will be provided by the following Street Maintenance Operating and Capital Improvements Project Accounts:
CIP ACCOUNT NAME FUND
SOURCE GL ACCOUNT AMOUNT REQUESTED
AMOUNT
AVAILABLE
Street Maintenance
Operating Budget General Fund 101-64300-312 $1,000,000.00 $1,040,600.00 Road Maintenance &
Rehabilitation Account 2022
RMRA SB1 302-2228RM $443,585.17 $443,585.17
Road Maintenance &
Rehabilitation Account 2023
RMRA SB1 302-2238RM $98,456.81 $1,039,210.00
TOTAL $1,542,041.98 $2,523,395.17
City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
Environmental Review:
This project was issued a Categorical Exemption-Exclusion determination according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
BACKGROUND:
Slurry Sealing Program: Streets require regular maintenance and restoration. The City of La Mesa aims to provide excellent municipal services by regularly and responsibly maintaining roadways through means most cost effective to the community. The Slurry Seal Project aims to extend the life of roadways while reducing the costs associated with full roadway replacement.
The City of La Mesa maintains roadways on a, 7-zone cycle. Roadways are selected based on multiple factors including: average daily traffic, types of vehicle load, paving history and types of roadway pavement failure. The engineer’s estimate for the project was a base bid of $983,846.46 with an alternate bid price of $292,498.67.
Construction Management: In April 2018, the City advertised a request for qualifications (RFQ 18-15) and held a formal selection process to select highly qualified firms that could provide various services. Dudek was selected to provide construction management and inspection services and on April 11, 2019, a master agreement was executed. The terms
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 3 of 4
of the master agreement allow for the issuance of task orders to authorize specific items of work on an as-needed basis to the selected consultants.
DISCUSSION:
On October 5th, 2023, a notice inviting bids was published and bid documents were distributed. On November 7
th, 2023, two bids were received electronically. The apparent responsive, responsible low bidder was identified as American Asphalt South, Inc. with a base bid of $1,174,492.32 plus alternate bid price of $345,214.75 for a total bid price of $1,463,066.98 as shown on Bid Tabulation Attachment C. As a condition of award, American Asphalt agreed to comply with the terms and conditions of the recently adopted 2023 project labor agreement with the San Diego Building and Trades Council for capital improvement projects exceeding $1,000,000.
It should be noted that this is the first construction project for the City of La Mesa that will using the recently adopted project labor agreement.
Contract time for completion of the project is 60 working days. The work is expected to begin in December of 2023 and be completed by March of 2023. A list of the streets to be slurried is attached.
Dudek has provided a scope of services to manage, monitor and inspect the construction of the project and will be reporting to the City's project manager. The fee quoted from Dudek to perform Inspection and CM services is $78,975.00.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions:
A. Accepting Bid 24-10, 2023 Annual Slurry Project and awarding a construction contract to American Asphalt South Inc. in the amount of $1,463,066.98.
B. Awarding a task order to Dudek to provide construction management and inspection services for the 2023 Annual Slurry Project in the amount of $78,975.00.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Respectfully submitted by:
Tristan Leger_______________________
Tristan Leger
Assistant Engineer
Attachments: A – Resolution BID 24-10 2023 Annual Slurry Project Award B – Resolution Dudek CM Award
C – BID 24-10 Bid Tabulation
D – CM Proposal from Dudek
E – BID 24-10 List of Streets
F – Maintenance Zone Map
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ACCEPTING THE LOW BIDDER FOR BID 24-10 AND AWARDING A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2023 ANNUAL SLURRY PROJECT TO AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the City advertised a notice inviting bids on October 10th, 2023; WHEREAS, the City received two bids on the bid opening date of November 7th, 2023; and
WHEREAS, based on the base bid, the low bidder, American Asphalt South, Inc. was found to be a responsive and responsible bidder and based on the contract value, is subject to the provisions of the 2023 project labor agreement between the City and the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that:
The base bid and alternate bid from American Asphalt South, Inc. in an amount of $1,463,066.98 for Bid 24-10, 2023 Annual Slurry Project, was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid. Said bid is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to accept and execute a contract with American Asphalt South, Inc. to perform the work at the prices set forth in said base and alternate bid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve the substitution of subcontractors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14
th day of November 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTACHMENT A
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)
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROVING A TASK ORDER TO DUDEK TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE 2023 ANNUAL
SLURRY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, in April 2018, the City advertised a request for qualifications RFQ 18-15 for as-needed engineering services;
WHEREAS, Dudek was selected as a qualified firm to provide as-needed construction management and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, the City requires assistance with construction management and inspection for the 2023 Annual Slurry Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that:
The task order to provide construction management and inspection of 2023 Annual Slurry Project for an amount of $78,975 is approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a task order with Dudek to perform the work.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14
th day of November 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the 14th of November 2023, and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
Bidders Base Bid Alternate Bid Bid Total
1 American Asphalt South, Inc $1,174,492.32 $288,574.66 $1,463,066.98 2 Pavement Coatings Co. $1,334,037.94 $345,214.75 $1,679,252.69 Engineer's Estimate $983,846.46 $242,498.67 $1,226,345.13 Bid Tabulation
BID 24-10 2023 Slurry Seal Project (Various Locations)
All bids compared on the basis of the BASE BID.
Street Route Ahead Route Back Length Zone S.F. Sheet Chip Seal Alternate 4456 Acacia Avenue Acacia Ave End 5 5,060 5
68th St University Ave Elma Ln 274 6 8,562 10
68th St Elma Ln Rolando Knolls Dr 292 6 8,972 10
68th St Rolando Knolls Dr Rolando Knolls Dr 432 6 13,775 10 71st St Stanford Ave End 634 6 21,354 10 Alternate
71st St Stanford Ave 4606 71st St 6 31,200 9 Alternate
71st St 4606 71st St Tower St 6 704 9 Chip Seal Alternate 73rd St Colony Rd Vassar Ave 7 46,500 8 Alternate
Adams Ave 70th St End 642 6 19,089 8 Alternate
Alamo Way NULL Judson Way 255 6 7,193 9 Alternate
Alamo Way Judson Way Alamo Ct 77 6 2,416 9 Alternate
Alamo Way 68th St Judson Way 351 6 8,191 9 Alternate
Alamo Way 70th St Gordon Way 419 6 14,143 9 Alternate
Alamo Way Gordon Way Terry Ln 250 6 8,978 9 Alternate
Alamo Way Terry Ln Toni Ln 249 6 8,851 9 Alternate
Alamo Way Toni Ln 68th St 290 6 10,461 9 Alternate
Blackton Dr Massachusetts Ave End 6 67,500 11 Chip Seal Blackton Dr Massachusetts Ave Massachusetts Ave 6 23,750 11 Chip Seal Boulevard Dr Marian St Massachusetts Ave 6 26,250 11 Alternate Bruce Ct 70th St End 519 6 17,607 9
Camellia Dr Dauer Ave Harbinson Ave 7 5,940 8 Alternate Camellia Dr Harbinson Ave Normandie Pl 6 22,010 8 Alternate Century St Orola Ln End 126 6 4,168 8 Alternate
Century St 68th St Orola Ln 514 6 16,999 8 Alternate
Clearview Way Hillside Dr Culowee St 7 16,900 5 Alternate Colony Rd Pomona Ave Normandi Pl 7 54,000 8 Alternate
Colony Rd Normandie Pl 70th St 7 24,500 8 Chip Seal
Comanche Drive El Cajon Boulevard Alvarado Road 7 84,964 3 Culbertson Ave University Ave End 7 21,900 7 Chip Seal
Dauer Rd Colony Rd End 7 46,200 8
Denwood Road Homewood Place End 7 19,500 6
El Capitan Drive University Avenue End 7 52,390 5
Elma Ln 68th St Rolando Knolls Dr 990 6 31,014 10
Eucalyptus Hill Jessie Avenue Muntoe Street 7 27,853 7
Francis Way Neri Dr End 394 6 12,031 10 Alternate
Guava Ave El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa Blvd 7 11,830 5
Highwood Ave Seattle Dr Cinthia Dr 5 8,050 12
Highwood Ave Seattle Dr Eastridge Dr 5 6,750 12
Hillside Dr Guava Ave End 7 18,600 5
Hybeth Dr Marian St Massachusetts Ave 6 31,500 11 Alternate Jessie Avenue Seneca Place El Cajon Boulevard 7 77,250 7 Judson Way Alamo Way End 1279 6 32,264 9
Katherine Pl 73rd St Santa Maria Dr 7 18,000 8 Alternate Keeney Street El Cajon Boulevard End 7 28,515 3
La Mesa Blvd Cypress St University Avenue 5 32,100 4
La Mesa Blvd Cypress St 3rd St 5 24,300 4
La Mesa Blvd 3rd St Palm St 5 15,750 4
La Mesa Blvd Palm St Spring St 5 16,200 4
La Mesa Blvd Spring St Date Ave 427 5 15,712 4
La Mesa Blvd Date Ave Acacia Ave 366 5 10,673 4
La Mesa Blvd Acacia Ave Normal Ave 5 42,000 4 Chip Seal La Mesa Blvd Normal Ave University Ave 5 36,000 5 Chip Seal Loma Vista Drive End End 7 35,707 6
Lowell Ct Lowell St End 7 2,201 7 Chip Seal Alternate
Lowell St Stanford Ave End 7 23,560 7 Chip Seal Alternate Maple Avenue El Cajon Boulevard Marie Avenue 7 35,966 6 Maple Avenue Marie Avenue University Avenue 7 28,260 6
Marie Avenue Maple Avenue Parks Avenue 7 26,649 6
Mohawk Street Keeney Street End 7 34,768 3 Alternate
Neri Dr 70th St Francis Way 277 6 8,056 10 Alternate
Type 1 Slurry
Neri Dr Francis Way End 334 6 9,949 10 Alternate
Normal Ave Grape St Fairview Ave 605 5 16,478 5
Olive Avenue Seneca Place Eucalyptus Hill 7 10,073 7
Olive Avenue University Ave Seneca Pl 7 33,000 7
Olive Place Olive Avenue Muntoe Street 7 17,006 7 Chip Seal Orien Ave Yale Ave 7443 Orien Ave 5 41,800 12 Chip Seal Orien Ave 7443 Orien Ave Lowell St 5 41,800 12
Rolando Knolls Dr 70th St Gordon Way 303 6 9,385 10
Rolando Knolls Dr 68th St 68th St 964 6 30,147 10
Rolando Knolls Dr Elma Ln 68th St 352 6 11,248 10
Rolando Knolls Dr Gordon Way Elma Ln 334 6 10,423 10
South St Culbertson Ave Olive Ave 7 6,670 7 Alternate
Sunset Drive Troy Lane Lee Avenue 7 18,600 6
Terry Ln Alamo Way Tower St 1248 6 43,800 9
Toni Ln 68th St Alamo Way 513 6 16,500 9
Toni Ln Alamo Way Tower St 1248 6 43,525 9
Tower St 70th St 71st St 288 6 9,149 9 Alternate
Tower St 70th St Terry Ln 766 6 25,129 9 Alternate
Tower St Terry Ln Toni Ln 245 6 8,582 9 Alternate
Tower St Toni Ln 68th St 271 6 9,903 9 Alternate
University Ave La Mesa BLVD Lee Ave 7 96,420 5
University Ave Lee Ave Parks Ave 7 198,024 6
University Ave Parks Ave Lowell St 7 71,834 6
University Ave Lowell St Yale Ave 7 73,141 10
University Ave Yale Ave Massachusetts Ave 6 90,076 11
University Ave Massachusetts Ave 69th St 6 44,366 11
Vetter Pl Stanford Ave 71st St 645 6 21,458 10 Alternate Vigo Dr Alamo Dr 68th St 6 38,000 10
Williams Avenue El Cajon Boulevard Colony Drive 7 24,587 3 Alternate Williamsburg Lane El Cajon Boulevard End 7 33,563 7 Alternate Yale Ave Sono Pl Ouro Pl 346 5 13,393 12 Alternate
Yale Ave University Ave Sono Pl 540 6 28,952 12 Alternate Yale Ave Ouro Pl Orien Ave 1010 6 43,212 12 Alternate
Zelda Ave Colony Rd End 7 19,800 8
Street Route Ahead Route Back Length Zone S.F. Sheet
La Mesa BLVD El Cajon BLVD University Ave 7 78,200 5
University Ave Spring St Palm Ave 719 2 17,671 4
University Ave Palm Ave Pine St 520 2 18,819 4
University Ave Pine St Cypress St 333 4 11,393 4
University Ave Cypress St Memorial Dr 383 4 9,456 4
Type 2 Slurry
Maintenance
Zone 2
FY 2025
Maintenance
Zone 1
FY 2024
Maintenance
Zone 5
FY 2028
Maintenance
Zone 4
FY 2027
Maintenance
Zone 3
FY 2026
Maintenance
Zone 7
FY 2023
Maintenance
Zone 6
FY 2022
Date: 9/14/2021
0 600
µ
1,200 2,400
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
P
ath: G:\PublicW
orks\G
eneral\ArcM
ap\M
aintenance
_
Z
ones_
M
ap_
E
_
Siz
e.M
X
D
Street
Maintenance
Zones
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
·|þ}125
·|þ}125
·|þ}125
·|þ}94
·|þ}94
Legend
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
City Boundary
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: November 14, 2023
SUBJECT: A. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID 24-08, ROLANDO
PARK RESTORATION AND AWARDING A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO FORDYCE
CONSTRUCTION INC.
B. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $124,414.12 FOR
THE ROLANDO BALLPARK RESTORATION PROJECT
FROM GENERAL FUND UNALLOCATED RESERVES
TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
C. RESOLUTION AWARDING A TASK ORDER TO
ARDURRA TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR
THE ROLANDO BALLPARK RESTORATION PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the attached Resolutions:
A. Accepting Bid 24-08, Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project and awarding a construction contract to Fordyce Construction, Inc. in the amount of $340,882.00?
B. Appropriating $124,414.12 for Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project from general fund unallocated reserves to the Capital Improvement Program? C. Awarding a task order to Ardurra to provide construction management and inspection services for the Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project in the amount of $42,828.00?
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 13, 2023
Page: 2 of 4
Recommendation:
Approve the attached Resolutions to:
A. Accept Bid 24-08, Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project and award a construction contract to Fordyce Construction Inc. in the amount of $340,882.00.
B. Appropriate $124,414.12 for the Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project from general fund unallocated reserves to the Capital Improvement Program.
C. Award a task order to Ardurra to provide construction management and inspection services for the Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project in the amount of $42,828.00.
Fiscal Impact:
ROLANDO BALLPARK RESTORATION PROJECT
ACCOUNT NAME FUND SOURCE GL ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
REQUESTED
AMOUNT
AVAILABLE
Lexington Ins Company Risk Management
Services 604-64500-137 $ 259,295.88 $ 259,295.88
GENERAL FUND TRANSFER General Fund 101-30050 $ 124,414.12 $ 124,414.12 TOTAL $ 383,710.00 $ 383,710.00
City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
Environmental Review:
This project was issued a Categorical Exemption-Exclusion determination according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 13, 2023
Page: 3 of 4
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
GI-1 Urban Forest Master Plan – Support natural carbon sequestration opportunities through continued development and maintenance of a healthy, vibrant urban forest.
GI-2 Shade Tree Program – Implement shade tree programs to expand the City’s urban canopy.
BACKGROUND:
On October 7th, 2021, during a rainstorm, a tree fell onto the Rolando bleachers, damaging the retaining wall and bleachers. The Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project aims to replace the retaining wall, install new drainage, replace damaged bleachers with a new handicap accessible bleachers and railing.
In the Fiscal Year 2022, Insurance provided City staff a payment of $259,295.88 based on an insurance analysis of the damage at prices as of Fall of 2021. Staff has expended portions of these insurance funds, which have been reabsorbed into General Funds, for structural design and building code compliance. In 2023, based on the California Construction Price Index (CCPI), City staff proposed to the insurance agency that the estimated actual construction cost was $332,522.
DISCUSSION:
On August 15, 2023, a notice inviting bids was advertised and bid documents were distributed. On September 18th, 2023, five bids were received electronically. The apparent responsive, responsible low bidder was identified as Fordyce Construction Inc. with a total base bid price of $340,882.00. A bid results summary is shown in Attachment B.
The original insurance settlement of $259,295.88 is insufficient to cover the project’s actual total cost (construction contract plus inspection/construction management). To move the project forward, it is recommended to transfer from General Fund unallocated reserves of $124,414.12 to the project. Concurrently, the city is in discussion with our insurance provider Public Entity Risk Management Authority (PERMA) to increase the contribution to cover the actual cost of the repairs. In the event that the City receives additional insurance coverage, the amount expensed from the unallocated reserves will be reimbursed. The work is expected to begin in December of 2023 and be completed by end of February of 2023.
Ardurra has provided a scope of services to manage, monitor and inspect the construction of the project that will be reporting to the City's project manager. The fee quoted from Ardurra to perform Inspection and construction management services is $42,828.00.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 13, 2023
Page: 4 of 4
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions:
A. Accepting Bid 24-08, Rolando Park Restoration Project and awarding a construction contract to Fordyce Construction Inc. in the amount of $340,882.00.
B. Appropriating $124,414.12 for Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project from general fund unallocated reserves to the Capital Improvement Program.
C. Awarding a task order to Ardurra to provide construction management and inspection services for the Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project in the amount of $42,828.00.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Respectfully submitted by:
Tristan Leger_______________________
Tristan Leger
Assistant Engineer
Attachments: A – Resolution Bid 24-08 Rolando Park Restoration Award B – Bid 24-08 Bid Tabulation
C – Resolution of General Fund Transfer
D – CM Proposal from Ardurra
E – Resolution Ardurra Award
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ACCEPTING THE LOW BIDDER FOR BID 24-08 AND AWARDING A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR ROLANDO PARK RESTORATION
PROJECT TO FORDYCE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the City advertised a notice inviting bids on August 15th, 2023; WHEREAS, the City received five bids on the bid opening date of September 18th, 2023; and
WHEREAS, based on the base bid, the low bidder, Fordyce Construction Inc. was found to be a responsive and responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that:
The base bid from Fordyce Construction Inc. in an amount of $340,882.00 for Bid 24-08, Rolando Park Restoration Project, was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid. Said bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to accept and execute a contract with Fordyce Construction Inc. to perform the work at the prices set forth in said bid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve the substitution of subcontractors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of November, 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)
Bidders Base Bid Alternate Bid Bid Total
1 Fordyce Construction, Inc. $340,882.00 $0.00 $340,882.00 2 MLC Constructors, Inc. $456,300.00 $0.00 $456,300.00
3 HSCC, Inc. $457,052.50 $0.00 $457,052.50
4 Leonida Builders, Inc. $490,550.00 $0.00 $490,550.00
5 Western Rim Constructors, Inc. $586,000.00 $0.00 $586,000.00 Engineer's Estimate $332,522.00 $0.00 $332,522.00
Bid Tabulation
BID 24-08 Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project
All bids compared on the basis of the BASE BID.
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF $124,414.12 FROM THE GENERAL
FUND UNALLOCATED RESERVES TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR BID 24-08, ROLANDO PARK RESTORATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community; and
WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 2022, the City staff received an insurance payment of $259,295.88 based on an insurance analysis of the damage at prices as of Fall of 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that general funds in the amount of $124,414.12 are appropriated to a new Capital Improvement Project Account, for the Rolando Park Restoration Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of November 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)
October 17, 2023
Mr. Michael Throne
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of La Mesa
8031 Allison Ave
La Mesa, CA 91941
Reference: Proposal to Perform Construction Management and Inspection Services – Bid No. 24-08: Rolando Park Restoration
Dear Mr. Throne,
In accordance with your request, Ardurra Group, Inc. (Ardurra) is pleased to provide this proposal for Construction Management and Inspection services for the City of La Mesa (City) on the subject project. Ardurra would like to propose Mr. Scott Adamson as Construction Manager, Mr. Bob Keleman as the Sr. Construction Inspector and Ms.
Nancy Cambra as the Labor Compliance Specialist. Our proposed scope of work may include, but is not limited to, the following:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Presented below is Ardurra’s proposed Detailed Scope of Work to be provided based on our understanding of the project requirements. Ardurra has assembled a comprehensive and detailed scope of work to accomplish the City’s project objectives and ensure a complete and well-coordinated construction management program that results in a project that is delivered on time and within budget.
Task 1 – Pre-Construction Phase Services
Task 1.1 – Pre-Construction Conference
Notify appropriate parties and schedule and conduct the Pre-Construction Conference with the Contractor. The meeting shall cover the overall project objectives, responsibilities of key personnel and agencies, schedules, procedures for handling submittals, correspondence, utility relocations, local agency permit requirements, request for clarification, progress payments, change orders, and other pertinent topics.
Task 1.2 – Review Pre-Construction Submittals
Review the Contractor’s pre-construction submittals such as initial CPM schedule, schedule of values, staging plans, and by-pass plans and provide comment to the City on the adequacy of those documents.
Task 1.3 – Coordinate with Outside Agencies/Stakeholders Provide coordination with outside agencies and property owners regarding upcoming construction.
Provide regular communication and coordinate any possible additional meetings that may be required to satisfy encroachment permit requirements or stakeholder concerns.
Task 2 – Construction Phase Services
Mr. Michael Throne
City of La Mesa
Rolando Park Restoration
October 17, 2023
Task 2.1 – Reports and Communications (Document Control) A. Project Document Control
Maintain field memoranda, transmittals, updated schedules, logs of shop drawings and other submittals, logs of requests for information, change orders, progress payment requests, progress meeting reports, compaction reports, daily inspection reports, and required SMARTS storm water inspection reports, and all other project correspondence. Project documentation will be kept digitally, as well as hard copies, and files will be organized in a logical manner as approved by the City.
Task 2.2 – Construction Administration
A. Construction Progress Meetings
Schedule and conduct bi-weekly construction progress meetings with the Contractor(s) and the City.
Provide meeting agendas and discuss the schedule, near term activities, clarifications and problems which need resolution, coordination with other Contractors, status of change orders, and safety issues. Prepare minutes of the meetings with identified action items. Prepare and distribute the minutes to the attendees.
B. Project Coordination
Provide coordination between the Contractor, Agencies, Public Outreach Consultant, Private Properties, and the City as needed to facilitate the construction process. Ardurra will ensure that the parties have up to date necessary information and documents such as shop drawings, submittals, plan revisions, by-pass plans, and traffic control plans. A documentation tracking procedure will be developed to track the distribution of these documents.
C. Shop Drawings and Submittal Reviews
Coordinate submittal review and approval. Ardurra will be responsible for processing and monitoring the status of submittals. Ardurra will provide cursory review of the Contractor’s submittals for general conformance with the contract document requirements prior to sending the submittals to the Design Engineer. Submittals of a general nature will be reviewed and processed by the CM team at the City’s request. The CM team may also provide review of technical specifications of a general nature such as crushed rock, asphalt paving, and import.
Ardurra will log, track, and monitor shop drawings, calculations, data samples, submittals, and manuals from the Contractor. Shop drawings and submittals which significantly do not meet the specified requirements will be returned to the Contractor with comments for corrections and resubmittal.
Exception reports, which identify outstanding submittals or reviews needed, shall be prepared periodically.
D. Plans and Specifications Interpretation (RFI Processing) Review and respond to Contractor RFIs if of a general nature. Technical RFIs will be submitted to the project Design Engineer for response. Maintain a log of RFIs in order to ensure that written clarifications are provided to the Contractor in a timely manner. Responses to requests for changes to the design will be submitted to the City’s Project Manager and Design Engineer for response and approval.
E. Respond to Change Order Requests
Mr. Michael Throne
City of La Mesa
Rolando Park Restoration
October 17, 2023
Identify, prepare log, and monitor Contractor or City initiated claims, changes, extra work, and change orders. Negotiate claims to an agreed Contractor/Consultant/City conclusion. Provide written recommendations to the City regarding the resolution of change orders and submit change orders to the City for approval. Prepare a report providing statement of claim, extra work, or change; background leading to the issue; resolution recommendation for action by the City. Prepare written justification and cost estimates for each change order that require design modifications or clarifications, including revisions to the drawing, details, and specifications. Resolve claims, extra work, and change orders for changes to the work and obtain City approval.
F. Progress Payment Reviews
Prepare project related invoices and progress payments. Submit invoices to the City’s Project Manager with a recommendation stating the proper amount for payment using the Schedule of Values and actual quantities as a basis to prepare payment requests. Progress payment review will also include evaluation of the monthly updated construction schedule and review of the project as-builts to verify that the Contractor is up to date. In addition, review of monthly progress payments will include review of the Contractor’s required inspections, testing, and reports as required by the project SWPPP and the Construction General Permit.
Task 2.3 – Construction Inspection Services
A. Daily Construction Monitoring
Provide part-time inspection and necessary specialty inspection to observe and document that the Contractor’s work is in compliance with the contract documents. Prepare daily reports of the construction activities including weather conditions, Contractor’s equipment and manpower, work performed, materials used, site visitors, note delays in work and reasons for the delays, and deficiencies. Prepare daily reports of deviations and non-conformance to specifications and provide a timely response. Perform technical inspection at the job site as required of materials and workmanship and discuss with the Contractor appropriate revisions to the methods and procedures used in performing the work. Observe and record all material deliveries to the site. Material certificates shall be verified and documented for compliance with plans, specifications, and approved shop drawings. Prepare a detailed daily report summarizing all observations and work performed on site each day/shift. Maintain, on a daily basis, a set of as-built drawings as verification and redundancy to the Contractor’s.
B. Photo Documentation
Take and file construction documentation photographs on a regular basis. Maintain a digital photographic library of significant construction activities. Take additional photographs to document differing site conditions, change order claim items and any special or unique conditions as they arise.
C. Community Outreach
Provide a central point of contact for stakeholders on the project and act as the City’s representative in the field. Meet with affected stakeholders regularly and keep a log of complaints with a description of the complaint and the measures taken to mitigate the complaint.
D. Labor Compliance Services
Mr. Michael Throne
City of La Mesa
Rolando Park Restoration
October 17, 2023
Verify DIR registration of prime and subcontractors. Coordinate the submittal of certified payroll records, fringe benefit records, and apprentice registration materials. Verify proper apprentice ratios are being met. Verify proper signage and wage rate determinations are displayed on the project. Perform employee interviews as required by project funding conditions. Spot check certified payroll records for proper pay rates.
Task 3 – Post-Construction Services
Task 3.1 – Project Closeout
Prepare detailed project punch item lists at closeout of the project. Upon correction of deficiencies, schedule, coordinate, and conduct a final walk through prior to acceptance of work with the City. Verify work, testing, cleanup and demobilization is complete. Check and submit final payment requests after final walk through. Review and certify that the Contractor’s project record drawings are complete and accurate.
Task 3.2 – Final Project Documents
Within 30 days of filing of the notice of completion, provide a Construction Documentation notebook and electronic copy comprised of all approved shop drawings, material test reports, certifications, daily inspection reports, meeting minutes, conversation logs, and photo documentation. Also provide and submit one set of redlined as-built drawings.
FEE:
Ardurra is pleased to present this estimated fee and estimated schedule for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Rolando Park Restoration Project. In developing this estimate, we have reviewed the project plans and specifications, visited the site, and called upon our experience with similar projects.
Our estimate has been based on a 40-
working day schedule. As always, our fees
will be charged on an as-needed basis only
for those services provided with a “Not to
Exceed” limit. Should the project schedule
extend substantially or should additional
services, such as extended shifts, be
required Ardurra will need to negotiate
with the City for additional fees. The table
to the right presents the hours we have
included in our estimate by team member
over the anticipated life of the project.
Our estimated not to exceed fee for the proposed scope of work is $42,828.00 (Forty-Two Thousand, Eight
RESOURCE SCHEDULE
Role/ Team Member
Rolando Park Restoration
Month
Total Hrs
1 2 3
Construction Manager
Scott Adamson 24 24 48
Sr. Construction Inspector
Bob Keleman 80 80 40 200
Labor Compliance Specialist
Nancy Cambra 10 10 20
Mr. Michael Throne
City of La Mesa
Rolando Park Restoration
October 17, 2023
Hundred and Twenty-eight Dollars). As part of this proposal, we have included a breakdown of anticipated hours by staff type that we feel will be dedicated to each task outlined in our scope, and provided an estimate of the overall project schedule and the anticipated number of hours for each proposed staff member as they relate to the resource schedule presented above.
• Mr. Scott Adamson, PE, QSD/P
Construction Manager 48 hrs @ $181.00/HR $ 8,688.00
• Mr. Bob Keleman
Sr. Construction Inspector 200 hrs @ $158.00/HR $ 31,600.00 • Ms. Nancy Cambra
Labor Compliance Specialist 20 hrs @ $127.00/HR $ 2,540.00
Total $ 42,828.00
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide this proposal and assist the City with this project. Please contact me at (858) 243-4977 should you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Scott Adamson, PE, QSD/P
Construction Management – Group Leader
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROVING A TASK ORDER TO ARDURRA TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE ROLANDO
BALLPARK RESTORATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, In April 2018, the City advertised a request for qualifications RFQ 18-15 for as-needed engineering services;
WHEREAS, Ardurra was selected as a qualified firm to provide as-needed construction management and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, the City requires assistance with construction management and inspection for the Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that:
The task order to provide construction management and inspection of Rolando Ballpark Restoration Project for an amount of $42,828.00 is approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a task order with Ardurra to perform the work.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of November 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: November 14, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE PURCHASE OF A 2023
FORD F-150 TO KEARNY MESA FORD AND KIA
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Police
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council adopt the resolution to award the purchase of a 2023 Ford F-150 to Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA?
Recommendation:
The City Council adopt the resolution to award the purchase of a 2023 Ford F-150 to Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA.
Fiscal Impact:
The quoted cost is $52,388.48. Funds are budgeted and available in Equipment Replacement Fund account 603-65850-143-000000.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.
BACKGROUND:
The La Mesa Police Department vehicle inventory includes a 2014 Ford F-150 which has high mileage and is exceeding its service life as a public safety vehicle. The Fiscal Year 2023/2024 budget includes the replacement of this vehicle. The replacement with another
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 2 of 3
Ford F-150 is considered the best course of action due to the dependability of the vehicle and standardization of parts and maintenance with the current fleet. The department’s budget request was originally for a hybrid vehicle, but the F-150 hybrid (Limited model) is prohibitively expensive and has limited fuel mileage improvement. Instead two other budgeted vehicles are planned to be replaced with more affordable hybrid models.
DISCUSSION:
The City received quotes for in-stock vehicles from Sedano Ford LM, Inc. in La Mesa and Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA in San Diego. The quote from Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA was for $52,388.48 including extra keys and sales tax. A quote was provided by Sedano Ford of LM, Inc. for an in-stock vehicle that had unneeded features at an increased cost. A third quote from the National Auto Fleet Group was not available.
The City’s Purchasing Officer may waive competitive bidding when the City Council by resolution determines that, due to special circumstances, it is in the city's best interest to purchase a commodity without compliance with the bidding procedure, per La Mesa Municipal Code Section 2.40.070(a)(7). Purchasing a Ford F-150 will maintain consistency with the current fleet. By purchasing from local dealers instead of using a formal bid process the City can support the local economy while also securing the vehicle more quickly and from vendors that are experienced and reliable in government/commercial sales. Under these facts the circumstances are that Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA can provide the needed vehicle quickly and at a reasonable cost while keeping the purchase within the local economy; and as such, staff recommends that it is in the best interests of the City to enter into a contract for the purchase a 2023 Ford F-150 without a formal bidding process.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution to award the purchase of a 2023 Ford F-150 to Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Ray Sweeney
City Manager Chief of Police
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 3 of 3
___________________
Scott Munzenmaier
Purchasing Officer
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Quotes
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA TO AWARD THE PURCHASE OF A 2023 FORD F-150 TO KEARNY MESA FORD AND KIA WHEREAS, the Police Department vehicle inventory includes a 2014 Ford F-150 which has high mileage and is exceeding its service life as a public safety vehicle; WHEREAS, the department’s FY23/24 budget request was originally for a hybrid vehicle, but the F-150 hybrid (Limited model) is prohibitively expensive and has limited fuel mileage improvement, and instead two other budgeted vehicles are planned to be replaced with more affordable hybrid models;
WHEREAS, the City received quotes for in-stock vehicles from two local dealerships and the lowest quote was from Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA for $52,388.48; WHEREAS, the City’s Purchasing Officer may waive competitive bidding when the City Council by resolution determines that, due to special circumstances, it is in the city's best interest to purchase a commodity without compliance with the bidding procedure, per La Mesa Municipal Code Section 2.40.070(a)(7); and
WHEREAS, purchasing a Ford F-150 will maintain consistency with the current fleet and by purchasing from local dealers instead of using a formal bid process the City can support the local economy while also securing the vehicle more quickly and from vendors that are experienced and reliable in government/commercial sales.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council intends to award the purchase of a 2023 Ford F150 to Kearny Mesa Ford and KIA for $52,388.48.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14
th day of November, 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)
Kearny Mesa
Kearny Mesa � �
7303 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD.
SAN DIEGO, CA92111
CITY OF LA MESA
Attn: Scott Munzenmaier
Address 8085 UNIVERSITY AVE
City LA MESA State CA ZIP --
91942 ---
Phone (619) 667-7543 FAX: (619) 667-1131
Qty Description
1 2023 FORD F-150 CREW CAB XLT 301A 145"WB
2 2KEYS
1 CA TIRE FEE
1 CA SALES TAX 8.50%
SIGN: DAit::
CITY OF LA MESA COPY
INVOICE !!
Date 11/1/2023
INVOICE # CLM-025
Unit Price TOTAL
$47,988.00 $47,988.00
$150.00 $300.00
$8.75 $8.75
$4,091.73 $4,091.73
TOTAL $52,388.48
7303 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard • San Diego, California 92111 • 8S8-560-5544 www.kearnymesaford.com www.kearnymesakia.com
SUNRO�D Page 416 of 522 �u"K3)
Sedano Ford
Date: 10/19/2023
Salesperson: Khusro Ahmed
Manager: -----------+----- Khusro Ahmed
Customer ID#: ----------+----- 27287841253
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
BUSINESS
NAME
CONTACT
Address:
CITY OF LA MESA
SCOTT MUNZENMAIER
LA MESA, CA 91942
SAN D/EGO CO
E-Mail: [email protected]
VEHICLE
Stock# : PKE39089T
Vehicle: 2023 Ford F-150
Type:
Body Size:
Dealer Asking Price
MARK UP
Total Purchase
Doc Fee
Tax
Tire Fee*
OMV Electronic Fee*
Cash Deposit
Balance
New I Used : New
Style :
VIN : 1FTEW1CP8PKE39089
Home Ph�ne: (619) 667-1113
I
Work Ph, ne: (619) 667-1113 I
Cell Phone: (619) 402-4117
I
ly'lileage: 174
Color :AGATE BLACK MET
W1C
Weight : 6400 �nit Class:
sb,740.00
11,500.00
5p,240.00
I as.oo
�,702.62
.00
60,069.37
DATE: November 14, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lyn Dedmon, Assistant to the City Manager
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
Glenn Sabine, City Attorney
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.010
OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST MAYOR, CITY
COUNCIL AND TREASURER COMPENSATION
At the February 28, 2023 City Council meeting, Council Members Dillard and Shu introduced a Council-initiated item requesting staff to conduct a review of Council salaries. At that meeting, the Mayor appointed an ad-hoc subcommittee comprised of the same Council Members to determine the process for reviewing and making recommendations regarding salaries. On March 16, 2023, the Ad-hoc Subcommittee met and recommended the City Council direct the City Manager to select a five-member Council Salary Adjustment Panel (Panel) to evaluate the current Council salary as compared to other councils in the region, and bring back a recommendation regarding whether the Council should adjust its salary and if so, identify an appropriate methodology and amount.
On September 14, 2023, the Council Salary Adjustment Panel convened, along with various staff, and recommended that the Mayor, City Council, and Treasurer salaries be increased as follows:
Increase City Council salaries from $1,000 to $1,500 monthly (the Mayor, as a Councilmember, would receive the same increase). The Mayor should also receive an increase to the Mayoral compensation from $1,000 to $1,500 (total $1,500 Council salary + $1,500 Mayoral salary = $3,000).
Additionally, the City Treasurer should receive an increase from the current monthly salary of $579 to $869.
On October 24, 2023, a representative from the Panel presented their recommendation to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council approved an increase to City Council salaries from $1,000 to $1,900 monthly (the Mayor, as a Councilmember, would receive the same increase). The Mayor would receive an increase to the Mayoral compensation from $1,000 to $1,900 (total $1,900 Council salary + $1,900 Mayoral salary = $3,800). The Treasurer is to receive an increase from the current monthly salary of $579 to $1,100. Additionally, the City Council approved a policy to direct staff to return to City Council in August of non-election years with a recommended
adjustment to the monthly compensation for the Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Treasurer.
Staff recommends the City Council introduce the Ordinance for first reading to amend the Municipal Code as noted above.
Attachment A: Ordinance No. 2023-____
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA AMENDING SECTION 2.04.010 OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ADJUST THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND TREASURER COMPENSATION WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa was founded in 1869;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa was incorporated on February 16, 1912; WHEREAS, centrally located in the rolling hills of San Diego County, La Mesa is known as the Jewel of the Hills; and
WHEREAS, La Mesa is a general law city which derives its power from state law and uses the State Governmental Code to enumerate the City’s powers and form of government. La Mesa employees a Council-Manager form of government. In this arrangement, the Council is responsible for determining policy, and the City Manager ensures that such policy is implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 2.04.010 of the La Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Each Council member shall be entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars. The operative date of said compensation shall be upon the seating of the new City Council after the General Election held on November 5, 2024 pursuant to California law.”
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall be entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars. The operative date of said compensation shall be upon the seating of the new City Council after the General Election held on November 5, 2024 pursuant to California law. Said amount shall be in addition to that which the Mayor receives as a council member of the City.
SECTION 3: The City Treasurer shall be entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of One Thousand One Hundred Dollars. The operative date of said compensation shall be upon the seating of the new City Council after the General Election held on November 5, 2024 pursuant to California law.
SECTION 4: The City Council directed staff to return to Council in August of non-election years with a recommended adjustment to the monthly compensation for the Mayor, Council Members, and Treasurer.
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to use summary publication procedures pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 utilizing a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of La Mesa.
INTRODUCED AND READ at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of November 2023, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of said City Council held the 28th day of November 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
__________________________
MARK ARAPOSTATHIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
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 correct copy of Ordinance No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited and that the same has been duly published according to law.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: November 14, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF LA MESA
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City of La Mesa adopt the Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual dated June 2023?
Recommendation:
Approve the attached resolution adopting the Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual dated June 2023.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
E-4 Public Lighting - Improve energy efficiency of public traffic signal, street, and park lights in the City to reduce energy consumption. W-2 Waterwise Landscape Design and Irrigation – Conserve water through educational activities around grey water and water conservation programs.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 2 of 4
GI-1 Urban Forest Master Plan – Support natural carbon sequestration opportunities through continued development and maintenance of a healthy, vibrant urban forest.
BACKGROUND:
In 2015 SANDAG adopted “San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan” (Regional Plan), which intended to serve as a blueprint for sustainability and efficient movement of people throughout the region. The Environmental Impact Report for the Regional Plan included a mitigation measure, known as Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measure 4A, which specified that local jurisdictions must have an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) and a Complete Streets (CS) Policy to be eligible to receive funding from the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) and Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP). Additionally, the Green House Gas Mitigation Measure required that SANDAG make competitive grant funding available to jurisdictions to develop one or both of these documents or planning and capital projects that align with the Regional Plan.
In December of 2017, the SANDAG Board of Directors released the Cycle 4 Call for Projects for the Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) and Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP). The grant program planned to distribute $30.6 million in funding throughout the region, intended for both capital and planning projects, and to assist agencies with the development of Climate Action Plans and Complete Streets Policies, if not already approved or in place. On July 27, 2018 the SANDAG Board of Directors approved a list of recommended SGIP projects including the La Mesa Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual (CSIDM), and a grant agreement was subsequently executed on February 4, 2019.
The total cost of the CSIDM project was $199,449 with $169,801 coming from SANDAG in the form of SGIP funds and $29,648 from local matching transportation funds (HUTA Street Imp. 18).
DISCUSSION:
While the City of La Mesa has satisfied the requirements of SANDAG’s Complete Streets Policy, and specifically the criteria as identified in the Regional Plan, the City desired to develop a comprehensive complete street planning and design guide that summarizes applicable planning studies, design standards, and approved policies.
Further, the guide will provide a toolbox for future capital improvement projects and private development projects that may be required to perform work in the public right-ofway.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 3 of 4
The overarching goal of the CSIDM is to provide an easy to reference planning document for the infrastructure needed to develop a mixed-use transportation corridor supporting healthy, safe, sustainable, multi-modal travel options including walking, biking and transit, consistent with the goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan.
Implementation of certain tools including safe and complete streets design criteria also serve to support and advance the City’s Vision Zero Plan. The City’s Vision Zero Plan was adopted, by resolution on September 25, 2018. The Plan’s goal is to reduce traffic fatalities to zero by prioritizing safety within infrastructure projects and combining education and enforcement practices to achieve this goal.
The scope of the work included evaluation of roadway/sidewalk/intersection Complete Streets elements, development of conceptual corridor alternatives including multiple roadway typologies/cross sections, and implementation strategies. The project also included a significant community engagement strategy targeting stakeholders, interested community members, businesses, and residents, with a focus on equitable engagement of all through a variety of media, both electronic and conventional.
Outreach methods were tailored to COVID protocols in effect at the time the project was under development.
Following the consultant procurement process, the firm of AECOM was awarded an agreement to develop the manual. Final preparation of the CSIDM was completed in June 2022, and the grant agreement with SANDAG expired on August 4, 2022 following approval of two schedule extensions.
In early 2023, the City of La Mesa requested additional revisions and outreach presentations from AECOM with revisions completed in June 2023.
On August 2, 2023, the Mobility Commission recommended approval of the CSIDM with two changes. First, to remove the word “Threshold” from the typology table title for Daily Traffic Volumes, to provide better flexibility in determinations, which has been incorporated in the manual’s final draft. Second, to change the title of the document from Manual to Guideline. Staff recommends leaving the document title as originally proposed, as a “guideline” could infer a more suggestive requirement, whereas a “manual” supports a stronger requirement thereby providing a firm description of the City’s street design vision that local developers can use with certainty.
On August 21, 2023, the Environmental Sustainability Commission is in support of the CSIDM and discussed Roundabouts and Class IV bike facilities as two of their highest priorities.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 14, 2023
Page: 4 of 4
On October 4, 2023, the Planning Commission also expressed support of the CSIDM and discussed the implementation of development conditions for complete streets, and expressed interest in protected bike lanes.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution adopting the Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual dated June 2023.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Michael Kinnard
Michael Kinnard, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. City of La Mesa Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual, June 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING
THE CITY OF LA MESA COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN
MANUAL
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, in December 2017 a call for projects for $27 million in funding was made available to local jurisdictions through the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) Smart Growth Incentive Program for the 2018 funding cycle; WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, City Council approved submittal of an application to the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) Smart Growth Incentive Program for the preparation of the City of La Mesa Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual; WHEREAS, in July 2018, the City of La Mesa received notification of an award of $169,801 in grant funding from SANDAG for the preparation of the La Mesa Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has adopted a Complete Streets Policy or the equivalent in the 2012 General Plan Update in a public hearing on July 09, 2013, that is consistent with the California Complete Streets Act; and WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa adopted a Climate Action Plan in March 2018, which establishes a goal to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 53% and reduce vehicle miles traveled by 6% by 2035 through infrastructure improvements and other programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual is hereby adopted by the City of La Mesa.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of November 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 14th of November 2023, and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements
This manual was funded in part through a grant from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in support of Smart Growth policies. The Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual does not commit the City of La Mesa to funding any improvements. Pursuing additional engineering or other follow up work will be based upon funding availability.
Project Team
This manual was developed with support from the following Project Team:
Hamed Hashemian, PE
Philip Kern, PE
Michael Kinnard
Michael Throne, PE
Consultants:
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 Purpose........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 What are Complete Streets ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Benefits of Complete Streets.................................................................................................................................. 2 Using the Manual ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER 2: COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN ELEMENTS............................................................................5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Sidewalk Elements ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Building Frontage .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Walkway ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Parkway ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Roadway Elements ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Travel Lanes .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Medians................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Parking .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Transit Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Intersection Elements ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Signalized Intersection ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Protected Intersection ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Roundabout ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Mid-Block Crossing ............................................................................................................................................. 16 CHAPTER 3: STREET TYPOLOGIES ............................................................................................................ 18 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 18 Function ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Context ......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Modal Emphasis ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Street Typologies ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 Typology A .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Considerations...................................................................................................................................................... 22 Adjacent Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Typology B .................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Use ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Considerations...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Adjacent Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 25
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
Typology C .................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Use ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Considerations...................................................................................................................................................... 27 Adjacent Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Typology D .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Use ............................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Considerations...................................................................................................................................................... 29 Adjacent Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Typology E .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Use ............................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Considerations...................................................................................................................................................... 31 Adjacent Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 31 CHAPTER 4: SIDEWALK ELEMENTS AND DESIGN OPTIONS ............................................................... 32 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Design Options.......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Basic and Enhanced Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................ 33 Ribbon Sidewalk Option ................................................................................................................................... 34 Parkway Amenities ............................................................................................................................................. 35 Technical References and Further Guidance ................................................................................................ 43 CHAPTER 5: ROADWAY ELEMENTS AND DESIGN OPTIONS ................................................................ 45 How to Address Design Options......................................................................................................................... 45 Typical Street Typology Section .................................................................................................................... 47 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Typology A – Less than 7,500 ADT .................................................................................................................... 48 Two-Way .................................................................................................................................................................. 48 One-Way Streets .................................................................................................................................................. 51 Typology B – Between 7,500 and 15,000 ADT .............................................................................................. 53 Typology C – Between 15,000 and 30,000 ADT ........................................................................................... 56 Typology D – Between 20,000 and 40,000 ADT ........................................................................................... 59 Typology E – Greater than 40,000 ADT ........................................................................................................... 61 CHAPTER 6: INTERSECTION ELEMENTS AND DESIGN OPTIONS ...................................................... 63 Signalized Intersections ....................................................................................................................................... 63 Protected Intersection ...................................................................................................................................... 63 Bike Box .................................................................................................................................................................. 64 Corner Island ........................................................................................................................................................ 64 Pedestrian Island ................................................................................................................................................ 64 Accessible Signals .............................................................................................................................................. 65
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
Curb Return Radius ................................................................................................................................................ 65 Roundabout ............................................................................................................................................................... 65 Mid-block Crossings ................................................................................................................................................ 68 Two-Stage Mid-Block Crossing ...................................................................................................................... 69 Bulb Out ................................................................................................................................................................. 69 Standard Crosswalk ........................................................................................................................................... 69 High Visibility Crosswalk .................................................................................................................................. 70 Enhanced Crosswalk .......................................................................................................................................... 70 Pedestrian Activated Traffic Controls .......................................................................................................... 70 CHAPTER 7: MICROMOBILITY ................................................................................................................... 73 Micromobility ............................................................................................................................................................. 73 Bike Racks (Short Term Bicycle Parking) .................................................................................................. 73 Dockless Micromobility Parking/Staging Areas ...................................................................................... 74 Bike Share Docks ................................................................................................................................................ 75 Protected Bike Lanes .............................................................................................................................................. 77 Raised Concrete-Separated Protected Bike Lane ................................................................................... 77 Bollard-Separated Protected Bike Lane ..................................................................................................... 78 A.C. Berm-Separated Protected Bike Lane ................................................................................................ 79 CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ............................................................ 81 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Project Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Public Outreach Process ....................................................................................................................................... 81 Public Engagement Plan .................................................................................................................................. 82 Summary of Outreach Performed ..................................................................................................................... 82 Project Webpage .................................................................................................................................................. 82 Project Fact Sheet ............................................................................................................................................... 82 Public Mailer ......................................................................................................................................................... 83 Online Public Workshop.................................................................................................................................... 83 Social Media .......................................................................................................................................................... 83 Mobility Commission .......................................................................................................................................... 83 Public Commentary ............................................................................................................................................ 83 Tables
Table 3.1 - Street Typologies .............................................................................................................................. 20 Table 4.1 - Sidewalk Element Typology Summary ...................................................................................... 41 Table 4.2 - Sidewalk Elements Prototypical Widths ................................................................................... 42 Table 5.1 - Summary of Roadway Typology Possible Features and Width Ranges........................ 46 Table 5.2 - Typology A – Two-Way Design Options ..................................................................................... 49 Table 5.3 - Typology A Possible Features and Width Range ................................................................... 50 Table 5.4 - Typology A – One Way – Design Options .................................................................................. 52
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
Table 5.5 - Typology B Design Options ........................................................................................................... 55 Table 5.6 - Typology B Possible Features and Width Ranges ................................................................. 55 Table 5.7 - Typology C Design Options............................................................................................................ 58 Table 5.8 - Typology C Possible Features and Width Ranges ................................................................. 58 Table 5.9 - Typology D Design Options ........................................................................................................... 60 Table 5.10 - Typology D Possible Features and Width Ranges .............................................................. 60 Table 5.11 - Typology E Design Options ......................................................................................................... 62 Table 5.12 - Typology E Possible Features and Width Ranges .............................................................. 62 Table 6.1 - Roundabout Advantages and Disadvantages Summary .................................................... 67 Table 6.2 - Intersection Elements Toolbox .................................................................................................... 72 Table 7.1 - Micromobility Parking Area Recommendations .................................................................... 75
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL
Kiosk
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 01 CHAPTER
1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of the Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual (Manual) is to provide guidance on how to incorporate Complete Streets elements on street improvement projects within the City of La Mesa. It is intended to direct policymakers, City agencies and consultants on the incorporation of Complete Streets elements on their projects. It promotes streets that will be designed and operated to provide connections by multiple modes of travel and ultimately result in a network of roadways across the city that are safe, attractive, comfortable, and accessible to all users.
Vision
Streets provide connections by multiple modes of travel to destinations throughout the city for residents, visitors, and regional commuters. It is the City of La Mesa’s largest public space. As such, the city is committed to providing a transportation experience that promotes enhanced mobility for people of all ages and abilities using all modes of travel (walking, driving, bicycling, micro-mobility, or transit). This Manual will enable the full realization of a vibrant, healthy, equitable, accessible, and environmentally sustainable community where everyone can move about safely and comfortably in all modes of travel.
What are Complete Streets
“Complete Streets” is a transportation planning and design approach that accommodates and facilitates convenient access and mobility for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists of all ages and abilities. It is intended to create safe, accessible, and attractive streets that support holistic and quality development that reduces the demand for single occupancy vehicles. It considers the entire right-of-way, not just the area between the curbs. Complete Streets are multi-modal, flexible, and sustainable. Using a Complete Street approach, the goal of the street is expanded to include the efficient movement of motor vehicles balanced with the needs of bicyclists, transit users and pedestrians.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 01 CHAPTER
2 Benefits of Complete Streets
The Complete Streets approach offers many benefits. It changes the goal of transportation improvements from primarily serving motor vehicles to developing improvements that will serve the needs of all users and integrates transportation with surrounding land uses. The benefits of the Complete Streets approach include:
Improving safety for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motor vehicles)
Providing access and mobility for people of all ages and abilities in all modes of travel
Increasing connected, comfortable, and safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities
Fostering a physically active and healthy community
Increasing shade and area
beautification
Managing and improving water quality
Promoting transportation equity
Reducing automobile use by mode
shift
Fully aligns with the City’s Vision Zero strategy to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries among all road users that ensures safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all
Supports Climate Action Plan goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by developing strategies that promote alternative transportation and increased walking and biking opportunities
Using the Manual
This manual is aimed at designers of public facilities and should be used early in the project development process so that Complete Streets elements can be fully incorporated. The following explains the contents of the chapters and how to use them. Chapter 2 – Complete Streets Elements: Identifies and describes the various items or elements that can be used when creating a Complete Street. These elements fall into three categories: Roadway, Sidewalk, and Intersection Trolley at Spring Street
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 01 CHAPTER
3 Chapter 3 – Street Typologies: Defines the street functional classifications.
The roadway’s classification is the starting point for determining what Complete Streets attributes are applicable to a given roadway Chapter 4 – Sidewalk Elements and Design Options: Presents design guidance for when and how to use the various sidewalk elements and some options on how to apply those features
Chapter 5 – Roadway Elements and Design Options: Presents roadway configuration options for the street typologies presented in Chapter 3 Chapter 6 – Intersection Elements and Design Options: Presents design guidance on the intersection elements and when they are applicable to use Chapter 7 – Micromobility: Presents micromobility configurations for parking areas and protected bike lanes
Chapter 8 – Implementation and Public Engagement: Presents project types for implementation, outlines public outreach plan components, and summarizes the public engagement performed in developing this Manual Use of the Manual starts with Chapter 3 and determining the street type or typology.
The typologies are generally based on the volume of motor vehicles that the street is expected to carry and the street’s curb-to-curb width.
The anticipated traffic volume is identified as “average daily traffic” or ADT. The ADT dictates which typology to reference. Once the typology is known, use Chapter 5 to identify the design option most suitable for the project.
The options within each typology provide a range of curb-to-curb widths that are feasible based on the dimensions of the desired street elements. Then consider surrounding land use, roadway speed, level of pedestrian and bicycle activity, and rightof-way width. At that point the designer can select a valid option and look to Chapters 4 and 6 to see what sidewalk and intersection elements are appropriate to include in the proposed project.
This Manual is intended to guide the project development process. It is not meant as a substitute for design, planning, or engineering judgement. The document should be used to inform and support the decision-making process by providing design guidance on the preferred use of the right-of-way in a manner that is consistent with the Complete Streets approach. As project conditions may vary, consideration of specific elements must be made on a case-by-case basis with Complete Streets elements implemented to the extent feasible based on the situation and conditions.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 01 CHAPTER
4 Smart Growth Opportunity Areas
THIS MANUAL CONTAINS THE CITY OF LA MESA’S COMPLETE STREETS GUIDELINES.
HOWEVER, THE CITY ENGINEER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE ENGINEERING
JUDGEMENT TO DEVIATE FROM THESE FINDINGS DUE TO PHYSICAL OR OTHER CONSTRAINTS.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
5 CHAPTER 2: COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN
ELEMENTS
Introduction
This chapter provides a basic description of the elements that can be implemented within the public right-of-way when using a Complete Streets approach. The public right-of-way (ROW) is the area from property line to property line dedicated for public use. It is generally owned, operated, and maintained by the City and provides ingress and egress to adjacent properties. For the purposes of this Manual, the ROW consists of the Complete Streets Elements (Sidewalk Elements and Roadway Elements) shown in the figure below. How these elements are applied is explained in Chapters 4, 5 and 6.
Sidewalk Elements consist of the area located from the back of curb to the face of a building. or property line. This area is further divided into Building Frontage, Walkway, and Parkway areas and may include the items shown in the Figure below. Roadway Elements are located from curb to curb. They include bicycle lanes, parking lanes, travel lanes, and medians.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
7 Sidewalk Elements
Building frontage, walkways, and the parkway are described below. Some of these elements may not exist or may not be possible due to a lack of available space within the right-of-way. Engineering judgement along with community input should be applied to determine which features should be installed when there are spatial constraints.
Building Frontage
The Building Frontage section of the sidewalk is located between the property line (or building) and the sidewalk clear zone or walkway. It can contain streetscape features as an extension of the building façade, business signs, planters, retail displays, and/or outdoor dining, depending on available space and zoning.
Walkway
The Walkway is the sidewalk clear zone. It provides a paved ADA-compliant unobstructed pathway for pedestrian use that runs parallel to the street.
Building Frontage with Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining and Wide Walkway Walkway along Fletcher Parkway Walkway and Outdoor Dining
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
8 Parkway
The Parkway is the area between the curb and the sidewalk clear zone. It provides accessible landing areas and can function as a sidewalk extension. Pedestrian amenities can be included such as landscaping, street trees, bike/scooter share stations, roadway signage, stormwater management, and street furniture (light fixtures, benches, kiosks, sidewalk cafes, bus stops, public art, utilities, parking meters).
Typical Parkway Area Street Furniture in Parkway
Public Seating
Public Art
Street Trees and Landscaping in Parkway
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
9 Roadway Elements
Roadway Elements consist of everything
between the curbs: parking lanes or stalls,
bicycle facilities, vehicle travel lanes,
medians, and transit facilities. The space
provided and placement of these elements
has a significant impact on how well a
given roadway supports multimodal travel.
A typical roadway without a median is
shown in the figure below. This section
provides brief descriptions of the various
Roadway Elements. 2-Lane Roadway
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
10 Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are intended to encourage people of all ages to ride bicycles on local roadway networks. Bicycle lanes serve the mobility needs of riders (bicycles and scooters) providing them with useful connections to destinations. These facilities include Class II Bikeways or Bike Lanes, Class III Bikeways or Bike Routes, and Class IV Bikeways or Protected Bike Lanes. Another type of bicycle facility, the Class I bike path, is not included here because it is located off-street.
Complete Streets should also feature bicycle parking. Bike racks may be provided in the parkway or building frontage areas, or within the roadway parking lane, configured as a "bike corral" with multiple racks. Bicycle parking is presented in further detail in Chapter 7.
Bike Lane (Class II Bikeway)
The Bike Lane, or Class II Bikeway, is shown below. It provides dedicated space, via striping, for one-way bicycle travel on a street. This bikeway is located either between the curb and motor vehicle travel lane or parking lane and vehicle travel lane. A Class II Bikeway can also be a buffered bikeway, also shown below. This bikeway provides an additional 3-foot (preferred) separation from moving traffic.
Bike Route (Class III Bikeway)
A Bike Route, or Class III bikeway, is a roadway with bicycle signage and pavement markings where the bicyclist shares the same space with vehicular traffic.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
11 “Share the Road” signage and pavement markings (sharrows) are shown in the Class III Bike Lane photo at right. The Class III
Bikeway is only recommended for streets
with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.
Protected Bike Lane (Class IV Bikeway)
As of 2014, the California Department of
Transportation officially recognized
separated bikeways or “cycle tracks” as a
new bicycle facility classification (Class IV). Cycle tracks, hereafter referred to as “Protected Bike Lanes” feature a physical separation between bike lane users and vehicle travel lanes (shown below). Reflective bollards, planters, raised curbs, parked vehicles, or “floating parking stalls” are some of the elements that can function as separators. Protected bike lanes can be one-way or two-way depending on the street network, available ROW and adjacent land use. See Chapter 7 for more information.
Bike Corral
A bike corral provides additional bicycle parking by replacing a single on street parking space with a row of bicycle racks or a cycle stall. Shared scooters, e-bikes and other micro-transit are similarly located. This works well when sidewalks are too narrow to accommodate bicycle racks on the sidewalk in areas of high demand for bicycle parking.
Bike Corral
Class III Bike Lane
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
12 Travel Lanes
A travel lane or traffic lane (see figure below) is a lane for the movement of vehicles travelling from one destination to another, not including shoulders. Travel lanes include two-way left turn lanes which is a center lane in the middle of a two-way street that is painted with double yellow lines. The inner lanes are broken yellow, and the outer are solid, allowing either travel lane to use the center lane to make a left turn.
Medians
The median is a reserved area that separates opposing lanes of traffic on divided roadways, excluding turn lanes. Medians can be defined by pavement markings, raised medians or islands to separate motorized and non-motorized road users.
Parking
On-street parking may occupy the same portion of the street as bicycle facilities Landscaped Median
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
13 (between the vehicle travel lane and curb), so the needs of both user groups must be carefully considered. Parking spaces can be provided parallel to the curb or angled.
Angled parking can be either head-in or reverse angled (head-out). Angled parking can provide more spaces but requires a wider street. It also eliminates bicyclist/car door conflicts that exist with parallel parked cars. All parking types can have parking meters, pay stations, or online payment.
Reverse Angled Parking
Reverse angled parking requires cars to back into the on-street angled parking space.
The angled striping is reversed from a head-in angled parking space. To park, the motorist drives past the parking space, stops, and then backs into it. When exiting, the motorist has better visibility of oncoming traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians and can maneuver more safely into the travel lane.
The benefits of reverse angled parking include:
Provides a clear line of sight between bicyclists and motorists Easier loading and unloading of vehicles
Rear loading occurs at the
curb instead of in or adjacent
to the travel lane
Wider loading zones are
possible
Accessible parking spaces
and access aisles are easy to
incorporate
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
14 Considerations when installing reverse angled parking include:
The reverse angle-in parked vehicle might overhang more into the parkway area
Exhaust pipe emissions from parked cars are directed toward pedestrians on the sidewalk
Learning curve for motorists attempting to reverse park Reverse angled parking way cause delays to through traffic When bike lane and parking spaces occupy same side of street, a 2’- 5’ buffer is recommended between the parking space and bike lane (see figure below) Transit Facilities
Transit facilities include exclusive or semiexclusive bus lanes, turn lanes, and pullouts along the curb or at “transit” islands.
Bus pull-outs allow the bus to move out
of the travel lane to the side of the road
for passenger loading and unloading,
allowing motorists to continue without
having to maneuver around the stopped
bus. Access to transit boarding platforms
is required to be fully accessible and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
compliant.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
15 Intersection Elements
Intersection elements discussed in this section include signalized and protected intersections, roundabouts, mid-block crossings, bulb outs, crosswalks, and pedestrian crossing controls.
Signalized Intersection
Turn movements at intersections can be uncontrolled or controlled by traffic signals, stop signs or other regulatory signs. Signalized intersections have higher traffic volumes and can include protected phasing, permissive/protected phasing (turn allowed if through traffic is clear), and/or transit signal priority treatments.
Protected Intersection
Existing signalized intersections can be enhanced to be protected intersections by including higher-visibility pedestrian and bicycle crossings, bike boxes, and curb extensions. These facilities allow pedestrians and bicyclists to avoid merging with motor vehicle traffic. The bicycle lane is extended around the intersection and protected by curb extensions. The curb extensions narrow the roadway providing a shorter crossing distance for both pedestrians and
bicyclists and making them more visible to
motorists by the time they pull around the
corner island.
Roundabout
A roundabout is a circular intersection
with a raised, flat, or landscaped island in
the middle. Traffic flows counterclockwise
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
Roundabout
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
16 as vehicles enter and exit to the right of the circle. The geometry encourages slow entry and exit speeds with yield-controlled entry on all legs. To make pedestrian crossings safer and more visible, ADA-compliant median island refuge areas and high-visibility crosswalks can be installed.
Mid-Block Crossing
A Mid-Block Crossing is a pedestrian or bicycle crossing located between intersections.
It is used to facilitate crossings on long blocks or to access destinations that are not near an intersection. For visibility and safety, mid-block crossings typically have continental striping and one or more pedestrian countermeasures (warning beacons, “sharks teeth,” advance yield markings, etc.). Care must be used in locating mid-block crossings so that they do not surprise drivers.
Two-Stage Mid-Block Crossing3
This is a median refuge island in the
middle of the street associated with a
mid-block crossing. It may include
intermediate signals, push buttons,
zig-zag refuge areas or other means for
pedestrian protection through all stages
of the crossing.
Crosswalks
High-visibility crosswalks or enhanced crosswalks are to be installed when installing new or upgraded crosswalks.
High-visibility crosswalks, also known as continental crosswalks, have markings that are more visible to motorists and improve safety in comparison to traditionally striped crosswalks.
Enhanced crosswalks may include
median refuge islands, curb extensions,
pavement markings, lighting,
rectangular rapid flashing beacons
(RRFBs) and/or high-intensity activated
crosswalk beacons (HAWKs) in addition
to high-visibility crosswalk striping to
increase motor vehicle awareness and
Two-Stage Mid-Block Crossing
High-Visibility Crosswalk
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 02 CHAPTER
17 visibility of pedestrians and others using a mid-block crossing. RRFBs and HAWKs are discussed in detail below.
Bulb-Outs or Pop-Outs
A bulb-out or pop-out extends the curb at crosswalks to shorten the crossing distance and improve motorist visibility of pedestrians.
Pedestrian-Activated Traffic Control Devices
Pedestrian-activated traffic control devices are LED rapid-flash or constant red systems that increase driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and regulate traffic at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. They operate by displaying a flashing beacon or constant red light toward approaching motorists to warn them that a pedestrian is crossing.
The beacon may be actuated by a
pedestrian push button or passive
detection. These devices include RRFBs
which are a warning only to vehicular
traffic, and HAWK which function as a
traffic signal requiring traffic to stop for
pedestrians. RRFBs may alternately
have round lights mounted in the sign
faces.
Enhanced Crosswalk
Curb Extension (Bulb-Out)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon or RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
18 CHAPTER 3: STREET TYPOLOGIES
Introduction
For the purposes of this Manual, the term “typology” is used to denote street classification. The street typologies identified in this chapter are intended to provide design flexibility while addressing the public right-of-way including the sidewalk elements, roadway elements, and intersection elements identified in Chapter 2. This chapter provides the guiding set of street typologies based on the function, context, and modal emphasis of the street. The vehicular elements of these typologies are related to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defined functional classifications identified in the City’s General Plan, however explicit reference to functional classifications is avoided to ensure this document’s resilience with evolving conditions and planning paradigms. The five street typologies presented in this chapter are organized by roadway volume capacity. This approach was selected because the spatial requirement for vehicular capacity impacts all travel modes the most, making it the most practical framework for organizing street design. It is not intended to prioritize the vehicle over other modes of travel.
Function, context, modal emphasis, and other defining street characteristics occur in a broad continuum of traffic volume environments. The design options for each typology presented in Chapter 5 reflect the broad diversity of desired contexts, characters, and modal emphasis possible, while providing flexibility in implementing Complete Streets solutions within La Mesa.
Function
Some functions have aspects which are inherently in conflict with another. Vehicular mobility necessitates the capability to serve through-movement. This may conflict with the interests of abutting properties whose main priority is local access with slower traffic. Prioritizing one function over the other has consequences. Mobility for vehicles typically favors designing for faster traffic speeds, which can increase the risk for other street users and may worsen the quality of the urban environment. Often, streets that focus on vehicular mobility limit access by eliminating features such as driveways and parking, which create traffic friction.
From a Complete Streets perspective, vehicle movement should occur safely without inhibiting other modes of travel. The need to address multiple user groups underscores
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
19 the importance of contemplating a street’s modal emphasis and context in the street design process.
Context
The context of a street includes its adjacent land uses, current and proposed. While conventional street design primarily considers vehicular transportation, the Complete Streets approach focuses on all elements (pedestrian, non-motorized, and roadway) matching the overall context of the ground floor uses, including building entries that frame the street.
Modal Emphasis
A Complete Street considers the needs of all types of transportation and users of all ages and abilities, including vulnerable users and an application of Complete Streets elements should focus on a critical subset of streets within the city that serve a combination of both mobility and access functions and are thus most likely to be at the center of tension between those purposes. These streets traverse areas which attract and generate travel activity of all types: walking, bicycling, vehicular traffic, parking demand, and may be along transit alignments.
It is not essential for all low volume streets to be Complete Streets because demand may be too low, and conditions may be adequate for vulnerable users without intervention. Roadways built for very high volumes should accommodate other travel modes to the maximum extent possible; however, their scale and specialized function for moving large quantities of vehicular traffic is contrary to the very essence of a Complete Street. Streets that are very low volume should specialize in access. Streets that are very high volume should specialize in vehicular mobility. For this reason, roadways in the middle of the range (major & collector streets) are typically the best candidates for applying Complete Streets principles to serve a mix of mobility and access functions. The overall street design should prioritize the users (motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, e-bikers, e-scooters, and rideshare users) based on the context of the street to equitably share the limited right-of-way space. These concepts coincide with the City Climate Action Plan and Vision Zero policies.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
20 Street Typologies
The five street design typologies are described in the following section. Table 3.1 shows the average daily traffic volume thresholds for each typology. Street typology design options within the sidewalk realm (outside of the curbs) are presented in greater detail in Chapter 4. Similarly, design options within the roadway are presented in greater detail in Chapter 5, including on-street parking and bicycle facilities. Design options will largely be dependent on the available right-of-way space along each street.
Theoretically, on-street parking is generally associated with typologies with lower vehicular capacities and less so for typologies with higher vehicular capacities.
However, parking decisions must be based on local outreach to best serve the community. Each roadway typology should enable comfortable pedestrian and bicycle travel by recommending configurations categorized as “low-stress” based on Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) criteria1. Generally, low-stress bicycling environments favor the installation of bicycle facilities. However, low speed streets without a bicycle facility have fewer travel lanes and still provide a low-stress bicycling environment. Tradeoffs between on-street parking and a dedicated bicycle facility may be necessary if the curb-to-curb width is not sufficient. In these situations, primacy should be given to the bicycle facility if the street has been identified as part of the bicycle network in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan.
Table 3.1 - Street Typologies
Typology Daily Traffic Volume General Functional Classification Typology A Less than 7,500 Local Street
Typology B 7,500 to 15,000 Collector or Local Collector Typology C 15,000 to 30,000 Major Collector or Minor Arterial Typology D 20,000 to 40,000 Major Arterial or Arterial
Typology E Greater than 40,000 Prime or Parkway Arterial 1 https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
21 Typology A
Overview
Typology A is for streets that carry less than 7,500 average daily vehicle trips (ADT).
This typology is primarily for two-way streets, though it also includes possible one-way street configurations. Where the options are two-way, it approximates the two-lane local street or minor collector functional classification. Where the options are one-way, it approximates the one-lane local street functional classification. There are seven two-way design options in this typology. Option 1 is shown below. Each option features one vehicular travel lane in each direction of travel with no median separation.
As this typology is likely to be the most common in the City, roadways with this capacity requirement will be present in a variety of urban environments. Depending on the level of pedestrian activity, different sidewalk element design options should be considered (see Chapter 4). Assuming space exists, on-street parking should be provided. If the roadway is designed for a 25 mph or lower posted speed limit, then bicycle facilities are not essential to maintain a low stress bicycling environment. Traffic calming treatments may include curb extensions (‘pop outs’), chicanes, chokers, speed cushion, etc., that can be paired with this typology to encourage slower speeds in high pedestrian activity areas (consistent with Vision Zero goals).
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
22 Use
Provides access to fronting properties
Expected to have 7,500 average daily trips (ADTs) or fewer Posted speed limits should be 25 mph or lower
A minimum curb to curb width of 34’ is needed for a two-way configuration including parallel parking and a minimum curb to curb width of 24’ is needed for one-way configuration including parallel parking
Considerations
On-street parking should be included and may create opportunities for curb extensions (‘pop outs’) at intersections and other crossing locations Angled parking is suitable for streets within Downtown or a heavily commercial corridor
Bicycle facilities are optional for this typology unless noted as a bike corridor in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan or Active Transportation Plan Adjacent Land Uses
Single family residential to low to medium density multi-family residential Commercial, Industrial
School and other public buildings
Parks and open space
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
23 Typology A
Purpose
Primarily serves access functions
Emphasizes parking over bicycle facilities
when tradeoffs are required
Roadway
Characteristics Lanes
2 travel lanes for two-way
travel (1 lane in each
direction
1 travel lane for one-way
travel
Posted Speed
Limit
25 mph or lower
Daily Traffic
Volumes
< 7,500
Direction of
Travel
1-way or 2-way
Examples
Local two-way examples include:
Lemon Avenue
Dallas Street
Aztec Drive
La Mesa Boulevard (between Spring Street
and University Avenue/Memorial Drive)
Local one-way examples:
Commercial Street
Center Street
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
24 Typology B
Overview
Typology B is for streets which are designed to carry between 7,500 and 15,000 ADT or have other mitigating circumstances such as heavy commercial development. This typology is based on the two-lane collector functional classification which includes one vehicular travel lane in each direction which may or may not be separated by a two-way center left-turn lane or median with left turn pockets. Optionally, the center left-turnlane may be substituted for a raised median in locations where it is feasible to restrict left-turn access. There are seven total Typology B design options, of which Option 1 is shown below.
Roadways with these capacity requirements will be present in a variety of urban environments. Where pedestrian activity is expected to be high, sidewalk element options will enhance the walking experience. Within residential or industrial contexts, basic sidewalk element design options are adequate (see Chapter 4). Available space from curb to curb is the primary determinant of the design options possible. On-street parking and a bicycling facility should be provided, assuming space exists. A 25 or 30 mph posted speed limit is safest, although 35 mph is also acceptable. If the roadway is designed for a 30 or 35 mph posted speed limit, then bicycle facilities should be provided to maintain a low stress bicycling environment and meet CAP goals.
Consistent with Vision Zero goals, traffic calming treatments can be paired with this typology to encourage slower speeds in high pedestrian activity areas.
Use
Expected to have between 7,500 – 15,000 ADT
Posted speed limits should range between 25 mph to 35 mph (25 mph is safest)
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
25 A minimum roadway width of 54’ is needed for a configuration which includes parallel parking and bike lanes. A minimum roadway width of 44’ is needed for a configuration which includes only parallel parking. If a two-way left-turn lane is not necessary, Typology A roadway configurations can be considered which provide options that reduce the minimum roadway width by an additional 10’ On street parking
Considerations
Bicycle facilities should be included if posted speed limits are 30 mph or if the latest adopted Bicycle Master Plan or Active Transportation Plan identifies the roadway as a corridor in the planned bicycle network
If the street’s posted speed limit is 35 mph, then a protected bike lane (which provides physical separation from traffic) should be recommended to maintain a low stress bicycling environment
Adjacent Land Uses
Medium to high density multi-family residential
Commercial
Typology B
Purpose Serves a balanced mix of access and mobility
functions
Gives equal weight to the need for bicycle facilities
and parking, but emphasizes parking when
tradeoffs are required
Roadway
Characteristics Lanes
2 travel lanes with/without
center left-turn lane or
median
Posted Speed
Limit 25 to 35 mph
Daily Traffic
Volumes 7,500 to 15,000
Direction of
Travel 2-way
Examples Local examples include:
University Avenue between Spring Street &
Memorial Drive
Jackson Drive north of El Paso Street
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
26 Typology C
Overview
Typology C is for streets anticipated to carry between 15,000 and 30,000 ADT. It is based on the four-lane collector functional classification which includes two vehicular travel lanes in each direction which may or may not be separated by a two-way centerleft-turn lane or median. Optionally, the center-left-turn-lane may be substituted for a raised median in locations where it is feasible to restrict left-turn access. There are seven design options, of which Option 1 is shown below.
Roadways carrying this range of traffic volumes are present primarily in automobileoriented environments. While this type of roadway environment often has adjacent commercial land uses, pedestrian activity is typically lower. In areas where densification of land uses or retrofit into walkable environments are desired, enhanced sidewalk design options should be considered (see Chapter 4).
Assuming space exists, bicycle lanes should be provided and prioritized over on-street parking (CAP goal). Although a posted speed limit up to 40 mph is acceptable, a 30-mph posted speed limit is safer. Transit only lanes or other transit priority treatments may be considered for streets identified in the SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a part of a NextGen Rapid or local bus route alignment.
Use
Expected to have between 15,000 and 30,000 ADT
Posted speed limits should range between 30 mph and 40 mph, with slower speeds in commercial corridors or targeted densification areas A minimum roadway width of 74’ is needed for a configuration which includes parallel parking and bike lanes
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
27 A minimum roadway width of 60’ is needed for a configuration which includes bike lanes without parking lanes
Considerations
On-street parking is optional
Bicycle facilities
Transit only lanes may be considered for streets identified by SANDAG RTP as a part of a NextGen Rapid or local bus route alignment
Adjacent Land Uses
Medium to high density multi-family residential
Commercial
Institutional
Typology C
Purpose Primarily serves mobility functions, with
limited access functions
Gives equal weight to the need for bicycle
facilities and parking, but emphasizes bicycle
facilities when tradeoffs are required
Roadway
Characteristics Lanes 4 travel lanes with center leftturn lane or median Posted Speed
Limit 30 to 40 mph
Daily Traffic
Volumes 15,000 to 30,000
Direction of
Travel 2-way
Examples Local examples include:
Grossmont Center Drive
La Mesa Boulevard (north of Grossmont
Boulevard)
Murray Drive (west of Grossmont Center
Drive)
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
28 Typology D
Overview
Typology D is for streets carrying between 20,000 and 40,000 ADT. The volume thresholds of Typologies C and D partially overlap (Typology C ranges between 15,000 and 30,000 ADT), which means streets with between 20,000 and 30,000 ADT can consider design options in either typology. Typology D is based on the four-lane major arterial functional classification. This configuration includes two or more vehicular travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median. Typology D has two design options, with Option 1 shown below.
Roadways carrying this range of traffic volumes are present primarily in automobileoriented environments with adjacent commercial land uses and low pedestrian activity.
In areas where densification of land uses or retrofit into walkable environments is desirable, enhanced sidewalk design options should be considered (see Chapter 4).
Parking is generally not recommended. Available space between the curbs will be the primary determinant of the configuration options possible, as modifying the width of existing raised medians and widening roadways would in most cases be cost prohibitive. Assuming space exists, a bicycling facility with wider separation from travel lanes should be provided. While this configuration can have a posted speed limit of up to 45 mph, 30 mph posted speed limits are safer. Transit only lanes or other transit priority treatments may be considered for streets identified in the SANDAG RTP as part of a NextGen Rapid or local bus route alignment.
Use
Roadways expected to have between 20,000 and 40,000 ADT Should be designed for posted speed limits ranging between 30 mph and 45 mph, with slower speeds in commercial corridors or targeted densification zones
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
29 A minimum width of 27’ between the raised median and the curb within each direction of travel is needed for a configuration which includes buffered bike lanes
A minimum width of 29’ between the raised median and the curb within each travel way direction is needed for a configuration which includes protected bike lanes
Considerations
On-street parking is not recommended
Bicycle facilities. To maintain a low stress bicycling environment, a protected bike lane should be recommended if the street’s posted speed limit is 35 mph or greater
Transit only lanes should be considered for streets identified by SANDAG RTP as part of a NextGen Rapid or local bus route alignment Adjacent Land Uses
Commercial
Medium to high density multi-family residential
Typology D
Purpose Primarily serves mobility functions, with
minimal access functions
Intended to facilitate local and inter-city trips
Bicycle facilities emphasized
Restricts on-street parking
Roadway
Characteristics Lanes 4 travel lanes with raisedmedian
Posted Speed
Limit 35 to 45 mph
Daily Traffic
Volumes 20,000 to 40,000
Direction of
Travel 2-way
Examples Local examples include:
El Cajon Boulevard
Baltimore Drive
University Avenue west of Baltimore Drive
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
30 Typology E
Overview
Typology E is for streets, which are a part of the City’s circulation system carrying more than 40,000 ADT. It is based off the six-lane major arterial functional classification. It includes three vehicular travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median.
There are two design options, of which Option 1 is shown below.
Roadways with these types of traffic volumes are present primarily in automobileoriented environments with adjacent commercial land uses, and typically low pedestrian activity. Access to adjacent properties is typically limited with access either consolidated into fewer driveways or not permitted.
Parking is not recommended. In areas where densification of land uses or retrofit into walkable environments are desirable, enhanced sidewalk design options should be considered (see Chapter 4). Basic sidewalk design options are adequate. Available space between the curbs is the primary determinant of the configuration options possible. If space exists, a bicycling facility should be provided. Due to high vehicle speeds, a Class I Bike Path or a fully protected bike lane should be provided along these corridors. Consistent with Vision Zero, shared bike lanes should not be considered. While this configuration can have a posted speed limit of up to 45 mph, 35 mph speed limits are safer. Transit only lanes or other transit priority treatments may be considered for streets identified in the SANDAG RTP as part of a NextGen Rapid or local bus route alignment.
Use
Roadways expected to have more than 40,000 ADT
Posted speed limits range between 35 mph and 45 mph, with slower speeds in commercial corridors or targeted densification areas
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 03 CHAPTER
31 A minimum width of 40’ between the raised median and the curb within each direction of travel is needed for a configuration which includes buffered bike lanes
A minimum width of 42’ between the raised median and the curb within each travel way direction is needed for a configuration which includes protected bike lanes (bike lane is 7’ wide)
Considerations
On-street parking and shared bike facilities are not recommended Bicycle facilities. To maintain a low stress bicycling environment, a protected bike lane is recommended
Transit only lanes should be considered for streets identified by SANDAG RTP as part of a NextGen Rapid or local bus route alignment Access limited to intersecting collector streets; driveways generally prohibited
Adjacent Land Uses
Auto-oriented commercial
Medium to high density multi-family residential
Typology E
Purpose Exclusively serves mobility functions
Intended to facilitate inter-city and regional
(freeway) trips
Bicycle facilities emphasized
Restricts on-street parking
Roadway
Characteristics
Lanes
6 travel lanes with raised
median
Posted Speed
Limit
35 to 45 mph
Daily Traffic
Volumes
40,000+
Direction of
Travel
2-way
Examples Local example includes:
Fletcher Parkway
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
32 CHAPTER 4: SIDEWALK ELEMENTS AND
DESIGN OPTIONS
Overview
This chapter provides design guidance and options for implementing Sidewalk Elements. Each sidewalk configuration is a broad overview of features compatible with a given range of parameters. Within each sidewalk option there is a multitude of variations in the features that could be installed. Sidewalk configurations should be adapted to fit the given situation. Design guidelines are presented in the figures below.
Factors to be considered in sidewalk design include ROW width, adjacent land use, roadway typology, number of pedestrians, and transit connections. Sound engineering judgement must be applied when selecting sidewalk features based on these guidelines. The sidewalk design options are based on available ROW width, roadway typology (from Chapter 5), anticipated volume of pedestrian activity, and adjacent land use. For additional information see the technical references listed at the end of this chapter.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
33 Design Options
Basic and Enhanced Sidewalk
The sidewalk design options show the range of dimensions applicable to the Sidewalk Elements in a basic sidewalk that can be found throughout most of the city. The width of each area should be adjusted to accommodate the actual distance from the back of curb to the property line or building face. The enhanced sidewalk has wider frontage, walkway and parkway areas based on available ROW, land use and/or pedestrian activity.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
34 Sidewalk design guidelines are as follows:
Minimum walkway width is 5 feet but should be 6 feet wide on thoroughfares and connectors, and 6-8 feet in more walkable commercial districts All features must be ADA compliant
Walkway surface must be smooth, stable, skid resistant, with minimal gaps or rough surfaces
Sidewalk cross slope must not exceed 1:48 (2%), 1.5% is safer Hardscape features should improve water infiltration (i.e., permeable pavers, decorative concrete, etc.)
Driveways shall be the same elevation as adjacent walkway Reduce Building Frontage and/or Parkway areas to accommodate 5-foot-wide Walkway in constrained ROW
Street café seating areas require 6-foot minimum width Ribbon Sidewalk Option
The ribbon sidewalk option is applicable to single family residential areas on local streets and adjacent to higher speed, multi-lane, heavy traffic volume streets. The key difference from the basic sidewalk is that there may be no building frontage and includes planting strips on both sides of the walkway as shown below and on the next page. The ribbon sidewalk may meander if adequate right-of-way is available.
Design guidance:
Minimum 5’ non-contiguous walk and
optional 3’ + 2’ wide planting strip on
local residential sidewalks
Prototypical walkway width of 8’ with 6’
parkway buffer adjacent to Typology E
streets
Can incorporate stormwater
management BMPs in parkway area
Ribbon Sidewalk
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
35 Parkway Amenities
The placement of amenities in the parkway area is vital to a safe and accessible sidewalk. Presented below are guidelines for providing furniture, lighting, wayfinding signs, trees, transit stops, and landscaping in the parkway.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
36 Transit Stops
Transit stops may include light rail (trolley), bus stops, and other vehicle “stops” (micro-transit/shuttles, passenger drop off, car sharing, deliveries, etc.). Pedestrian safety, connectivity, and accessibility are critical. See the Bus Stop figure on the next page for transit station guidance.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
38 Street Furniture
Offset street furniture a minimum of 3 feet from the walkway to ensure ADA clear widths are maintained
Provide a minimum clear width of 2 feet from the back of curb when adjacent to parallel parking
Do not block fire hydrants, pedestrian pushbuttons, access to transit or loading zones
Offset benches or other forms of seating 3 - 4 feet from other street furnishings and 4 feet from the curb
Provide seating for a minimum of two people
Bench seat height should be at least 17 inches and no more than 19 inches above ground per ADA requirements
Provide a 30 inch by 48-inch clear space adjacent to public seating to accommodate wheelchair access
Provide separate waste receptacles for trash and recycling that are accessible for use and maintenance
Street Lighting
Locate streetlights within 18 inches of curb and staggered from street trees in a regular pattern, either mid-way between trees or at a consistent distance on either side
Where roadway and pedestrian-scale lights are on separate poles, each should be spaced in an even pattern. Adjust pattern to achieve desired lighting levels
Parkway Area Street Furniture & Trees Trash and Recycling Receptacles
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
39 Use the latest energy-efficient technology and adaptive controls for new or replacement bulbs. Reference City Street Light Standards LMSD-L-1 and LMSD-L2 for lighting fixture requirements
Wayfinding
Signs must conform with the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Signs must conform with City branded designs and design standards and meet all ADA requirements. Locate signs out of the path of travel and avoid possible obstructions.
Street Trees and Landscaping
Reference La Mesa City Landscape Standards, Tree Policy Manual, Approved Street Tree List, La Mesa Downtown Village Streetscape Improvement Project Street Tree Recommendations, and Street Tree Figure
on the next page.
Stormwater Management
Permanent stormwater best management
practices (BMPs) are required to improve
the quality of runoff before discharging to
a storm drain. Reference the City’s 2015
Updated Jurisdictional Run-off
Management Plan for guidance.
Utilities
Utilities include electric, gas, communications, fiber optic, water, and sewer facilities.
Locating utilities is a key element on planning complete streets improvements.
Street Trees in Parkway Area
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
41 Sidewalk Element Widths
A summary, based on the typologies presented in Chapter 3 showing width ranges and applicability preference for the sidewalk elements is shown in Table 4.1. Prototypical widths for these elements are shown in Table 4.2 for the roadway typologies found in Chapter 5. Actual widths will depend on available ROW.
Table 4.1 - Sidewalk Element Typology Summary
TYPOLOGY
Features Width Range A B C D E
Parkway Zone 3 6 ○ ○○●●
Walkway Clear Zone 5
i
8 ● ● ● ● ●
Building Frontage Zone variable ○ ○○○○
(units are in feet)
Notes ● Required ○ OpƟonal
i Minimum may be 3.5' where constrained, with regular passing intervals Maximum width is dependent upon ROW availability
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
42 Table 4.1 Sidewalk Elements Typology Summary
Table 4.2 - Sidewalk Elements Prototypical Widths
Typology
Sidewalk ElementsBuilding FrontageWalkway (feet)Parkway (feet) Varies 5 4
A2 Varies 6 0
A3 Varies 6 5
A4, A5, A6 Varies 8 6
A7 Varies 5 3
Varies 8 4
Varies 6 4
Varies 5 4
Varies 8 5
Varies 8 5
B2, B3 Varies 5 4
B4, B6 Varies 6 4
Varies 6 4
C2, C3 Varies 8 5
C4, C6, C7 Varies 5 0
C5 Varies 5 4
Varies 8 5
Varies 5 4
2 min. 6 4
Note: Building Frontage widths will vary depending on
available right-of-way, as can sidewalk and parkway
dimensions. Minimum Walkway width is 5 feet.
0 feet in Parkway area means Walkway extends to
curb.
Typology A - Two-Lane
Typology A - One-Lane
A1, A2, A5, A10
Typology C
Typology B
A7, A8
A1
A4, A9
B1, B5, B7
A3, A6
C1
E1, E2
Typology E
Typology D
D2
D1
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
43 Technical References and Further Guidance
This Manual is consistent with and incorporates design elements from the following national, state, and regional transportation design documents and are resources for further guidance:
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Chapter 6: Geometric Design US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection Process, February 2021
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), PEDSAFE, Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition, 2010
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Urban Street Design Guide, 2013
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, nacto.org/publication/urban-bikewaydesign-guide/ San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, MTS Designing for Transit, 2018 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Planning and Designing for Pedestrians, Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region, 2012 SANDAG, Designing for Smart Growth
State of California, California State Transportation Agency Department of Transportation, California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition, Revision 6 (March 30, 2021)
AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Roads, latest edition
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 04 CHAPTER
44 City of La Mesa, Climate Action Plan, 2018
PROWAG 2022, U.S. Access Board, Planning and Design for Alterations, PROWAAC Special Report, Chapter 5 – Model Sidewalks, http://accessboard.gov/prowag/planning-and-design-f0r-alterations/chapter5/ US Department of Justice, website http://www.ada.gov/ Americans with Disabilities Act
This manual contains the City of La Mesa’s Complete Streets guidelines.
However, the City Engineer has the authority to exercise engineering judgement to deviate from these findings due to physical or other constraints.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
45 CHAPTER 5: ROADWAY ELEMENTS AND
DESIGN OPTIONS
This chapter presents multiple design options between the roadway curbs for each of the five street typologies introduced in Chapter 3. Table 5.1 summarizes the required and optional elements of each typology. Each typology’s base configuration is comprised of the number of travel lanes and presence and type of median separation.
Configuration options within each typology are primarily differentiated by the presence, type, or absence of on-street parking and bicycle facility elements.
The design options specify the width range needed to accommodate each feature based on the minimum and maximum widths and include the dimension of their prototypical cross-section widths. The accompanying exhibits in this chapter show prototypical cross-sections for the several likeliest design options in each typology.
How to Address Design Options
The options available for each street typology are based on two main variables: the anticipated vehicular traffic volume the street is expected to carry and the street’s curb-to-curb width. The projected traffic volume will dictate which typology to reference. For La Mesa, which is almost entirely built-out, existing traffic volumes can typically be used to determine street typologies. Aided by considerations which include surrounding land use context and roadway design speed, the street’s curb to curb width will then dictate which options are feasible within that typology.
Traffic volumes should be obtained by conducting ground traffic counts in the proposed project area. The next best source for this data would be from an update to the regional model forecast conducted in conjunction with an update to the General Plan or from a major nearby planning project.
To use this manual, these pieces of information are necessary to assess which design options are valid for the street in question. The options within each typology provide a range of curb-to-curb widths where design options are feasible based on the street element minimum and maximum recommended dimensions shown in Table 5.1. As street designs may sometimes necessitate hybrid or asymmetrical design options (for example, it may not be feasible to fit on-street parking in both travel directions),
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
46 centerline to curb widths are also shown. Where asymmetrical design options are being considered, the curb-to-curb width should equal the centerline to curb widths of the two design options being combined.
For each street typology, Complete Streets principles are one of the highest priorities where applicable as these support CAP and Vision Zero goals. The designer should review Chapter 2 for information on the elements that comprise the public right-of-way and Chapter 4 for Pedestrian Elements and Design Options.
Table 5.1 - Summary of Roadway Typology Possible Features and Width Ranges Less than 7,500 7,500 to 15,000 15,000 to 30,000 20,000 to 40,000 Greater than 40,000
Width Range A
BCDE
Possible Features Min. Max. # # # # #
Through Lanes per Direction 10b 12a 1 1 2 2 3
Raised Median 14ci ○ ○ ● ●
Center Left-Turn Lane 10 12 ● ●
Parking see options below ○ ○ ○
Bike Facility see options below ○ ○ ○ ● ●
Bus Only Lane 11 14 ○ ○ ○
Options
Parallel Parking 7 9
de ○ ○ ○
Angled Parking 16f 19g ○ ○ ○
Bike Lane 5 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Buffer (Bike Lane) 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Protected Bike Lane 6 8
h ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Buffer (Protected Bike Lane) 3 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Notes
a 14' outside lane if adjacent to curb
b 11' minimum for roadways with 40 mph or greater posted speed c 20' minimum on roadways designed for more than 40,000 d 8' parking minimum on roadways designed for more than 30,000 e 9' parking allowed in industrial areas
f 30-degree angled parking (w/3' buffer), adjacent travel lane should be 11' minimum g 60-degree angled parking, adjacent travel lane should be 11' minimum h Two-way protected bike lane configured on one-way street may be 10' i Raised median and center left-turn lane may have equal width in locations with no left-turn pocket
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
47 Typical Street Typology Section
The design guidance for each street typology is presented in a two-page design profile.
An example is shown below, followed by the descriptions of each typology. 1 2
3 Each typology includes a brief description of key characteristics of the street. Cross-sections are shown of the several likeliest design options of each typology with the prototypical curb-to-curb widths for each element illustrated. The dimension range where the option is feasible, based on each element’s minimum and maximum widths, is also labeled above the cross-section.
The design options within each typology provide a range of curb-to-curb widths where the design option is feasible based on the street elements. As street designs may sometimes necessitate hybrid or asymmetrical design options, centerline to curb widths are also shown. Where asymmetrical design options are being considered, the curb-to-curb width should equal the centerline to curb widths of the two design options being combined.
The table includes minimum, and maximum dimensions for each design element in the roadway. Designers should use prototypical widths as a default and whenever possible. 2 1
3
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
48 Typology A – Less than 7,500 ADT
Two-Way
This typology includes two-way design options (one travel lane per direction with no median separation) and one-way (one travel lane) design options. There are seven two-way design options available that consist of variations with on-street parking and bicycle facilities. A low stress bicycling environment can be maintained without the need for bicycle facilities provided the street is designed for 25 mph or lower. Low traffic volume streets should prioritize on-street parking over dedicated bicycle lanes barring any special considerations such as having been identified as an alignment in the City’s bicycle network. The three main design options for Typology A (Two-Way) are shown with their prototypical width dimensions in the cross-sections below, along with a protected bike lane configuration.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
49 There are seven design options for Typology A shown in Table 5-2. Five of the seven options reflect two-way streets that include on-street parking. Where asymmetrical or hybrid design options are under consideration, the curb-to-curb width can be determined by adding the centerline-to-curb widths of the two design options being combined.
Table 5.2 - Typology A – Two-Way Design Options
Option Type A Two-Way - Less than 7,500Min Max Min Max
A1 Parallel Parking 34' 42' 7' 11' 11' 7' 17' 21'
A2 Parallel Parking & Bike Lane 44' 62' 8' 5' 11' 11' 5' 8' 22' 31' A3 Bike Lane 30' 44' 5' 11' 11' 5' 15' 22'
A4 Angled Parking 54' 62' 16 11' 11' 16 27' 31'
A5 Angled Parking & Bike Lane 62' 82' 16' 5' 11' 11' 5' 16' 31' 41' A6 Parallel Parking & Protected Bike Lane52' 66' 7' 4' 8' 11' 11' 8' 4' 7' 26' 33' A7 Protected Bike Lane 38' 48' 7' 4' 11' 11' 4' 7' 19' 24' Travel Lane Only 14' 14' 14'
= Bike/Buffer Lane = Parking Lane
Prototypical Alignment
Curb to Curb Width Centerline to Curb Width
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
50 Design options that include angled parking (options A4 through A6) are the most space intensive, making them logical candidates for an asymmetrical design option (e.g., angled parking on one side, parallel parking on the opposite side). Angled parking should be considered in commercial and other high parking demand areas. Angled parking conversion can help offset parking loss since it allows for more vehicles to be parked than parallel parking if close to streets where parking removal is necessary to provide space for other forms of mobility. Possible features applicable to Typology A with minimum and maximum widths are shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 - Typology A Possible Features and Width Range Width Range
Possible Features Min. Max. #
Through Lanes per Direction 10 12a 1
Parking see options below ○
Bike Facility see options below ○
Options
Parallel Parking 7 9
d ○
Angled Parking 16f 19g ○
Bike Lane 5 ○
Buffer (Bike Lane) 2 ○
Protected Bike Lane 6 8
h ○
Buffer (Protected Bike Lane) 3 ○
Notes
a 14” outside lane if adjacent to curb
d 9' parking allowed in industrial areas
f
30-degree angled parking (with 3' buffer), adjacent travel lane should be 11' minimum
g 60-degree angled parking, adjacent travel lane should be 11' minimum
h Two-way protected bike lane configured on one-way street may be 10'
A design option consisting only of travel lanes with no shoulder or parking is not recommended. The travel lanes are listed within the table to assist with determining the curb space required for potential asymmetrical or hybrid design options, which is a possibility where space is severely constrained.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
51 One-Way Streets
One-way design options are a sub-category within Typology A. New one-way streets are included in this manual because there are existing one-way streets in the city and the possibility exists that these may be subject to modification in the future. There are 10 one-way design options available that consist of variations with on-street parking and bicycle facilities are shown in Table 5.4 below, with possible features dimensions listed in Table 5.3. It should be noted that within La Mesa one-way streets occur mainly in the industrial area north of Interstate 8. Much like the two-way Typology A design options, the one-way design options should also prioritize on-street parking over bicycle facilities. As they are one direction only, there are no hybrid design options. Two design options, A9 and A10, allow for bicycling in both directions (providing space for bicycling in the counterflow direction). Seven of the ten design options include on-street parking.
The two main design options for Typology A (One-Way) are shown with their prototypical width dimensions in the cross-sections below, along with a protected bike lane with parallel parking option.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
52 Table 5.4 - Typology A – One Way – Design Options
Option Type A One-Way - Less than 7,500 Min Max
A1 Parallel Parking 24' 30' 8' 11' 8'
A2 Parallel Parking & Bike Lane 29' 40' 8' 11' 5 8'
A3 Parallel Parking & Protected Bike Lane 33' 42' 8' 11' 8' 4' 7' A4 Angled Parking 43' 50' 16' 11' 16'
A5 Angled Parking & Bike Lane 32' 41' 5' 11' 16'
A6 Angled Parking & Protected Bike Lane 36' 43' 7' 4' 11' 16' A7 Bike Lane 20' 24' 14' 6'
A8 Protected Bike Lane 23' 26' 14' 4' 7'
A9 Parallel Parking & Two-Way Protected Bike Lane 37' 48' 10' 4' 8' 11' 8' A10 Two-Way Protected Bike Lane 27' 32' 10' 4' 14'
= Bike/Buffer Lane = Parking Lane
Curb to Curb Width
Prototypical Alignment
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
53 Typology B – Between 7,500 and 15,000 ADT
The foundation of this typology is based on the two-lane roadway with center-left-turnlane. Where there are opportunities to restrict left-turn access, the center-left-turn lane may be optionally substituted for a raised median. This typology includes seven design options that consist of variations in on-street parking and bicycle facilities. Roadways within the traffic thresholds of this typology will need to strike a balance between addressing the needs of multimodal mobility and property access. As such, the prototypical design option (B1) includes both parking and bike lanes.
If bike lanes are not feasible due to limited roadway space and/or sacrificing parking is not viable, then the street should be designed for a 25 mph posted speed limit to allow a low stress cycling environment. If the street is designed for posted traffic speeds 35 mph or greater, a protected bike lane should be provided or considered to maintain a low stress bicycling environment (CAP and Vision Zero goals). The three main design options for Typology B are shown with width dimensions in the cross sections below, along with a protected bike lane option.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
54 All seven Typology B design options are shown in Table 5.5, with dimensions of possible features listed in Table 5.6. Five of the seven Typology B design options include on-street parking, including the two main design options B1 and B2.
Where asymmetrical or hybrid design options are under consideration, the curb-to-curb width can be determined by adding the centerline to curb widths of the two options being combined. Design options including angled parking (options B4 through B5) are the most space intensive, making them candidates for an asymmetrical design option (e.g., angled parking on one side, parallel parking on the opposite side). Angled parking should be considered in commercial and other high parking demand areas. Converting to angled parking may help offset parking loss if near streets where parking removal is necessary to improve conditions for other forms of mobility. Reverse angled parking is recommended on streets with bike lanes.
A design option consisting only of travel lanes is not recommended. The travel lanes are listed within the table to assist with determining the curb space required for potential asymmetrical or hybrid design options, which is a possibility where space is severely constrained
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
55 Table 5.5 - Typology B Design Options
.
Table 5.6 - Typology B Possible Features and Width Ranges Width Range
Possible Features Min. Max. #
Through Lanes per Direction 10 12a 1
Raised Median 14i ●
Center Left-Turn Lane 10 12 ○
Parking see options below ○
Bike Facility see options below ○
Options
Parallel Parking 7 9
d ○
Angled Parking 16f 19g ○
Bike Lane 5 7 ○
Buffer (Bike Lane) 2 3 ○
Protected Bike Lane 6 8 ○
Buffer (Protected Bike Lane) 3 4 ○
Notes
a
14' outside lane if adjacent to curb
d
9' parking allowed in industrial areas
f 30-degree angled parking (with 3' buffer), adjacent travel lane should be 11' min.
g 60-degree angled parking, adjacent travel lane should be 11' minimum i Raised median and center left-turn lane may have equivalent width in locations with no left-turn pockets
Option Type B - 7,500 to 15,000 Min Max Min Max
B1 Parallel Parking & Bike Lane 54' 74' 8' 5' 11' 10' 11' 5' 8' 27' 37' B2 Parallel Parking 44' 54' 8' 11' 10' 11' 8' 22' 27'
B3 Bike Lane 40' 56' 5' 11' 10' 11' 5' 20' 28'
B4 Angled Parking & Bike Lane 72' 94' 16' 5' 11' 10' 11' 5' 16' 36' 47' B5 Angled Parking 64' 74' 16' 11' 10' 11' 16' 32' 37
B6 Parallel Parking & Protected Bike Lane 62' 76' 7' 4' 8' 11' 10' 11' 8' 4' 7' 31' 38' B7 Protected Bike Lane 48' 60' 7' 4' 11' 10' 11' 4' 7' 24' 30' Travel Lane Only 14' 10' 14' 19' 20'
Max. width includes Bike Lane Buffer = Bike/Buffer Lane = Parking = Median/Two-Way Left Turn Lane
Prototypical Alignment
Curb to Curb
Width
Centerline
to Curb Width
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
56 Typology C – Between 15,000 and 30,000 ADT
The foundation of this typology is based on the four-lane roadway with center left-turn lane. Where there are opportunities to restrict left-turn access or install left-turn pockets, the center left-turn lane may be optionally substituted for a raised landscaped median. Raised medians are aesthetically pleasing and can be used to better control access and restrict undesired turning movements which may improve traffic safety.
However, their effect may also lower perceived traffic friction which can in some cases increase vehicular traffic speeds. Raised medians, where left-turn pockets are needed also require more space.
Seven available design options consisting of variations with on-street parking and bicycle facilities are included. Roadways within these traffic thresholds are higher volume and the safety and comfort of multimodal mobility should be prioritized. As such, design options C1 and C2 include bicycle facilities. If the street is designed for posted traffic speeds 35 mph or greater, a protected bike lane should be provided or considered to maintain a low stress bicycling environment. For streets identified in the SANDAG RTP as part of a NextGen Rapid bus route alignment, transit only lanes may be considered as a substitute for the outside travel lanes. The three main design options with their prototypical width dimensions are shown in the cross-sections below along with a protected bike lane option.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
57 All seven Typology C design options are shown in Table 5.7, with potential feature dimensions listed in Table 5.8. While options incorporating bicycle facilities may be prioritized, five of the seven Typology C design options include on-street parking, including main design options C1 and C3. Where asymmetrical or hybrid design options are under consideration, the curb-to-curb width can be determined by adding the centerline to curb widths of the two design options being combined.
Design options including angled parking (options C6 and C7) are the most space intensive, making them logical candidates for an asymmetrical design option (e.g., angled parking on one side, parallel parking on the opposite side). Angled parking is not typically associated with this typology due to the space requirements needed and the traffic friction of angled parking may conflict with this typology’s primary function, which is to move traffic. Nevertheless, angled parking could be an option in commercial or other high parking demand areas.
A design option consisting of only travel lanes is not recommended. The travel lanes are listed within the table to assist with determining the curb space required for potential asymmetrical or hybrid design options, which is a possibility where space is severely constrained.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
58 Table 5.7 - Typology C Design Options
Table 5.8 - Typology C Possible Features and Width Ranges Width Range
Possible Features Min. Max. #
Through Lanes per Direction 10b 12a 2
Raised Median 14i ●
Center Left-Turn Lane 10 12 ○
Parking see options below ○
Bike Facility see options below ○
Bus Only Lane 11 14 ○
Options
Parallel Parking 7 9
e ○
Angled Parking 16f 19g ○
Bike Lane 5 7 ○
Buffer (Bike Lane) 2 3 ○
Protected Bike Lane 6 8 ○
Buffer (Protected Bike Lane) 3 4 ○
Notes
a 14' outside lane if adjacent to curb
b 11’ minimum for roadways with 40 mph or greater posted speed e 9’ parking allowed in industrial areas
f 30-degree angled parking (w/3' buffer), adjacent travel lane should be 11' min.
g 60-degree angled parking, adjacent travel lane should be 11' minimum
i Raised median and center left-turn lane may have equal width in locations with no left-turn pocket
Option Type C - 15,000 to 30,000 Min Max Min Max
C1 Parallel Parking & Bike Lanea74' 100' 8' 5' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 5' 8' 37' 50' C2 Bike Lanea
60' 84' 5' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 5' 30' 42'
C3 Parallel Parkinga
64' 80' 8' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 8' 32' 40'
C4 Parallel Parking & Protected Bike Lane 82' 104' 7' 4' 8' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 8' 4' 7' 41' 52' C5 Protected Bike Lanea68' 88' 7' 4' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 4' 7' 34' 44' C6 Angled Parking & Bike Lane 92' 118' 16' 5' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 5' 16' 46' 59' C7 Angled Parking 84' 98' 16' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 16' 42' 49' Travel Lane Onlya
14' 11' 10' 11' 14' 29' 32'
a
Outside travel lane may be substituted for Bus Only Lane = Bike/Buffer Lane = Parking
= Median/Two-Way Left Turn Lane
Curb to Curb
Width
Centerline to
Curb Width
Prototypical Alignment
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
59 Typology D – Between 20,000 and 40,000 ADT
The foundation of this typology is based on the four-lane roadway with raised median.
Given the heavy traffic volumes that this typology needs to facilitate, it excludes onstreet parking. All design options in this typology include bicycle facilities. Streets are designed for faster traffic speeds (posted speed limits in upwards of 35 mph), making it a crucial consideration that bicycle facilities along these streets have enhanced separation from traffic. Within this typology, bike lanes must be 6-feet or wider and include an adjacent 2- to 3-foot buffer between the bike lane and adjacent travel lane.
If the street is designed for posted traffic speeds of 35 mph or greater, a protected or buffered bike lane should be provided. A buffer is required above 40 mph. For streets identified in the SANDAG RTP as part of a NextGen Rapid bus route alignment, transit only lanes should be considered as a substitute for outside travel lanes.
Roadways with raised medians have two travel ways2, one per travel direction. The two design options for Typology D are shown with their prototypical width dimensions by travel way in the cross-sections below.
Both Typology D design options are shown in Table 5.9, with possible feature dimensions listed in Table 5.10. It is a common occurrence that a street’s respective 2 The space between the edge of raised median and edge of curb.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
60 travel ways may be different widths from each other. As such, the width dimensions listed to determine the feasibility of these design options are listed from raised median to curb. Raised median to curb width also makes it easier to determine the feasibility of potential asymmetrical or hybrid design options.
Table 5.9 - Typology D Design Options
Table 5.9 Typology D Design Options
Table 5.10 Typology D Possible Features and Preferred Widths Table 5.10 - Typology D Possible Features and Width Ranges Width Range
Possible Features Min. Max. #
Through Lanes per Direction 10b 12a 2
Raised Median 14c ●
Bike Facility see options below ●
Bus Only Lane 11 14 ○
Options
Bike Lane 5 7 ○
Buffer (Bike Lane) 2 3 ○
Protected Bike Lane 6 8 ○
Buffer (Protected Bike Lane) 3 ○
Notes
a 14' outside lane if adjacent to curb
b 11' minimum for roadways with 40 mph or greater posted speed c 20' minimum on roadways designed for more than 40,000 Option Type D - 20,000 to 40,000 Min Max Min Max
D1 Buffered Bike Lanea27' 36' 6' 3' 11' 11' 14' 11' 11' 3' 6' 68' 92' D2 Protected Bike Lanea31' 38' 7' 4' 11' 11' 14' 11' 11' 4' 7' 76' 96' Travel Lane Onlya
24' 26' 14' 11' 14' 11' 14' 62' 72'
a Outside travel lane may be
substituted for Bus Only Lane
= Bike/Buffer Lane
= Median/Two-Way Left Turn Lane
Prototypical Alignment
Raised Median
to Curb Width
Curb to Curb
Width
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
61 Typology E – Greater than 40,000 ADT
Future streets of this typology design are not anticipated within La Mesa. They are represented in this Manual because there are existing streets of this character in the city, and it is possible that they may be subject to modification in the future.
Typology E is applicable to streets carrying greater than 40,000 daily vehicle trips. The foundation of this typology is based on the six-lane roadway with raised median. Due to extremely high traffic volume conditions, this typology specifies a 20-foot minimum raised median width, which is wider than typical raised medians. This typology excludes on-street parking, and all design options include bicycle facilities. Streets within this typology are designed for faster traffic speeds (posted speed limits upwards of 35 to 45 mph), making it a crucial consideration for any bicycle facilities to have more enhanced traffic separation. Bike lanes must be 6-feet or wider and include an adjacent buffer or vertical protection from vehicular traffic. If the street is designed for posted traffic speeds 45 mph or greater, a parallel Class I bike path should be provided to maintain a low stress bicycling environment. If infeasible, a protected bike lane should be provided. For streets identified in the SANDAG RTP as part of a NextGen Rapid bus route alignment, transit only lanes should be considered as a substitute for the outside travel lanes.
Roadways with raised medians have two travel ways, one per travel direction. The two design options for Typology E are shown with their prototypical width dimensions by travel way in the cross-sections below.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 05 CHAPTER
62 Both Typology E design options are shown in Table 5.11, with possible feature dimensions listed in Table 5.12. It is a common occurrence that a street’s respective travel ways may be different widths from each other or may vary due to turning lane requirements. As such, the width dimensions listed to determine the feasibility of these design options are shown from raised median to curb. Raised median to curb width also makes it easier to determine hybrid options.
Table 5.11 - Typology E Design Options
Table 5.12 - Typology E Possible Features and Width Ranges Width Range
Possible Features Min. Max. #
Through Lanes per Direction 11b 12a 3
Raised Median 20c ●
Bike Facility see options below ●
Bus Only Lane 11 14 ○
Options
Bike Lane 6 ○
Buffer (Bike Lane) 2 ○
Protected Bike Lane 6 8 ○
Buffer (Protected Bike Lane) 3 ○
Notes
a 14' outside lane if adjacent to curb
b 11' minimum for roadways with 40 mph or greater posted speed c 20' minimum on roadways designed for more than 40,000 Option Type E - Greater than 40,000 Min Max Min Max
E1 Buffered Bike Lanea
40' 48' 6' 3' 11' 11' 11' 20' 11' 11' 11' 3' 6' 100' 116' E2 Protected Bike Lanea
42' 50' 7' 4' 11' 11' 11' 20' 11' 11' 11' 4' 7' 104' 120' Travel Lane Onlya
36' 38' 14' 11' 11' 20' 11' 11' 14' 92' 96'
a Outside travel lane may be
substituted for Bus Only Lane
= Bike/Buffer Lane = Median/Two-Way Left Turn Lane
Raised Median
to Curb Width
Curb to Curb
Width
Prototypical Alignment
This manual contains the City of La Mesa’s Complete Streets guidelines.
However, the City Engineer has the authority to exercise engineering judgement to deviate from these findings due to physical or other constraints.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
63 CHAPTER 6: INTERSECTION ELEMENTS
AND DESIGN OPTIONS
This chapter includes design guidance for implementation of the Intersection elements presented in Chapter 2.
Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersections are designed to regulate the flow of traffic. Factors such as exclusive phasing for left-turn arrows, pedestrian crossing times, and clearance intervals generally increase cycle lengths and add to overall delay in assigning green time for vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle movements.
Intersections should be signalized where two or more different road classifications (high speed, high volume to medium or low speed/low volume) cross. Traffic signals are preferred where there are high demand and high-speed crossings or where special controls are needed for emergency or other health and safety needs (Vision Zero).
Signalized intersections should:
Provide signal progression at speeds that support the roadway target speed Provide short signal cycle lengths to allow frequent opportunities to cross major roadways and reduce non-compliance
Signals should detect bicycles
through video detection zones
for video monitoring or loop
detectors in pavement.
Pedestrian signal heads should
be visible to all users
Protected Intersection
Protected intersections are enhanced
signalized intersections that include
safety features for pedestrians and
bicyclists. The bike lane is set back from parallel motor vehicle traffic and Signalized Intersection
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
64 provided with a dedicated path through the intersection, having right of way overturning motor vehicles. Special waiting zones, intersection crossing features include corner islands, motorist markings, phased signalization, pedestrian islands, and bike boxes.
Bike Box
This is a designated bicycle queuing space located between the crosswalk and vehicle limit line. It provides a safe and visible way for bicyclists to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Use where high volumes of bicycles and/or motor vehicles are present particularly with frequent cyclist left-turns and/or motorist right-turns to avoid conflicts. Transverse pavement markings are used to designate the bike box. Stop lines are used to indicate the point that motorists must stop behind. Use CA MUTCD markings. Include “No Turn on Red” overhead signage to prevent vehicles entering the bike box.
Corner Island
Corner islands separate bikes from motor vehicles, creating a protected queuing area for cyclists waiting to turn. They should have a small enough radius to discourage passenger cars from turning faster than 10 mph. This can be accomplished by a 10’ to 15’ curb radius resulting in an effective turn radius of less than 18’.
Pedestrian Island
Pedestrian islands effectively reduce crossing distances, improve visibility, and can reduce signal time needed for pedestrians to cross. The minimum width for an Bike Box Protected Intersection Corner Island
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
65 accessible waiting area is 6’-1/8” with an 8’ prototypical width. To distinguish the bikeway from the sidewalk and the island from the bikeway when 6’ or wider, detectable warning surfaces must be placed at both sides of the island.
Accessible Signals
MUTCD Chapter 4E, PROWAG, and other national and local standards should be referenced for signal timing and location guidance.
Curb Return Radius
Curb return radius should be 25’ maximum and 15’ minimum unless approved by the City Engineer.
Roundabout
The features of a roundabout and design guidance are shown in the figure on the next page. Movement through a roundabout is counterclockwise. Elements that must be considered when determining the layout of a roundabout are the size of the design vehicle and traffic volumes.
Roundabout
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
67 Table 6.1 - Roundabout Advantages and Disadvantages Summary
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Non-Motorized Users
- Pedestrians must only consider crossing one
direction of traffic at any time.
- Bicyclists have options for negotiating
roundabouts, depending on their skill and comfort
level.
- Vision impaired pedestrians may have difficulty
finding crosswalks and determining if safe to
cross.
- Bicycle ramps can potentially be confused with
pedestrian ramps.
Safety
- Lower vehicle speeds reduce crash severity for
all users, allows safer merging into circulating
traffic, and provides more time to correct any user
error(s).
- Fewer overall conflict points and no left-turn
conflicts.
- No driver rush to beat a changing traffic signal.
- Increase in single vehicle and fixed object
crashes compared to other intersection
treatments.
- Multilane roundabouts are more difficult for vision
impaired individuals due to challenges in
detecting gaps and determining if vehicles have
yielded at crosswalk.
Traffic Calming
- Vehicular speeds reduced. - More expensive to construct than other traffic calming treatments.
Environment
- May reduce noise, air quality impacts, and fuel
consumption.
- Additional space requirements could impact
cultural or other natural resources.
Operations
- May have reduced delays and queues than other
intersection control.
- Can reduce lane requirements between
intersections.
- Equal priority from all approaches can reduce the
progression for high volume approaches.
- Explicit priority to specific users cannot be
provided (e.g., trains, emergency vehicles, transit,
pedestrians) unless supplemental traffic control
devices are provided.
Access Management
- Eliminates need for U-turns and more difficult
midblock left turns.
- May reduce the number of available gaps for
midblock unsignalized intersections and
driveways.
Operation & Maintenance
- No signal hardware or equipment maintenance. - May require landscape maintenance.
Space
- Often requires less queue storage space on
intersection approaches.
- Often requires more space at the intersection
itself than other intersection treatments.
Aesthetics
- Increased opportunities for landscaping and other
gateway or attractive entries to communities.
- May create a safety hazard if hard objects are
placed in the central island directly facing the
entries.
Reference: National Cooperative Highway Research Program in Cooperation with FHWA, NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: and Informational Guide, Second Edition, 2010.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
68 Mid-block Crossings
Mid-block crossings may be considered when there is pedestrian or cyclist demand to cross the street at a specific location that is not a public street intersection (see figure on next page). Factors to consider include stopping sight distance, vehicle speed, traffic volume, accident records, lighting, etc. Consider when block lengths between intersections are greater than 450 to 500 feet and the distance to an adjacent marked crossing is more than 250 feet. Locations should be carefully considered before installation, as mid-block crossings can introduce an element of surprise for the motorist.
Guidance for Mid-block Crossings:
Design guidelines for Enhanced Crosswalks apply to Mid-block Crossings Provide an ADA-compliant curb ramp or flush access at each end of the crossing
Striping per CA MUTCD
Should be highly visible to motorists through striping, signage, or other means
When using textured pavements to denote mid-block crossing, provide additional signage and advance notification of upcoming crossing
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
69 For single lane approaches, place yield lines or “shark’s teeth” 4 feet in advance of crossing
Consider curb extensions to enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and reduce crossing distance.
Streets with medians should have a refuge area, “Z” configuration preferred.
Two-Stage Mid-Block Crossing
Pass-through in median refuge island to allow crosswalk to stay at grade or ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps must be provided. Use a “Z” configuration for the pass-through
Minimum size 4 feet wide by 8 feet long and should be well lit Include vertical element (trees, bollards, landscape features, or sign posts) Two-stage crossings may have two sets of crossing activation buttons Bulb Out
Bulb outs can be installed at
intersections or mid-block crossings to
extend the sidewalk into the street by
7-8 feet (width of a parking space) or
can be much wider (16-20 feet) if
constructed off of an angled parking
space. These treatments can be used
to enhance pedestrian crossing
visibility and reduce crossing distance.
Speed limit should be less than 40 mph
Must be ADA compliant
Not suitable in locations where a travel lane or bicycle lane is adjacent to the curb
Standard Crosswalk
Minimum 10 feet wide and wider where warranted
ADA compliant with adjacent curb ramps fitted with detectable warning tiles (tactile warning strips)
Curb Bulb Out
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
70 Two-directional ramps at each curb return may be required Warning signs and
supplementary markings per
CA MUTCD
High Visibility Crosswalk
A continental pattern, series of 2-foot
wide white retro-reflective thermoplastic
stripes placed 2 feet apart and aligned
parallel to the direction of vehicular
travel, are high visibility markings used
to clearly denote the limits of the
crossing zone.
Enhanced Crosswalk
Use in high volume pedestrian commercial areas with 0.5 miles or more between signalized intersections. Enhanced crosswalks can include advanced yield markings, increased signage or pedestrian activated traffic controls.
Pedestrian Activated Traffic Controls
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Serves as a warning only to motorists
Use on mid-block crossings or at intersections not controlled by stop signs, traffic signals or HAWKs, except for crosswalks to or from egress to a roundabout
Install on both sides of the street
Use to supplement post-mounted W11-2 (Pedestrian), S1-1 (School), or W11- 15 (Trail) crossing warning sign with a diagonal downward arrow (W16-7P) plaque, or an overhead mounted W11-2, S1-1, or W11-15 crossing warning sign located at or immediately adjacent to an uncontrolled crosswalk Pairs of flashing beacons may alternately be mounted in W11-2 signs High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)
Serves as a stop signal for motorists
High-Visibility and Standard Crosswalk
C
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
71 Design in accordance with CA MUTCD
Serves as a stop signal for motorists
Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) indication over each active through lane
Refer to CA MUTCD Chapter 4F for pedestrian and vehicular volume thresholds that warrant installation of HAWK systems
Locate pushbuttons in accordance with CA MUTCD
A pedestrian refuge area should be installed between opposing travel lanes if a HAWK is installed on two-way streets with a median and more than one lane in each direction
Speed limit must be less than 45 mph
May be installed on two-way streets with up to four lanes in each direction and one-way streets with up to four lanes of travel
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon or HAWK
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon & Sample Design
HAWK Signal
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 06 CHAPTER
72 Table 6.2 - Intersection Elements Toolbox
Intersection Elements
Typology ATypology BTypology CTypology DTypology E
Signalized Intersection
Roundabout o o -
Mid-Block Crossings o o -
2-Stage Crossing o -
Curb Extension Bulb-outs o -
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Enhanced Crosswalk o o
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon o -
High Intensity Activated Crosswalk o -
Acceptable o Optional (depends on conditions) - Not Suitable This manual contains the City of La Mesa’s Complete Streets guidelines.
However, the City Engineer has the authority to exercise engineering judgement to deviate from these findings due to physical or other constraints.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
73 CHAPTER 7: MICROMOBILITY
Micromobility
Micromobility refers to a means of movement utilizing forms of transportation that are smaller, lighter, and slower than conventional motor vehicles. The Federal Highway Administration defines micromobility as any small, low-speed human-or electricpowered transportation device, including bicycles, scooters, skateboards, electric-assist bicycles (e-bikes), e-scooters, and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances3. What follows are descriptions of micromobility parking which can occupy space within the right-of-way: bike racks, dockless micromobility parking/staging areas, and bike share docks and protected bike lanes that exclusively serve micromobility users.
Bike Racks (Short Term Bicycle Parking)
Bike racks are intended to provide convenient bicycle parking for short-term periods.
They should be close to the destination they are serving, ideally visible from spaces within the destination to provide natural surveillance. Bike racks such as the Inverted U and the Post and Ring are the most functional styles. When spaced a minimum of three feet apart, these rack types can secure a bicycle on
each side. The figure at right is a graphic
representation of bicycle rack styles as presented
in the 2015 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals (APBP) “Essentials of Bicycle
Parking.”
The footprint of a typical bicycle is about 6 feet by
2 feet, and those dimensions guide the
recommended clearances used in most bicycle
parking standards to maintain accessibility
between bike racks, adjacent surrounding objects,
and the sidewalk. Recommended bike rack spacing
and clearances by APBP are shown in various
possible configurations in the figure below.
3 https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/spring-2021-02
Preferred Bike Rack Styles
Source: APBP Essentials of
Bike Parking (2015)
Bike Rack Styles
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
74 Dockless Micromobility Parking/Staging Areas
Dockless micromobility parking areas are designated locations for parking and staging of free-floating shared micromobility devices, including scooters and bicycles. These parking areas do not use docking equipment, instead the vehicles are locked in place and parked upright in highly trafficked and accessible areas within the right of way.
A painted area is often used to
encourage an orderly
presentation of the parked
vehicles and helps reduce
obstructions in the sidewalk.
While micromobility devices can
also be parked at bike racks,
striped dockless micromobility
parking areas are a lower cost
strategy that is easier to provide
and frees up bike rack capacity
for its main intended use.
APBP-Recommended Bike Rack Spacing and
Clearances
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
75 Guidance on the dimensions that should be used for striping areas for dockless micromobility parking is shown in Table 7.1. A width of 6-feet can fit the dimensions of both a typical bicycle and scooter in an organized row configuration. A width beyond 7 feet should be discouraged to ensure the space is conducive to staging vehicles in an orderly row.
Table 7.1 - Micromobility Parking Area Recommendations
Dimension Guidance
Width 5’ minimum, 7’ maximum
Length 10’ minimum recommended
Walkway Delineation 4’ delineation subtracted from available length when length side is not adjacent to a walkway
Bike Share Docks
Bike shares are short-term bicycle rental systems which use a large fleet of bicycles (electric-assist or conventional) commonly distributed at multiple stations or staging areas organized within an urban service area. Typically, the bike share is operated by a private entity granted a franchise by the city. Users of the bike share can either pay to rent bicycles per individual trip or with a membership fee for unlimited trips. Individual trips are typically priced per time interval, while member users are granted unlimited trips within a specified short-term time period. Bicycles remain locked in place until the user activates them. Payment per trip is made possible at station kiosks or through smart phone applications.
There are three common types of bike share systems: docked systems, dockless systems, and hybrid systems. In a docked bike share system, bicycles are parked and rented at stations and can be returned to any station in the system. Docked systems have high infrastructure costs and require a lot of space to be sited.
A 15-dock bike share station using a standard row configuration and accounting for a kiosk is about 6-feet wide and can be as long as 40 feet4. The figure below shows dimensions and recommended clearances of typical bike share stations located on-street and in sidewalk locations.
4 NACTO Bike Share Station Siting Guide (2016) p.13
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
76 When stations are adjacent to a walkway, NACTO recommends a minimum of 6-feet of clearance space behind the bike share station for users to maintain sidewalk accessibility and to allow space users to park and remove the bicycles. Clearance behind the bike share station, if parked on street, should not exceed the width of the parking lane.
If positioned in the landscape zone of the sidewalk, there should be 1.5 feet of clearance from the front of the dock and the street curb to not obstruct parked car doors from opening. In configurations where the station is against the curb (as shown in the on-street diagram) or another vertical element, the front of the dock clearance should be a minimum of 6-inches to allow for drainage.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
77 Protected Bike Lanes
Protected Bike Lanes exclusively serve micromobility users and separate them from moving motor vehicle traffic (as well as pedestrian traffic). These facilities combine the features of bicycle paths with conventional Class II on-street bicycle lanes. Protected Bike Lanes supply a higher level of security and reduce stress for micromobility riders (relative to micromobility users who must navigate space also occupied by motor vehicles). Protected Bike Lanes are more likely to encourage new micromobility users and other vulnerable users such as children and families.
Protected Bike Lanes may be positioned at sidewalk level, street level, or an intermediate level. The minimum width to achieve separation between motor vehicle travel lanes (or parking) and the bicycle facility is three (3) feet. What follows are descriptions of three Protected Bike Lane facilities with different types of separation, all at street level, and may include configurations with or without on-street parking. The different types of separation can be raised concrete, bollard, or asphalt-concrete (A.C.) berm. In each case, motor vehicle activity parallel to the separated bicycle facility may be a travel lane (moving vehicular traffic) or a parking lane (on-street parking). In that latter case, the separated bikeway users may enjoy additional separation (greater security and lower stress) with the inclusion of on-street parking.
Raised Concrete-Separated Protected Bike Lane
Bikeways may be separated from motor vehicle traffic through the use of a raised concrete buffer. Raised concrete buffers are solid barriers, typically 6 inches tall, that discourage motor vehicle encroachment into the bicycle facility. The figures below show examples of a raised median separated bikeway. Raised concrete buffers may be programmed with landscape elements or street furniture, provided they do not restrict motorist or cyclist visibility.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
78 Bollard-Separated Protected Bike Lane
Protected Bike Lanes may also be separated from motor vehicles utilizing bollards.
Bollards, made with either concrete or plastic, delineate the separation of the bikeways.
Which material is used will affect the potential encroachment of motor vehicles.
Concrete bollards will resist motor vehicle encroachment more definitively than plastic bollards. The figures below show examples of Protected Bike Lanes delineated by
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
79 bollards. The recommended spacing length to achieve delineation varies from five, ten, to even forty feet. The bollard height is typically 3 feet.
A.C. Berm-Separated Protected Bike Lane
Finally, a Protected Bike Lane may be separated from motor-vehicle traffic utilizing an asphalt concrete (A.C.) berm. An A.C. berm is an asphalt and concrete curb that is typically 10 inches wide (at the base) and between 6 and 8 inches tall. While fixed and solid in a way that plastic bollards are not, A.C. berms used as separators arguably
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 07 CHAPTER
80 have less ability to resist motor-vehicle encroachment into the bicycle facility. This is because of its comparatively small width (relative to raised medians) and height. This suggests that the optimal use of A.C. Berm as bikeway separators would be in the context of on-street parking; in such a context, they would be acting as parking stops.
The figures below show a Protected Bike Lane utilizing an A.C. Berm to achieve separation.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 08 CHAPTER
81 CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION AND
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Overview
All roadway projects have the potential to incorporate Complete Streets elements. By using the guidance in this Manual, opportunities to apply these principles should be explored on every project. Actual implementation, however, will be determined on a case-by-case basis given the project’s constraints and conditions. A key component of the exploration process is public engagement. It is essential that community feedback is factored into the selection process of the improvements that will serve that community.
This chapter provides examples of different transportation improvement projects where the Complete Streets approach can be implemented, a general overview of community engagement strategies and a summary of the community engagement activities conducted for preparation of this Manual.
Project Opportunities
Complete Streets design principles should be reflected in the design decisions made for all types and sizes of projects, particularly on capital improvement projects. Any repaving project that will remove lane markings and restripe presents the opportunity to reallocate the space between the curbs. Depending on traffic volumes, prior lane configuration, pavement width, and vehicle use, repaving may allow travel lanes to be narrowed, and new bike lanes or parking added or reconfigured. Other opportunities include developing Complete Streets plans in Smart Growth areas as shown on the Vicinity Map in Chapter 1. Development of such a plan will require implementing a public engagement plan.
Public Outreach Process
It is essential that the community is engaged in the design and decision-making process for the improvements proposed for their community. The City Engineer will determine the level of public outreach required on all public and private development projects.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 08 CHAPTER
82 In general, the public outreach process begins by implementing a community outreach plan. The following are sample activities to be conducted in a typical public engagement plan. The actual activities may vary and will be developed on a project-byproject basis. However, the overarching goal is to have an open and transparent forum for ongoing communication and coordination with the public.
Public Engagement Plan
Public Meetings - held at each major step in the development process to inform, solicit comments, provide feedback, gain consensus Committee Meetings/Presentations – present the project to the City Council, La Mesa Mobility Commission, Sustainability Commission, SANDAG or other key stakeholders to make sure the project is consistent with citywide and regional goals
Additional Community Outreach – flyers, surveys, pop-up events, community workshops, press releases, project website, etc. – are various means of soliciting input and engaging the public
Summary of Outreach Performed
The specific public engagement activities conducted while developing the Manual are summarized below.
Project Webpage
A temporary webpage was created for the project on the City’s website to share information with the community about the project. The project webpage included information about the project, notifications about upcoming opportunities to participate, and ways to provide feedback. Additionally, the project webpage included contact information, with an email address and phone number, to provide comments, request project updates, and/or to obtain more information about the project.
Project Fact Sheet
A project fact sheet was created to share information with the community about the Manual. The fact sheet included background information about the project, explained the concept of complete streets, described components of the Manual, and directed the public to learn more about the project on the project webpage. The project fact sheet was posted on the City’s website making it available to the community.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 08 CHAPTER
83 Public Mailer
A public mailer was created as a way of notifying the community about the Manual, as well as providing pertinent information about the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Project. The mailer included information about the project background, the concept of complete streets, and shared a link to the project webpage. Additionally, the mailer was used to promote the February 2022 public workshop. The mailer was sent to approximately 200 recipients, including property owners and tenants, within a 300-foot radius of La Mesa Boulevard.
Online Public Workshop
On Thursday, February 10, 2022, from 5:30 PM to 7 PM, an online public workshop was held. The workshop included a presentation about the Manual and a presentation on the current progress of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan. Approximately 61 community members attended the workshop.
Social Media
As part of the public engagement activities, social media was used as another tool to distribute information to the community about the project. Social media posts included sharing information about the project, the concept of complete streets, upcoming event notifications, and sharing information about complete streets typology. Social media posts were shared with the community via the City’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accounts.
Mobility Commission
A presentation will be presented to the City’s Mobility Commission.
Public Commentary
The online public workshop produced no comments on the Manual. Public comments were focused on the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan. Since the La Mesa Boulevard Plan follows the guidelines in the Design Manual, those public comments are relevant to the Manual.
From the interactive polling conducted, the most important community benefits are improved walking spaces, street trees and landscaping, on-street parking, traffic flow, small business activities, bicycles spaces, lighting, and lastly, wayfinding. Roundabouts are acceptable to improve traffic flow, provided emergency vehicles can get through
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 08 CHAPTER
84 and it makes the area safer. For La Mesa Boulevard, which can be extrapolated for similar sized roadways, public priorities from highest to lowest are enhanced parking, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. A desire was also expressed for safer intersection crossings and mid-block ADA compliant crossings with RRFBs or HAWK devices to increase visibility and safety.
COMPLETE STREETS INTEGRATED DESIGN MANUAL 08 CHAPTER
DATE: November 14, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Mark Arapostathis and Councilmember Colin Parent SUBJECT: Prevailing Wages for Traffic Control Workers
Currently, public sector traffic control workers on public works projects must be paid a prevailing wage. However, private employers sometimes pay less than this amount, on projects in the public right of way that have many of the same characteristics as public works projects.
Traffic control workers perform a critical role ensuring public safety, and are exposed to health and safety hazards, and risks including the risk of serious injury and death.
We are requesting that the Council vote to direct staff to prepare an update to the La Mesa Municipal Code to require prevailing wages for private-sector employees that are engaged in traffic control projects in the public right of way.
This policy should be drafted to exempt the following activities:
Traffic control work preformed by an employee in support of the construction, renovation, additions, or repair of a single-family home, duplex, triplex, four-plex, or accessory unit,
Traffic control performed by an employee on any project costing $1,000 or less, Traffic control performed by an employee of any public agency, or To the extent prohibited by law, or the funding source requirement applicable to the work.