La Mesa City Council
April 9, 2024

LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

A Regular Meeting

Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024, 6:00 p.m.

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

Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Laura Lothian
Councilmember Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Colin Parent
Councilmember Jack Shu
City Treasurer Matthew Strabone
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
The City Council meeting may be viewed in-person or live on Cox Cable Channel 24 (within La Mesa City limits), AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 (in the San Diego Region), the City’s website (www.cityoflamesa.us), Facebook Live (www.facebook.com/lamesaca) or using the following Zoom Webinar options:

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

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS
In-Person comments during the meeting: Join us for the City Council meeting at the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments. Please complete a “Request to Speak” card and submit it to the Council Hostess. When the Mayor calls your name, step to the podium and state your name for the record. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes.
•
How to submit eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published.

Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until 24 hours prior to the meeting. eComments are limited to 500 words. eComments may be viewed by the City Council and members of the public following the close of the eComment submission period (24 hours prior to the meeting). Email your comment to [email protected] if you have difficulty submitting an eComment. eComments will not be read aloud as a regular meeting item; however any member of the Council or member of the public may do so during their respective comment time. •
PLEASE NOTE: Public Comment will be limited to 3 minutes per item. The timer begins when the participant begins speaking. Time cannot by combined or yielded to another speaker. *Live Remote Public Comment ONLY permitted during Councilmember teleconferencing pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953 (AB 2449).
*Zoom Audio Comments: To provide oral public comments during the meeting, join the Zoom meeting by computer, mobile phone, or dial in number. On Zoom video conference by computer or mobile phone, use the “Raise Hand” feature. This will notify the moderator that you wish to speak during a specific item on the agenda or during non-agenda Public Comment. Members of the public will not be shown on video but will be able to speak when called upon. If joining the meeting using the Zoom dial-in number, you may raise your hand by pressing *9. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. No further comments will be entertained after the Mayor closes public comment. •
Citizens who wish to make an audio/visual presentation pertaining to an item on the agenda, or during Public Comments, should contact the City Clerk’s office at 619.667.1120, no later than 12:00 p.m., the Monday prior to the meeting day. Advance notification will ensure compatibility with City equipment and allow Council meeting presentations to progress smoothly and in a consistent and equitable manner. Please note that all presentations/digital materials are considered part of the maximum time limit provided to speakers.

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

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

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of La Mesa encourages the participation of disabled individuals in the services, activities and programs provided by the City. Individuals with disabilities, who require reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the City Council meetings, should contact the Administrative Services Department 48 hours prior to the meeting at 619.667.1175, fax 619.667.1163, or [email protected].

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

Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

1.1 INVOCATION - VICE MAYOR LOTHIAN

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 PROCLAIMING APRIL 26, 2024 AS ARBOR DAY

5.2 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS ART, CULTURE, AND

CREATIVITY MONTH

5.3 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS VOLUNTEER MONTH

5.4 PRESENTATION OF THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE
STREETS PLAN, SEGMENT 1
1 5.5 PRESENTATION OF THE LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 36

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

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

7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES

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

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 9.1 through 9.12)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.

Recommended Motion:

Approve Consent Calendar Items 9.1 through 9.12.

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

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

9.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2024
121
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

9.3 RESOLUTION DIRECTING REVIEW OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
126
Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

9.4 COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD 2023 ANNUAL REPORT 128 Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:

Receive and file.

9.5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
FOR THE ANNUAL CONCRETE MAINTENANCE PROJECT, BID 23-04, TO PORTILLO CONCRETE, INC.
132
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

9.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE

OF FUNDING FOR THE SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY POWER (SDCP)

MEMBER AGENCY GRANT PROGRAM FOR BIKE EDUCATION

CLASSES AND A BIKE AND E-BIKE GIVEAWAY PROGRAM
139
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

9.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE

OF FUNDING FOR THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION

BLOCK GRANT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR BEAM GLOBAL

SOLAR POWERED ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
144
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

9.8 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AWARD AND PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIAL FORM AS PRESENTED,

SUBJECT TO THE FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY, FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 24-13 FOR

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION MASTER PLAN
152
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

9.9 BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

RESOLUTIONS
184
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID 24-16, BOULEVARD DRIVE

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AWARDING
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO S.C. VALLEY
ENGINEERING, INC.

Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.
b. RESOLUTION APPROVING A TASK ORDER TO ARDURRA
GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR

BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.
c. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF
$525,000 UNALLOCATED ROAD MAINTENANCE AND

REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA) FUNDS TO THE

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE

BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

9.10 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 ANNUAL

ACTION PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
198
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

9.11 RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROJECT 2022-0973 (BOULEVARD LA MESA LLC)
230

A PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ON A VACANT LOT
LOCATED ON EL CAJON BOULEVARD, APNS 470-200-31-00, 470- 200-30-00, AND 470-200-28-00 IN THE C-D-MU (GENERAL

COMMERCIAL / URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY / MIXED USE OVERLAY)
ZONE
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

9.12 RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROJECT 2024-0417 (GEORGEES)
278

A PROPOSED EXTERIOR REMODEL TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY
COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 4231 SPRING STREET (APN
499-020-30-00) IN THE CN-P-D-MU (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL / SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY / URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY /

MIXED USE OVERLAY) ZONE
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10. COUNCIL INITIATED

10.1 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 3024 (AB 3024): THE STOP HATE LITTERING ACT,

INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER CHRIS WARD -

COUNCILMEMBER SHU
298

10.2 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO BEGIN CONVERTING

ALL CITY LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT TO NONPOLLUTING POWER

AND AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUEL - COUNCILMEMBER SHU
301

11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)

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

13. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

14. ADJOURNMENT

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 9, 2024
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF THE LA MESA BOULEVARD
COMPLETE STREETS PLAN, SEGMENT 1
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Presentation of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1, for consideration of adoption at a future City Council meeting.

Recommendation:

Receive the presentation and provide comments for the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1 to be adopted at a future City Council meeting.

Fiscal Impact: None
City’s Strategic Goals:
 Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.  Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 T-1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure – Encourage active transportation options through planning and development of safe active transportation infrastructure and facilities in the City.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 2 of 4
 T- 4 Mixed-Use and Transit Oriented Development – Encourage mixeduse and transit-oriented development to support alternative transportation opportunities and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
 GI-1 Urban Forest Master Plan – Support natural carbon sequestration opportunities through continued development and maintenance of a healthy, vibrant urban forest.

BACKGROUND:

Consistent with the City goals mentioned above and the adopted Vision Zero Plan, the City of La Mesa invests in its transportation corridors to maintain its infrastructure, improve corridor safety and encourage economic development. The City has made significant investments in the following corridors over the past 30 years: Downtown Village, University Avenue, Junior High Drive, North Spring Street, Civic Center, Normal Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard and Fletcher Parkway.

The City of La Mesa received an SB-1 Sustainable Communities grant from the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1. This visionary plan is intended to provide a framework for the redevelopment of last century’s auto-centric corridor into a thriving mixed-use active transportation corridor that maximizes use of walking, biking, micro-mobility and transit, and can serve as a model for the redevelopment of other established corridors within the City.

DISCUSSION:

The La Mesa Boulevard corridor between Spring Street and Jackson Drive is located along MTS Route 852 within a mile of the La Mesa Boulevard trolley station, and has been identified as Smart Growth Opportunity Area LM-6 by the San Diego Association of Governments. The specific limits of the corridor are along La Mesa Boulevard between Fourth Street and Jackson Drive and along University Avenue between Spring Street and La Mesa Boulevard, with most of the planned physical improvements focused on La Mesa Boulevard between University Avenue and Jackson Drive.

Key features include the incorporation of enhanced transit stops along MTS Route 852 with direct access to the San Diego Trolley at La Mesa Boulevard and Grossmont Transit Stations, as well as construction of roundabouts along the corridor at key intersections and the elimination of the existing traffic signals. Safe and inviting public spaces, streetscape, water quality and other sustainability enhancements are also envisioned as part of the program.

Staff provided public outreach to both the general public and numerous stakeholders.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 3 of 4
Public outreach included the creation of a project website, fact sheets, social media, two rounds of public surveys, public meeting events, commission meetings, and a public workshop. The following is a brief summary of some of the key feedback the City received during the different outreach events of La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Segment 1.

During general public outreach, the following feedback included:

1. Adding more pedestrian crossings.

2. Creating bike lanes with physical barriers.

3. Slower moving cars.

4. Consideration of roundabouts.

On, August 21, 2023, City staff met with the Environmental Sustainability Commission, with the commission providing the following highlighted remarks:

1. Consideration of additional green space.

2. Supportive of class four bike facilities.

3. Supportive of roundabouts.

4. Stressed importance of the plan helping the City to meet climate goals.

On September 6, 2023, City staff met with the Mobility Commission, with the commission providing the following highlighted remarks:

1. Change “reverse” to “drive in” angled parking.

2. Stressed importance of proper bike lanes for both the inside and outside buffers to protect against both moving vehicles and vehicles opening their doors while parked.

3. Concerned with driveway conflict points along class four bike facilities.

4. While supportive of roundabouts, they recommended a phased approach to get the community comfortable with them.

On, October 4, 2023, City staff met with the Planning Commission, with the commission providing the following highlighted remarks:

1. Supportive of pursuing an integrated complete streets policy which incorporates all modes to travel.

2. Supportive of class four bike lanes, though concerned with conflicts with driveways.

3. Supportive of roundabouts, but interested into how bicycles will work with them.

4. Stressed the importance of good cohesive design, incorporating both complete streets, aesthetic streetscapes, and well-integrated with onsite development.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 4 of 4
On, October 11, 2023, City staff met with the La Mesa Village Association, with the association providing the following highlighted remarks:

1. Protect existing parking and consider adding additional parking opportunities, including a future parking structure in the Village.

2. Improve locations of bike parking and better bike storage opportunities.

3. Additional crosswalks.

On November 8, 2023, City staff presented the plan at the Community Services Commission, and received the following highlighted remarks from the commission:

1. Supportive of more green space.

2. Better pedestrian spaces.

3. Supportive of class four bike lanes.

4. Supportive of roundabouts.

The La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, when completed, will provide a road map for the pursuit of final design and construction funding, environmental approvals as well as provide continuing community outreach and education regarding the benefits of active transportation and Smart Growth.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation and provide comments for the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1 to be adopted at a future City Council meeting..

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: Presentation

1 City Council Presentation 1
April 2024

2 2

PROJECT OVERVIEW
 $240,000 Caltrans
Sustainable
Communities grant
 Transform La Mesa Blvd
into a Complete Street
 Improve corridor safety
 Enhance connections to
key destinations

3 3

KEY BIG IDEAS
 Consistency with the CAP
 Reducing exposure times for pedestrian and bicycles
 Balancing modes, Enhanced transit stops
 Equitable use for everyone
 Maintain parking and add parking where possible

4 4

PUBLIC HEALTH
2016 La Mesa GHG emission
contributions

5 5

CAP CRITERIA
T-1 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Infrastructure: Encourage active
transportation options through planning
development infrastructure and facilities
T- 4 Mixed-Use and Transit
Oriented Development:

Encourage mixed-use and transit-oriented
development to support alternative
transportation opportunities and reduce
vehicle miles traveled.
 GI-1 Urban Forest Master Plan:

Support natural carbon sequestration
opportunities through continued
development and maintenance of a
healthy, vibrant urban forest.
 0.11% reduction in GHG
resulting from the project Page 9 of 301
6 6

EXISTING MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE

7 7

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
 Project Website
https://www.cityoflamesa.us/1673/La-Mesa-Boulevard-Complete-Streets-Plan  Project Fact Sheet
 Social Media Posts
 Two Rounds of Surveys
 Pop-Ups (Aug-Dec 2021)
 Farmers’ Market
 Adult Enrichment Center
 Park Appreciation Day
 Walk Audit with La Mesa Walks!
 Vons
 Public Workshop (Feb 10, 2022)
 La Mesa Village Association (Oct 11, 2023) Page 11 of 301 8 8

BUSINESS OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
 2 Rounds of Public
Notice Distribution
 3 Rounds of
Door Knocking
 109 businesses were visited
 52 businesses responded to
the Business Survey
 32 businesses responded to
the alternatives

9 9

TOP RESPONSES
9 1. People drive too fast

2. Difficulty finding parking

3. Difficulty crossing the street when I’m walking

4. Traffic noise is too loud
Top Resident Responses:
• Slower moving cars
• Wider, safer walking areas
• Separate, protected bike lanes
• Shorter street crossing distances
 What challenges do you encounter when you come here?
 I would like to see…
Top Business Responses:
• Street trees, signage, and lighting
• Easier parking, curb management (timed
parking, metered parking
• Slower car traffic

10 10

TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Roadway Segment
Average time
through the
corridor
(Today)
University/La
Mesa Blvd
Spring to
Jackson
2 min, 22 sec
La Mesa Blvd 4th to Jackson 1 min, 47 sec
Blue – Existing ADTs

11 11
SAFETY
 36 Collisions
(Jan 2014-Feb 2023)
 11 Visible
Injuries
 19 Broadside
Collisions
 8 Rear End
Collisions

12 12
UNIVERSITY AVE: SPRING ST TO MEMORIAL DR

EXISTING CONDITIONS
UNIVERSITY AVE: SPRING ST TO MEMORIAL DR

13 13
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE A: ROADWAY CONFIGURATION
UNIVERSITY AVE: SPRING ST TO MEMORIAL DR

14 14
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE B: ROADWAY CONFIGURATION
UNIVERSITY AVE: SPRING ST TO MEMORIAL DR

15 15
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: INTERSECTIONS
UNIVERSITY AVE: SPRING ST TO MEMORIAL DR
May or may
not be raised

16 16

EXISTING CONDITIONS
16 LA MESA BLVD: MEMORIAL DR TO JACKSON DR

17 17
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: ROADWAY CONFIGURATION
17 LA MESA BLVD: MEMORIAL DR TO JACKSON DR

18 18
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: INTERSECTIONS
LA MESA BLVD: MEMORIAL DR TO JACKSON DR

19 19

ROUNDABOUTS AND SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

ROUNDABOUTS SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS
Improves Traffic Flow (Community Priority #1) “CAP” 
Increases Parking (Community Priority #2) 
Decreases Crossing Distances (Community Priority #3)   Reduces Traffic Noise (Community Priority #4) 
Increases Opportunity for Gateway Features 
Reduces Severe Collisions and Fatalities “Vision Zero”  Reduces Air Pollution “CAP” 
Improves Continuity of Bike Routes 
As documented by:

20 20

PLACES WHERE ROUNDABOUTS WORKS
Having lived there since 1992, Nancy said she has
seen a lot of accidents on Moraga. (“Once a pickup
was even upside down!”) She said children crossing
Moraga to get to Cadman Elementary are at great
risk even with stop signs. "There is virtually no police presence anymore to help keep the speed down."

21 21
Memorial Drive and
La Mesa Boulevard
Jackson Drive and
La Mesa Boulevard
Glen Street and
La Mesa Boulevard

ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTS
LA MESA BLVD: MEMORIAL DR TO JACKSON DR

22 22

EXISTING CONDITIONS
LA MESA BLVD: 4TH TO MEMORIAL DR

23 23
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE A: ROADWAY CONFIGURATION
LA MESA BLVD: 4TH TO MEMORIAL DR

24 24
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE B: ROADWAY CONFIGURATION
LA MESA BLVD: 4TH TO MEMORIAL DR

25 25
LA MESA VILLAGE: EAST ENTRY
Gateway Feature Page 29 of 301
26 26

TRAFFIC RECAP
12,300
9,600
Roadway Segment
Average time
through the
corridor
(Today)
Average time
through the
corridor
(With
Project)
Decrease in
time
University/La
Mesa Blvd
Spring to
Jackson
2 min, 22 sec 1 min, 58 sec 24 seconds
La Mesa Blvd 4th to Jackson 1 min, 47 sec 1 min, 28 sec 19 seconds Blue – Existing ADTs
Red – Future ADTS

27 27
MODESHARE: BEFORE AND AFTER
Pedestrians
4% Bikes
1%
Cars
95%
Pedestrians Bikes Cars
Pedestrians
6% Bikes
2%
Cars
92%
Pedestrians Bikes Cars
Today’s Existing
Multimodal Counts
(June 2021)
Forecasted
Replica Data
(2035—Assumes
Project
Implementation)

0.11% GHG
reduction

28 28

CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATION

29 29

PROJECT TIMELINE

30 30

IDEAS-SUMMARY
 Consistency with the CAP
Reduction in Travel Times, .11% reduction in GHG
 Reducing exposure times for pedestrian and bicycles
Protected Bike Lanes, Flashing Beacon Crossings
 Balancing modes, Enhanced transit stops
Wide Sidewalks, Protected Bike Lanes
 Equitable use for everyone
 Maintain parking and add parking where possible

31 31

NEXT STEPS
Implementation:
 Look for funding opportunities
 ATP Cycle 7 (Spring-Summer, call for projects)
 Federal funding
Future City Council Meeting
 Adopt a resolution for the approval of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1
Feedback/Comments/Questions?

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 9, 2024
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF THE LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

FOR THE CITY OF LA MESA
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Presentation of the Local Road Safety Plan, for consideration of adoption at a future City Council Meeting.

Recommendation:

Receive the report and provide comments. The Local Road Safety Plan will be adopted at a future City Council Meeting.

Fiscal Impact:

Adoption of a Local Road Safety Plan will be required to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program grant funding effective with the next grant cycle in 2024.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.  Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 2 of 4
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 T-1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure – Encourage active transportation options through planning and development of safe active transportation infrastructure and facilities in the City.  T-2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (Vision Zero) – Advance community-wide active transportation through safety programs, public engagement, education, and advocacy.

BACKGROUND:

In November 2019, the City of La Mesa received a grant from Caltrans to prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). In February 2020, the City Council authorized award of a task order to one of the City’s on-call traffic engineering consultants, and the firm of STC Traffic, Inc. was retained to prepare the LRSP. The preliminary draft LRSP was reviewed by staff and circulated to the City’s safety partners in May 2021. The safety partners that received a draft copy of the LRSP for review included the following:
 La Mesa Mobility Commission
 La Mesa Police Department, Traffic Division
 La Mesa Department of Community Services
 Heartland Fire and Rescue
 Sharp Grossmont Hospital
 San Diego Association of Governments
 Metropolitan Transit System
 Circulate San Diego
 San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
 Grossmont Union High School District
 La Mesa Spring Valley School District
The comments received from the safety partners were subsequently incorporated into the draft LRSP.

On March 14, 2023, City staff presented the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) to City Council for adoption. City Council requested the following concerns be addressed before bringing the plan back for adoption: Revise the project prioritization to better correlate where deaths and injuries are occurring in the City in an effort to better address Vision Zero goals.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 3 of 4
DISCUSSION:

A Local Road Safety Plan is a citywide, data-driven evaluation of safety issues focused on three major areas: signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections and roadway segments. Collision data over a five-year period (2015-2019) was collected from statewide (UC Berkeley’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System or SWITRS) and local sources (LMPD’s “Crossroads” database) and analyzed for trends so that effective safety countermeasures could be identified and implemented. A rating system known as Equivalent Property Damage Only (or EPDO) allows intersections and segments to be rated on a common scale based on the number and severity of collisions, and ranked against each other on the same basis to identify trends, safety issues and collision “hot spots”, with ratings, typically exceeding 100, indicating a higher priority for future study.

The proximate causes and appropriate safety countermeasures can then be identified for the specific location or conditions present at the time of the collision such as nighttime crashes or bicycle/pedestrian involvement.

The rankings also allow priorities to be set among multiple locations, and funding resources to be identified for the selected countermeasures. Rankings were summarized in the LRSP for three different categories: signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections and roadway segments.

The purpose of the LRSP is to provide a data-driven evaluation of current conditions to be used as a basis for future safety improvements. Specific capital projects and safety countermeasures would then be identified based on the data.

After meeting and receiving feedback from the City Council in 2023, a new section was added to the LRSP regarding High Injury Risks and Vulnerable Roadway users, providing for additional analysis related to crashes that resulted in fatal and severe injuries. In addition, priority projects were to also reevaluated with an emphasis towards reducing fatalities, and serious injuries. These priority projects included bike lane safety improvements, pedestrian crossing and leading interval safety improvements, and traffic signal left turn and pedestrian signal enhancements. These priority areas will be reevaluated every five years during LRSP updates.

Local agencies are required to have an adopted LRSP in place to be eligible for applying for HSIP grant funding.

The initial draft LRSP was originally presented to the City’s Mobility Commission on April 7, 2021. Following the incorporation of comments received from the City’s safety partners, the LRSP was presented to the Mobility Commission on January 5, 2022 and was recommended for adoption to City Council by unanimous consent. On March 6, 2024, the

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 4 of 4
Mobility Commission was presented with an updated LRSP, which incorporated additional Council requested revisions, in which they had no additional comments.

The Local Road Safety Plan represents a key element in the City of La Mesa’s commitment to a Vision Zero plan. It provides a data-based analysis of traffic safety issues within the City, identifies collision trends and potential countermeasures. Adoption of the plan will focus the Department’s pursuit of funding to make these necessary safety improvements to the roadway network.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive presentation and provide comments.

Adoption of the Local Road Safety Plan will be scheduled at a future City Council meeting.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Michael Kinnard
Michael Kinnard
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A. Presentation
B. Local Road Safety Plan

Local Road
Safety Plan - UPDATE
APRIL 9, 2024 – CITY COUNCIL

LRSP: Local Road Safety Plan
WHAT?

PLAN (DOCUMENT) FOR IDENTIFYING, ANALYZING AND PRIORITIZING ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON LOCAL ROADS.

SUPPORTS AND ALIGNS WITH THE CITY’S VISION ZERO POLICY
WHY?
IN 2019 LOCAL AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA COULD REQUEST FUNDING FROM THE STATE TO DEVELOP A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN. THIS PLAN WOULD COVER A TIMELINE FROM 2015-2019 (5 YEARS)

IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR FUTURE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANT FUNDS A LOCAL AGENCY MUST HAVE
COMPLETED THEIR LRSP.

CITYWIDE COLLISION ANALYSIS
• Analyzed 1,265 collisions
• Crash Data acquired for 2015-
2019 period, equated to
Equilvalent Property Damage
5 Page 42 of 301

LRSP UPDATE
2023 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE REQUEST
Revise the project prioritization to
better correlate where fatalities and
injuries are occurring in the City in
an effort to better address our
Vision Zero goals.

FATAL INJURIES (2015-2019)

LOCATIONS STATUS
Lake Murray near Marengo (Ped)
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements and
NTMP inclusion for Lake Murray -
upcoming
El Cajon Blvd near Jessie Ave (Ped)
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements –
Existing HSIP HAWK project – near
completion
El Cajon Blvd near Williamsburg Ln/Comanche Dr. (Bike)
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements –
Existing HSIP HAWK project – near
completion
Fletcher Pkwy near Jackson Dr (Ped) Signal Timing Improvements/Ped Countdown Heads – Completed
Fletcher Pkwy near Grossmont Ctr Dr (Ped) Signal Timing Improvements/Ped Countdown Heads – Completed
Lake Murray near Alvarado & Parkway/Guessman
High Speed Collisions with fixed objects.

Evaluated roadway and intersection
geometry due to potential impaired
judgement
8 Page 44 of 301

PRIORITY PROJECTS - UPDATED

PRIORITY PROJECT TYPES COUNTERMEASURE
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
• Identified locations including Lake Murray & Marengo, Murray & Wakarusa, University & Palm/Pine
Pedestrian Crossing
Enhancements
Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
• Identified locations include, Fletcher & Jackson, Fletcher & Grossmont Ctr Drive, University at Yale, University at Harbinson; Jessie at El Cajon Signal Timing
Improvements/Ped
Countdown Heads
Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing
• Identified locations include Fletcher & Dallas, 70th & Tower, Baltimore & Parkway, Jackson & El Paso, Waite & Mass
Install left-turn lane and add
turn phase or split phase:

Bike Lanes Safety Analysis
• Protected bike lanes where feasible
Protected bike lanes, bike
buffer striping
8 Page 45 of 301
Next Steps
• Continue to identify Priority Projects
• LRSP Updates – Every 5 years
• 2025 next update to LRSP
9 Page 46 of 301
Local Road
Safety Plan
Final Report
January 2024

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of La Mesa Team
Michael Throne, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Michael Kinnard, Engineering Project Manager
Safety Partners
La Mesa Mobility Commission
Mike Calandra, Chair
Ed Krulikowski, Vice Chair
Tina Angeles*, Commissioner
Dinah Justice, Commissioner
Alex Mueller, Commissioner
David Nichols**, Commissioner
Tony Ortega, Commissioner
* Climate/Environmental Issues Experience
** Vulnerable Road User Experience
La Mesa Police Department, Traffic Division
Tim Purdy, Sergeant
Heartland Fire and Rescue / La Mesa Fire Department
Bent Koch, Division Chief - Operations
La Mesa Parks Department
Susan Richardson, Director of Community Services
Sharp Grossmont Hospital
Ryan Purdy, Community Relations Manager
San Diego Association of Governments
Tuere Fa’aola, Principal Regional Planner
Consultant Team
STC Traffic
Jason Stack, Principal Manager
Philip Kern, Project Manager
Ashley Adamos, Project Engineer
Ivan Gonzalez, Associate Engineer

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................5

1.1 La Mesa at a Glance.....................................................................................................................................6

1.2 Existing City Efforts.......................................................................................................................................8

1.3 LRSP Process................................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Vision, Mission, & Goals.........................................................................................................12 3 Safety Partners .........................................................................................................................13 4 Data Analysis and Summary .................................................................................................15

4.1 Crash Data and Methodology............................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Annual Trends ............................................................................................................................................. 15

4.3 California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) Traffic Rankings .......................................... 16

4.4 Crash Location ............................................................................................................................................ 18

4.5 Crash Severity.............................................................................................................................................. 18

4.6 Crash Type.................................................................................................................................................... 19

4.7 Primary Collision Factor........................................................................................................................... 20

4.8 Roadway User.............................................................................................................................................. 21

4.9 High Injury Risks and Vulnerable Roadway Users ......................................................................... 22

4.9.1 Crash Location ................................................................................................................................... 24

4.9.2 Crash Type........................................................................................................................................... 24

4.9.3 Primary Collision Factor ................................................................................................................. 25

4.9.4 Vulnerable Roadway Users ........................................................................................................... 26

4.9.5 Nighttime Crashes............................................................................................................................ 31

4.10 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Scoring...................................................................... 32

4.10.1 Priority Signalized Intersections.................................................................................................. 33

4.10.2 Priority Unsignalized Intersections............................................................................................. 38

4.10.3 Priority Roadway Segments.......................................................................................................... 42

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | iii

4.11 Roadway Characteristics Screening .................................................................................................... 46 5 Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................... 48

5.1 Engineering.................................................................................................................................................. 48

5.2 Enforcement................................................................................................................................................. 51

5.3 Education ...................................................................................................................................................... 54

5.4 Emergency Response ............................................................................................................................... 56

5.5 Emerging Technologies........................................................................................................................... 57 6 Priority Projects....................................................................................................................... 59 7 Implementation & Evaluation...............................................................................................61

7.1 Implementation.......................................................................................................................................... 61

7.2 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................................... 61

7.3 Future LRSP Updates ................................................................................................................................ 61 8 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 62

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………….…………… Safety Partner Feedback Appendix B ………………………………………………………… California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings Appendix C …………………………………………………………………………… Roadway Characteristics Data Tables Appendix D………………….……………………………………………………... Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox Appendix E …………………………………………………………………..……………………… Priority Project Summaries

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 1-2: Project Study Area ...................................................................................................................................7 Figure 4-1 Annual Crash Trend (2015-2019) (Restudy in 2025 for Previous 5 Years)........................ 16 Figure 4-2 Citywide Collisions By Crash Location (2015-2019) .................................................................. 18 Figure 4-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2015-2019) ................................................................... 19 Figure 4-4 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019).......................................................................... 20 Figure 4-5 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ................................................ 21 Figure 4-6 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User (2015-2019) ................................................................... 22 Figure 4-7: Citywide Fatal and Severe InJury Crashes.................................................................................... 23 Figure 4-8 Roadway User by Crash Severity (2015-2019) ............................................................................ 27 Figure 4-9 Roadway User by Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes (2015-2019) .......................................... 28 Figure 4-10: Citywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes................................................................................... 29 Figure 4-11: Citywide Motorcycle Crashes ......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 4-12 Nighttime Collisions by Crash Severity ....................................................................................... 31 Figure 4-12 Citywide EPDO Scoring...................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 4-13 Citywide Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring..................................................................... 35 Figure 4-14 Priority Signalized Intersections..................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4-15 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring.................................................................................. 40 Figure 4-16 Priority Unsignalized IntersectionS ............................................................................................... 41 Figure 4-17 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring ............................................................................................... 44 Figure 4-18 Priority Roadway Segments............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 5-1 Citywide Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)........................................................................... 52

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 OTS Crash Rankings (2017).................................................................................................................. 17 Table 4-2 CItywide Collisions by Crash Location (2015-2019).................................................................... 18 Table 4-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2015-2019)..................................................................... 19 Table 4-4 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) ........................................................................... 19 Table 4-5 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019).................................................. 21 Table 4-6 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User (2015-2019)..................................................................... 22 Table 4-7 Citywide Crash Severity by Crash Location.................................................................................... 24 Table 4-8 Citywide Crash Type by Crash Severity (2015-2019).................................................................. 25 Table 4-9 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Crash Severity (2015-2019) .................... 26 Table 4-10 Roadway User by Crash Severity (2015-2019)............................................................................ 27 Table 4-13 Crash Weight by Crash Severity and Crash Location............................................................... 32 Table 4-14 Top Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score............................................................. 36 Table 4-15 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score ....................................................... 38 Table 4-16 Top Quintile Roadway Segments by EPDO Score..................................................................... 42 Table 5-1 City of la mesa traffic calming toolbox............................................................................................ 49 Table 5-2 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures ...................................................................................... 49 Table 5-3 Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures................................................................................. 50 Table 5-4 Roadway Segment Countermeasures .............................................................................................. 50 Table 6-1 Priority Projects......................................................................................................................................... 59

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS
BCR …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Benefit Cost Ratio Caltrans ………………………………………………………………………… California Department of Transportation CHP ……………………………………………………………………………………..………………… California Highway Patrol CON ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………… Construction CRF ……………….………………………………………………………………………..………………… Crash Reduction Factor DUI …………………………………………………………………………………..………………… Driving Under the Influence DVMT ……………………………………………………………………………..………………… Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled EPDO ……………………………………………………………………..………………… Equivalent Property Damage Only FHWA ………………………………………………………………………..………………… Federal Highway Administration GIS …………………………………………………………………………....………………… Geographic Information System HSIP ………………………………………………………………………………… Highway Safety Improvement Program HSM ………………………………………….……………………………………………………………… Highway Safety Manual LRSM …….………………………. Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual for California Local Road Owners LRSP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. Local Road Safety Plan LRT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Light Rail Transit NHTSA …………………………………………………………………. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………. Office of Transportation Safety PCF ………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………. Primary Collision Factor PDO ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………. Property Damage Only PE ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………. Preliminary Engineering ROW ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………. Right-of-Way SANDAG …………………………………………………………………………. San Diego Association of Governments SHSP ………………………………………………………………………………………………. Strategic Highway Safety Plan SWITRS ………………………..…………………………………………. Statewide Integration Traffic Records System TNC ………………………..…………………………………..……………………………. Transportation Network Company USDOT ………………………..……………………………………………. United States Department of Transportation

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | vii
The City of La Mesa has prepared a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) within the governance of the following Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence:

United States Code Title 23, Section 148 (h) (4) [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] which reads as follows: “REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION. – Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” United States Code Title 23 Section 409 [23 U.S.C. §409] which reads as follows:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of La Mesa was awarded funding by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) which creates the framework for systemically identifying and analyzing roadway safety problems, developing local agency collaboration, and recommending improvements and actions that contribute to the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and can be funded through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other grant programs.

LRSP Vision
• The City of La Mesa is a community that prioritizes safety for all roadway users and promotes and implements strategies that advance a zero-death vision by 2025 LRSP Mission
• Eliminate fatalities and severe injuries and reduce overall collisions through a combination of safety measures based on the 5 E’s of traffic safety: engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies.

LRSP Goals
• Eliminate the number of fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2025 • Decrease the number of roadway collisions
• Create a safe travel experience for all roadway users • Redesign streets to make them accessible for people of all ages and abilities • Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements where safety is a concern • Implement proven safety countermeasures systemically to reduce fatal and severe crashes • Expand and support existing programs that focus on educating the community on safety and implementing traffic calming features and data-driven traffic enforcement • Continue coordination with safety partners
• Continue citywide crash data-driven analysis to determine the areas of greatest concern and the most dangerous behaviors that contribute to collision frequency and severity Crash data was analyzed to identify citywide collision patterns and trends, perform a network screening and systemic evaluation, and determine risk factors. Crash data from 2015-2019 was collected and aggregated from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and local Crossroads database. Reported crashes and their characteristics were geolocated to the street network using a Geographic Information System (GIS).

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 2
The following citywide crash patterns and trends were reviewed:
• Annual trends
• California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) citywide traffic rankings • Crash location
• Crash severity
• Crash type
• Primary collision factor
• Roadway User type
• High Injury Risks and Vulnerable Roadway Users
• Nighttime crashes
Crash Patterns and Trends
• Majority of crashes occurred at signalized (44%) and unsignalized intersections (34%) • Majority of crashes resulted in non-severe injury (66%) and property damage only (29%) • Top three crash types include rear end (27%), broadside (26%), and sideswipe (15%) • Top three primary collision factors include unsafe speed (21%), improper turning (17%), and automobile right-of-way (15%)
• Majority of crashes were vehicle-vehicle (81%)
• Fatal and severe injury collisions had an over-representation for crashes involving pedestrians (31%), motorcycles (29%), and bicycles (13%) • Higher number of nighttime crashes generally occurred from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM and the most severe crashes (fatal and severe injury) generally occurred from 6:00 PM to 3:00 AM The findings from the crash data analysis and network screening were presented to the following safety partners that represent the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies):
• La Mesa Department of Public Works
• La Mesa Mobility Commission
• La Mesa Police Department
• Heartland Fire and Rescue / La Mesa Fire Department
• Sharp Grossmont Hospital
• San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Feedback was obtained on priority locations identified from the citywide crash analysis and roadway network screening, desired roadway infrastructure improvements and safety programs, and known areas with safety issues that may not be readily apparent from the crash data alone.

This included areas that do not have a high rate of reported crashes but are known for having

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 3
frequent “near-misses”, safety issues near local schools, parks, and medical facilities, or high-risk behaviors such as vehicular speeding or pedestrian jaywalking.

Based on the feedback received and the LRSP vision and goals, a countermeasure toolbox was developed to address common crash patterns and risk factors. Countermeasures for the 5E’s of traffic safety were identified from the Federal Highway Safety Administration (FHWA)’s Proven Safety Countermeasures, the SHSP, and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual for California Local Road Owners (LRSM) and applied to develop priority improvement projects and programs that can be funded through roadway safety grant opportunities and local funds.

A variety of roadway safety projects were evaluated based on local roadway needs, City of La Mesa capital improvement priorities, the results of the crash data analysis and roadway network screening, stakeholder feedback, and the countermeasure toolbox. Priority projects that would be eligible for Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding were identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis based on the HSIP analyzer or HSIP funding set aside category, for which a BCR is not required. Priority projects that address pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in the citywide crash data analysis were also identified.
• Citywide Bike Lanes – Set-Aside
SA: Bike Safety Improvements
• Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
• Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Ave (F1) – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave (F3/F4) – Current HSIP Grant (Under Construction) SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Murray Dr & Wakarusa St – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Palm Ave & Lemon Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• University Ave & Palm Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• University Ave & Pine Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
• Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr (F2) – Current HSIP Grant S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 4
• Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr (F5) – Current HSIP Grant
S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads • Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr (F6) – Current HSIP Grant S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads • Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing – BCR 9.17
S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) • Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval – BCR 9.37
S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) • Jackson Dr Bike Lanes – BCR 16.97
R32PB: Install bike lanes
• Citywide Guardrail Upgrades – Set Aside
SA: Guardrail Upgrades
• Citywide Installation of Edgelines – Set Aside
SA: Edgelines
• Citywide EVPE System Upgrades – 11.71
S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
LRSP implementation of priority projects and countermeasures will be based on current City needs, local resources, development projects, and available grant funding opportunities.

Implementation of priority projects and application of countermeasures will be monitored and evaluated to determine success. Citywide collision occurrence and severity will be monitored to evaluate trends towards the City’s zero-death vision.

The La Mesa LRSP is considered a living document and must be updated at minimum every five years to maintain compliance with Caltrans eligibility requirements. As roadway conditions change and new data becomes available, the City will revisit and update the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals, the countermeasure toolbox, and safety projects and programs.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 5
1 INTRODUCTION
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
established the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) program in 2019 to provide funding to local agencies for developing a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements. The LRSP program was developed to contribute to the success of the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which provides a statewide, comprehensive, datadriven effort to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across all travel modes and on all public roads, while addressing the unique safety needs in their jurisdictions. The California SHSP includes strategies based on the “5E’s” of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies) and addresses 16 challenge areas:
• Aggressive Driving
• Aging Drivers (>65)
• Bicyclists
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Driver Licensing
• Emergency Response
• Emerging Technologies
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrians
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers (15-20)
The City of La Mesa was selected as one of 152 local agencies statewide to receive LRSP funding. Development of the La Mesa LRSP will qualify the City to meet Caltrans eligibility requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding, which will be required for Cycle 11 and is anticipated in April 2022. The City is dedicated to improving roadway safety for all users throughout La Mesa and has been pursuing HSIP grant funding for roadway infrastructure improvements since the program’s inception in 2007 during Cycle 1. The City has been successful in obtaining nearly $5 million in awards.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 6
FIGURE 1-1: VICINITY MAP

1.1 La Mesa at a Glance
The City of La Mesa is a general law city with a population of approximately 58,000 according to the 2010 Census. The estimated population for the year 2019 is 60,000 based on the SANDAG Regional growth forecast. As illustrated above in Figure 1-1, the City of La Mesa is located approximately ten miles east of Downtown San Diego and is bisected or bordered by three freeways: Interstate 8, State Routes 125 and 94. Two San Diego Trolley light rail lines also traverse the city, the Orange and Green lines, with a total of five light rail transit (LRT) stations and eight railroad grade crossings located within the City limits. The City operates and maintains 57 signalized intersections and 175 miles of public streets. In recent years transportation efforts have focused on upgrading signal systems, enhancing transit accessibility, upgrading bike routes, improving walkability by completing gaps in the pedestrian network, and managing a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. Figure 1-2 illustrates the project study area.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 7
FIGURE 1-2: PROJECT STUDY AREA

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 8

1.2 Existing City Efforts
The City has been proactive in establishing plans, programs, and policies that support prioritizing roadway safety. The City’s commitment has been documented in the City’s General Plan, Urban Trails Mobility Action Plan, Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan, Livable La Mesa Action Plan, and Vision Zero Commitment. The development of the La Mesa LRSP supports the existing documentation and the overarching vision to create a safer community. The following are descriptions of current programs, activities, and / or policies that demonstrate the City’s commitment to roadway safety and the vision and goals of this LRSP.

General Plan
The City’s adopted 2012 General Plan identifies having a safe community and effective and efficient traffic circulation and transportation as primary City goals. The circulation element includes a vision for a City where travel is safe and easily accommodated whether by car or transit, on a bike, or as a pedestrian. Travel corridors serve a rich mix of residential and commercial land uses, with infrastructure and amenities that support all modes of travel.

Urban Trails Mobility Action Plan
The 2016 Urban Trails Mobility Action Plan provides a comprehensive implementation strategy based on community input for pedestrian improvements for the City of La Mesa that identifies connecting urban trails (sidewalks) between high-priority neighborhoods and key community destinations such as parks and recreation, hospitals, and local retail in La Mesa. Recreational loop urban trails take advantage of the City’s varying topography and Downtown district.

Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan
The City adopted the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan in 2012 to promote a safe, convenient, and efficient environment for bicycle and pedestrian travel that encourages the use of public streets, off-street facilities and public transit.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 9
Livable La Mesa Action Plan
The 2019 Livable La Mesa Action Plan outlines the goals, tasks and timeframes to be accomplished over the next few years by elected officials, municipal staff, city residents and numerous community/civic organizations working together for a common goal - making La Mesa a Livable Community for all ages. The Action Plan identifies transportation as a focus area for improvement in order to provide equitable, safe mode choices for all including vulnerable roadway users.

Vision Zero Commitment
In 2019, the City adopted a Vision Zero commitment, which recognizes that everyone has the right to move safely in their community, and that system designers and policymakers share the responsibility to ensure safe systems for travel. Vision Zero reflects the city's commitment to safer streets, community roadway safety education, enforcement of traffic laws, and saving lives.

Mobility Commission
The Mobility Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council and may provide advice on matters relat ed to traffic issues and other mobility issues as directed by the City Council of the City of La Mesa. The Mobility Commission advises the City on mobility issues including but not limited to, the implementation of neighborhood traffic calming activities, Vision Zero, and other plans for mobility improvements.

Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) was established by City Council to help improve the quality of life for La Mesa residents by evaluating and implementing traffic calming measures to reduce cut-through traffic and excessive vehicle speeds in their neighborhoods. The program allows residents to petition the City for traffic calming improvements in their neighborhood. The City will initiate a phased approach to investigating the problem and identifying potential solutions for petitions demonstrating strong support from residents. The process involves evaluating roadway conditions including travel speed, traffic volumes, collision history, sidewalks, school proximity and pedestrian crossings to determine the severity of the problem and assign a priority ranking. The NTMP provides a Traffic Calming Toolbox of accepted traffic calming measures that offer potential solutions for priority projects.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 10
The Traffic Calming Toolbox supports LRSP goals for enhancing safety in local neighborhoods.

Although not all countermeasures and safety improvements are included in the Caltrans LRSM, the tools identified help support and further the City’s vision of zero-deaths.

Safe Routes to School / Walk-n-Roll Program
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a federal, state, and local effort designed to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school. The City of La Mesa has implemented several programs to improve accessibility and safety for school age children walking or biking to school that helps further state, regional, and local goals.

Active Transportation Workshops
The City holds ongoing workshops for the community to join and learn what makes a community walkable and bike friendly. Through these workshops, the community helps the City identify opportunities to increase walking and biking through projects and programs.

Climate Action Plan (draft)
The City will look at how improving road safety can help mitigate climate change, through promoting active mobility as a core ideal of decarbonizing urban mobility, and working towards reducing barriers to pedestrians and cyclists through improving road safety.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 11

1.3 LRSP Process
Development of the La Mesa LRSP follows Caltrans guidelines which are based on the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway administration (FHWA)’s cyclical six-step process:

1. Establish Leadership
• Establish local partnerships with 5E’s of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies • Define LRSP Vision and Goals

2. Analyze Safety Data
• Crash and Roadway Data Collection
• Crash Data Analysis
• Roadway Network Screening

3. Determine Emphasis Areas
• Identify priority areas based on crash
data analysis and roadway network
screening

4. Identify Strategies
• Identify safety countermeasures and strategies
• Develop countermeasure toolbox

5. Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies
• Apply countermeasures and strategies to develop safety projects • Evaluate and prioritize safety projects by benefit cost ratio • Implement roadway safety improvement projects and programs

6. Evaluate and Update
• Monitor progress of roadway safety improvement projects and programs • Evaluate success of countermeasure toolbox, projects, and programs • Review LRSP and update to reflect local changing needs and priorities

1. Establish
Leadership

2. Analyze
Safety Data

3. Determine
Emphasis
Area

4. Identify
Strategies

5. Prioritize and
Incorporate
Strategies

6. Evaluate
and Update

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 12
2 VISION, MISSION, & GOALS
The La Mesa LRSP Vision, Mission, and Goals were developed based on alignment with the California SHSP, Caltrans LRSP and HSIP programs, feedback from safety partners, and the City’s existing safety plans, policies, and efforts for Vision Zero. The following section identifies the key Vision, Mission, and Goals set forth for the LRSP.

Vision
The City of La Mesa is a community that prioritizes safety for all roadway users and promotes and implements strategies that advance a zero-death vision by 2025.

Mission
The City aims to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries and reduce overall collisions through a combination of safety measures based on the 5 E’s of traffic safety: engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies.

Goals
The following goals help support the Vision and Mission of this document and will further the implementation of the Local Road Safety Plan.
• Eliminate the number of fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2025 • Decrease the number of roadway collisions
• Create a safe travel experience for all roadway users • Redesign streets to make them accessible for people of all ages and abilities • Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements where safety is a concern • Implement proven safety countermeasures systemically to reduce fatal and severe crashes • Expand and support existing programs that focus on educating the community on safety and implementing traffic calming features and data-driven traffic enforcement • Continue coordination with safety partners
• Continue citywide crash data-driven analysis to determine the areas of greatest concern and the most dangerous behaviors that contribute to collision frequency and severity

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 13
3 SAFETY PARTNERS
The La Mesa LRSP was developed to be reflective of the community and tailored to its needs.

Local Safety Partners representing the 5E’s of traffic safety (engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies) were identified and engaged to collaboratively address roadway safety. Participants include representatives from:
• La Mesa Department of Public Works
• La Mesa Mobility Commission
• La Mesa Police Department
• Heartland Fire and Rescue / La Mesa Fire Department
• La Mesa Parks Department
• Sharp Grossmont Hospital
• San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Outreach packets were distributed to the safety partners which included LRSP program background information, citywide crash analysis and network screening results, identified priority locations, and requests for feedback on top priority locations, other known roadway

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 14
safety issues for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, top priority safety countermeasures, and other potential improvements. Appendix A provides a summary of the feedback received from the safety partners which generally included:
• Consensus with priority signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments with additional feedback provided for the roadway safety issues attributed with specific intersection locations and / or roadway corridors • Desire for specific pedestrian safety improvements including new sidewalks, multi-use paths, and trails, installing crosswalks near parks and the Sharp Grossmont hospital, improving sidewalk trip hazards, implementing walking school bus, safe routes to school, safe routes to parks, and volunteer safety patrol programs, installing pedestrian crossing enhancements, pedestrian countdown signal heads, and intersection lighting, and improving overall pedestrian access
• Desire for specific bicycle safety improvements including installing new bike lanes, widening narrow bike lanes, installing bicycle safety utility box wraps, conducting bicycle rodeos and community bicycle safety trainings, and improving overall bicycle access • Desire for specific roadway safety improvements including roundabouts, 4-way stops, offset intersection improvements, road diets, traffic signal coordination of arterial corridors, improving sight distance at intersections, installing intersection / street lighting, emergency vehicle pre-emption systems, driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement programs, and alcohol-drug awareness programs • Desire for enforcement of speeding, running of red lights / stop signs, pedestrian violations, areas with high resident complaints that lack crash incidence and / or severity, and areas where speeding vehicles interact with pedestrians and bicyclists • Recommendations for conducting additional pedestrian and bicycle collision analyses and implementing strategies to strengthen the LRSP’s vision to promote roadway safety Many of the locations identified by the safety partners aligned with the priority locations presented in the LRSP based on crash analysis and severity. Additionally, several of the priority locations and safety improvements from the safety partners feedback align with the priority projects presented in the LRSP. Locations that were identified as experiencing high levels of resident complaints but had a history of low crash incidence and / or severity will be analyzed in future LRSP updates for inclusion in systemic projects. The La Mesa LRSP is considered a living document and will be updated to meet compliance with Caltrans HSIP eligibility requirements.

Future updates to the LRSP will utilize the feedback received from the safety partners to refine future LRSP processes, the countermeasure toolbox, and priority project development.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 15
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

4.1 Crash Data and Methodology
Crash records for the most recent five (5) years of available data were obtained for 2015-2019 from Crossroads, the local crash database maintained by the La Mesa Police Department, and the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), the statewide crash database maintained by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), through the University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The crash data collected was crossreferenced and geolocated to the local street network in a Geographic Information System (GIS) for fatal, injury, and property damage only collisions that occurred within City limits.

A comprehensive data set of 1,265 reported crashes during the study period was analyzed to identify potential systemic risk factors based on crash trends and patterns. Crash characteristics reviewed include:
• Annual Trends
• California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) Traffic Rankings • Crash Location
• Crash Severity
• Primary Collision Factor
• Roadway User Involvement
• Nighttime Crashes
Crashes that occurred on Interstate 8 or State Routes 94 or 125 were excluded. In addition, unreported minor collisions such as fender benders are excluded from the analysis due to lack of information. Property damage only (PDO) collisions may be misrepresented due to lack of reporting and potential to only include damage to City property.

4.2 Annual Trends
Figure 4-1 shows the total number of crashes per year in the City of La Mesa from 2015 to 2019 for fatal and severe injury collisions, non-severe injury collisions, and property damage only (PDO) collisions. The trendline shows the total number of crashes in San Diego County by year.

The City’s annual crash trends follow a similar pattern to the County’s crash trends except in the year 2017 when total crashes increased in the City versus decreased in the County.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 16
FIGURE 4-1 ANNUAL CRASH TREND (2015-2019) (RESTUDY IN 2025 FOR PREVIOUS 5 YEARS)

4.3 California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) Traffic Rankings The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) maintains a ranking system to compare traffic safety statistics among similarly sized California cities. Citywide rankings are based on population, daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT), crash records, and crash trends from data collected by SWITRS, Caltrans, the California Department of Justice, and the Department of Finance. A ranking of one (1) in a category indicates the poorest possible traffic safety performance in relation to other similarly sized cities. A comparison of California OTS traffic rankings allows cities to identify crash trends relative to local peers.

Based on the most recent available OTS rankings from 2017, the City of La Mesa is one of 106 cities in “Group C” which consists of cities with a population between 50,001 and 100,000.

Table 4-1 summarizes how La Mesa compares to the local peer cities of Santee and National City, which are other San Diego County cities included in the grouping. 53 78
102 81
53 165
179
179
166
147
11 17 6
14 14
14,774
15,503
14,916 14,754 14,257
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
San Diego County Crash Count
La Mesa Crash Count
Year
PDO Non-Severe Inury Fatal & Severe Injury SD County

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 17
• The lowest OTS rankings for the City of La Mesa were in the following categories: alcohol involved collisions with drivers between the ages of 21 and 34, motorcycle collisions, and bicycle collisions where the bicyclist was under the age of 15. • The City of La Mesa performed better than both the cities of Santee and National City for alcohol involved collisions, alcohol involved collisions with drivers under the age of 21, pedestrian collisions, and pedestrian collisions with pedestrians over the age of 65. • The City of La Mesa generally performed better than the City of National City except in alcohol involved collisions with drivers between the ages of 21 and 34, speed related collisions, and driving under the influence arrests.
• The City of La Mesa generally performed worse than the City of Santee except in alcohol involved collisions including drivers under the age of 21 and between the ages of 21 and 34, pedestrian collisions, and driving under the influence arrests.

TABLE 4-1 OTS CRASH RANKINGS (2017)
2017 OTS CATEGORY

LA MESA

OTS RANKING
(1 = POOR)
SANTEE

OTS RANKING
(1 = POOR)

NATIONAL CITY

OTS RANKING
(1 = POOR)
Total Fatal and Injury 61/106 85/106 15/106
Alcohol Involved 43/106 33/106 18/106
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 93/106 52/106 9/106
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 19/106 6/106 20/106
Motorcycles 32/106 42/106 6/106
Pedestrians 92/106 76/106 6/106
Pedestrians < 15 78/106 98/106 37/106
Pedestrians 65+ 100/106 97/106 5/106
Bicyclists 50/106 95/106 23/106
Bicyclists < 15 39/106 91/106 29/106
Composite 47/106 62/106 13/106
Speed Related 51/106 95/106 52/106
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 49/106 80/106 15/106
Hit and Run 45/106 88/106 15/106
DUI Arrests 87/106 71/106 90/106
Bold = City of La Mesa’s Three Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories Data tables for the OTS rankings are provided in Appendix B.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 18

4.4 Crash Location
Table 4-2 and Figure 4-2 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by crash location which includes signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Most crashes occurred at intersections (78%) which includes signalized intersections (44%) and unsignalized intersections (34%).

TABLE 4-2 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY CRASH LOCATION (2015-2019) CRASH LOCATION TOTAL (%)
Signalized Intersection 551 (44%)
Unsignalized Intersection 436 (34%)
Roadway Segment 278 (22%)
Total Crashes 1,265
FIGURE 4-2 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY CRASH LOCATION (2015-2019)

4.5 Crash Severity
Table 4-3 and Figure 4-3 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by severity for fatal, severe injury, non-severe injury (other visible injury and complaint of pain), and property damage only collisions. Most collisions resulted in non-severe injury (66%) followed by PDO (29%) and fatal and severe injury (5%).
44%
34%
22%
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Roadway Segment

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 19
TABLE 4-3 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019) CRASH SEVERITY TOTAL (%)
Fatal 12 (1%)
Severe Injury 50 (4%)
Other Visible Injury 234 (18%)
Complaint of Pain 602 (48%)
Property Damage Only 367 (29%)
Total Crashes 1,265
FIGURE 4-3 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019)

4.6 Crash Type
Table 4-4 and Figure 4-4 summarize the proportion of all crashes by crash type which includes head-on, sideswipe, rear end, broadside, hit object, overturned, vehicle / pedestrian, other, and not stated collisions. The three most common crash types that occurred are rear end (27%), broadside (26%), and sideswipe (15%). These account for 68% of total crashes reported.

TABLE 4-4 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY CRASH TYPE (2015-2019) CRASH TYPE TOTAL (%)
Rear End 338 (27%)
Broadside 325 (26%)
Sideswipe 193 (15%)
Hit Object 142 (11%)
Head-On 100 (8%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 103 (8%)
Overturned 33 (3%)
Other / Not Stated 31 (2%)
Total Crashes 1,265
1% 4%
18%
48%
29% Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 20
FIGURE 4-4 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY CRASH TYPE (2015-2019)

4.7 Primary Collision Factor
Table 4-5 and Figure 4-5 summarize the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) for crashes by California Vehicle Code violation categories. PCF violation categories that represented less than 3% of citywide collisions were graphically combined into a single category. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (21%), improper turning (17%), automobile right-of-way (15%), and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (12%). These account for 65% of total crashes reported.
8%
15%
26% 27%
11%
3%
8% 2% Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle / Pedestrian
Other / Not Stated

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 21
TABLE 4-5 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (2015-2019) PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY TOTAL (%)
Unsafe Speed 263 (21%)
Improper Turning 219 (17%)
Automobile Right-of-Way 187 (15%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 153 (12%) Traffic Signals and Signs 108 (9%)
Other 78 (6%)
Unknown / Not Stated 60 (5%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing 48 (4%)
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 34 (3%)
Pedestrian Violation 34 (3%)
Wrong Side of Road* 28 (2%)
Following Too Closely* 23 (2%)
Unsafe Lane Change* 13 (1%)
Improper Passing* 7 (1%)
Hazardous Parking* 6 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic* 3 (<1%)
Brakes* 1 (<1%)
Total Crashes 1,265
Note: *PCF Category representing less than 3% of total crashes FIGURE 4-5 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (2015-2019)

4.8 Roadway User
Table 4-6 and Figure 4-6 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by the roadway user type involved which includes automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and motorcycles. The majority of collisions occurred between automobiles (81%). Non-motorized roadway users were involved in 12% of collisions including bicycles (5%) and pedestrians (9%). 12%
21%
15% 17%
3%
3%
8%
4%
6%
5%
6%
DUI
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Automobile ROW
Pedestrian ROW
Pedestrian Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Other
Unknown / Not Stated
Categories < 3%

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 22
TABLE 4-6 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY ROADWAY USER (2015-2019) ROADWAY USER TOTAL (%)
Automobiles 1,031 (81%)
Motorcycles 63 (5%)
Bicycles 59 (5%)
Pedestrians 112 (9%)
Total Crashes 1,265
FIGURE 4-6 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS BY ROADWAY USER (2015-2019)

4.9 High Injury Risks and Vulnerable Roadway Users
Analysis was conducted for citywide crashes that resulted in fatalities and severe injuries during the study period to identify high injury risk trends and vulnerable roadway users. The number of fatal and severe injury crashes that occurred is a smaller percentage in comparison to the total crash severity, which provide different results from the overall citywide crash data analysis.

Prevalent trends for crash location types, crash types, primary collision factors, roadway users, and nighttime crashes were identified and are discussed in the following sections. Figure 4-7 illustrates where the citywide fatal and severe injury crashes occurred based on roadway user type including automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. 81%
5%
5%
9%
Automobiles
Motorcycles
Bicycles
Pedestrians

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 23
FIGURE 4-7: CITYWIDE FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY CRASHES

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 24

4.9.1 Crash Location
Table 4-7 summarizes the proportion of citywide crashes by severity and location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Key findings for crash locations that are over-represented in resulting in fatal and severe injuries include:
• Signalized intersections had the most total fatal and severe injuries at 27 crashes • Unsignalized intersections had the most fatalities at 42% of 12 crashes • Signalized intersections had the most severe injuries at 46% of 50 crashes Intersection collisions resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries including signalized intersections (1% fatal and 4% severe injury of total collisions but 33% fatal and 46% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions) and unsignalized intersections (1% fatal and 5% severe injury of total collisions but 42% fatal and 40% severe injury of total fatal severe injury collisions). Roadway segment collisions that resulted in fatal and severe injuries were represented in 1% fatal and 3% severe injury of total collisions but 25% fatal and 14% of total fatal and severe injury collisions.

TABLE 4-7 CITYWIDE CRASH SEVERITY BY CRASH LOCATION
CRASH

LOCATION FATAL SEVERE INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT
OF PAIN PDO TOTAL (%)
Signalized
Intersection 4 (1%/33%*) 23 (4%/46%*) 84 (15%) 304 (55%) 136 (25%) 551 (44%/44%*) Unsignalized
Intersection 5 (1%/42%*) 20 (5%/40%*) 80 (18%) 181 (42%) 150 (34%) 436 (34%/40%*) Roadway
Segment 3 (1%/25%*) 7 (3%/14%*) 70 (25%) 117 (42%) 81 (29%) 278 (22%/16%*) Total 12 (1%) 50 (4%) 234 (18%) 602 (48%) 367 (29%) 1,265 Note: *Percentage of total Fatal and Severe Injury collisions

4.9.2 Crash Type
Table 4-8 summarizes the proportion of citywide crash types by severity. Key findings for crash types that are over-represented in resulting in fatal and severe injuries include:
• Top crash types that had the most total fatal and severe injuries include broadside, vehicle / pedestrian, hit object, and rear end
o Broadside at 19 crashes (8% of fatalities and 36% of severe injuries) o Vehicle / Pedestrian at 16 crashes (50% of fatalities and 20% of severe injuries) o Hit Object at 8 crashes (25% of fatalities of 10% of severe injuries) o Rear End at 7 crashes (14% of severe injuries)

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 25
• Vehicle / Pedestrian had the most fatalities at 42% of 12 crashes • Broadside had the most severe injuries at 36% of 50 crashes TABLE 4-8 CITYWIDE CRASH TYPE BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019)

CRASH TYPE FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT
OF PAIN PDO TOTAL (%)
Rear End - 7 (14%) 30 (13%) 194 (32%) 107 (29%) 338 (27%) Broadside 1 (8%) 18 (36%) 67 (29%) 194 (32%) 45 (12%) 325 (26%) Sideswipe - 3 (6%) 21 (9%) 58 (10%) 111 (30%) 193 (15%) Hit Object 3 (25%) 5 (10%) 30 (13%) 37 (6%) 67 (18%) 142 (11%) Head-On 1 (8%) 2 (4%) 28 (12%) 46 (8%) 23 (6%) 100 (8%) Vehicle / Pedestrian 6 (50%) 10 (20%) 33 (14%) 52 (9%) 2 (1%) 103 (8%) Overturned 1 (8%) 4 (8%) 15 (6%) 11 (2%) 2 (1%) 33 (3%) Other / Not Stated - 1 (2%) 10 (4%) 10 (2%) 10 (3%) 31 (2%) Total 12 (1%) 50 (4%) 234 (18%) 602 (48%) 367 (29%) 1,265

4.9.3 Primary Collision Factor
Table 4-9 summarizes the proportion of PCF violation categories by severity. Key findings for PCFs that are over-represented in resulting in fatal and severe injuries include:
• Top PCFs that had the most total fatal and severe injuries include pedestrian violation, unsafe speed, automobile right-of-way, and
o Pedestrian violation at 11 crashes (42% of fatalities and 12% of severe injuries) o Unsafe speed at 9 crashes (8% of fatalities and 16% of severe injuries) o Automobile right-of-way at 8 crashes (16% of severe injuries) o Traffic signal and signs at 6 crashes (12% of severe injuries) • Pedestrian violations had the most fatalities at 42% of 12 crashes • Unsafe speed and automobile right-of-way had the most severe injuries at 16% respectively of 50 crashes

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 26
TABLE 4-9 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019)

PRIMARY COLLISION

FACTOR VIOLATION

CATEGORY

FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT
OF PAIN PDO TOTAL (%)
Unsafe Speed 1 (8%) 8 (16%) 37 (16%) 155 (26%) 62 (17%) 263 (21%) Improper Turning 2 (17%) 3 (6%) 43 (18%) 56 (9%) 115 (31%) 219 (17%) Automobile Right-of-Way - 8 (16%) 33 (14%) 124 (21%) 22 (6%) 187 (15%) Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drugs
- 7 (14%) 27 (12%) 40 (7%) 79 (22%) 153 (12%)
Traffic Signals and Signs - 6 (12%) 22 (9%) 66 (11%) 14 (4%) 108 (9%) Other 2 (17%) 1 (2%) 25 (11%) 36 (6%) 14 (4%) 78 (6%)
Unknown / Not Stated 1 (8%) 3 (6%) 12 (5%) 27 (4%) 17 (5%) 60 (5%) Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 (4%) 5 (2%) 17 (3%) 24 (7%) 48 (4%) Pedestrian Right-of-Way - 2 (4%) 11 (5%) 21 (3%) - 34 (3%) Pedestrian Violation 5 (42%) 6 (12%) 8 (3%) 15 (2%) - 34 (3%) Wrong Side of Road 1 (8%) 4 (8%) 6 (3%) 14 (2%) 3 (1%) 28 (2%) Following Too Closely - - 1 (<1%) 17 (3%) 5 (1%) 23 (2%) Unsafe Lane Change - - 1 (<1%) 8 (1%) 4 (1%) 13 (1%)
Improper Passing - - 1 (<1%) 2 (<1%) 4 (1%) 7 (1%)
Hazardous Parking - - 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%) 4 (1%) 6 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic - - 1 (<1%) 2 (<1%) - 3 (<1%)
Brakes - - - 1 (<1%) - 1 (<1%)
Total Crashes 12 (1%) 50 (4%) 234 (18%) 602 (48%) 367 (29%) 1,265

4.9.4 Vulnerable Roadway Users
Table 4-10 and Figure 4-8 summarize the proportion of roadway user type by severity. Key findings for vulnerable roadway users (VRU) that are over-represented in crashes that resulted in fatal and severe injuries include:
• Top roadway users involved in the most total fatal and severe injury crashes were pedestrians and motorcycles
o Pedestrians (50% of fatalities and 26% of severe injuries) o Motorcycles (8% of fatalities and 34% of severe injuries) • Pedestrians were involved in the most fatalities at 50% of 12 crashes • Motorcycles were involved in the most severe injuries at 34% of 50 crashes • Motorcycles were involved in 5% of total crashes but are over-represented in fatal and severe injuries (8% and 34% respectively), which indicates they are VRUs • Bicyclists were involved in 5% of total crashes but are over-represented in severe injuries (16%), which indicates they are VRUs
• Pedestrians were involved in 9% of total crashes but are over-represented in fatal and severe injuries (50% and 26% respectively), which indicates they are VRUs

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 27
TABLE 4-10 ROADWAY USER BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019)

ROADWAY USER FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT
OF PAIN PDO TOTAL (%)
Automobiles 5 (42%) 12 (24%) 149 (64%) 499 (83%) 366 (99.7%) 1,031 (81%) Motorcycles 1 (8%) 17 (34%) 25 (11%) 20 (3%) - 63 (5%)
Bicycles - 8 (16%) 27 (12%) 23 (4%) 1 (0.3%) 59 (5%)
Pedestrians 6 (50%) 13 (26%) 33 (14%) 60 (10%) - 112 (9%) Total Crashes 12 (1%) 50 (4%) 234 (18%) 602 (48%) 367 (29%) 1,256 FIGURE 4-8 ROADWAY USER BY CRASH SEVERITY (2015-2019)
The majority of automobile crashes resulted in other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only. Of the total property damage only collisions, 99.7% were automobile collisions. Less than 2% of total vehicle crashes resulted in a fatality or severe injury but automobiles crashes represent 42% of total fatal and 24% of total severe injury collisions. The majority of motorcycle crashes resulted in other visible injury or complaint of pain. Motorcycle crashes represent 8% of total fatal and 34% of total severe injury collisions, with 27% of all motorcycle crashes resulted in a severe injury. The majority of bicycle collisions resulted in other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage. Bicycle crashes represent 16% of total severe injury collisions and approximately 14% of all bicycle crashes resulted in a severe injury.

The majority of pedestrian collisions resulted in other visible injury and complaint of pain.

Pedestrian collisions represent 50% of total fatal and 26% of total severe injury collisions.

Approximately 17% of all pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. 42%
24%
64%
83%

99.7% 8% 34%
11%
3%
16%
12%
4%

0.3%
50%
26%
14% 10%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Percentage of Crashes
Crash Severity
Automobiles Motorcycles Bicycles Pedestrians

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 28
Figure 4-9 summarizes the proportion of roadway user type for fatal and severe injury crashes.

Although motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians make up a small percentage of the total crashes (5%, 5%, and 9% respectively), they are over-represented in the number of fatal and severe injuries (29%, 13%, and 31% respectively). Pedestrians were involved in the most total fatal and severe injury crashes. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycle users are more prone to high-risk injury due to the lack of external protective devices that could absorb the impact of a roadway collision. Additionally, the smaller profiles of pedestrians, motorcycles and cyclists make it more difficult for these groups to be seen by vehicular operators FIGURE 4-9 ROADWAY USER BY FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY CRASHES (2015-2019) Figure 4-10 illustrates the location of crashes that involved pedestrians and bicycles citywide.

Figure 4-11 illustrates the location of crashes that involved motorcycles citywide. 31%
13%
29%
27%
Pedestrians
Bicycles
Motorcycles
Automobiles

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 29
FIGURE 4-10: CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CRASHES

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 30
FIGURE 4-11: CITYWIDE MOTORCYCLE CRASHES

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 31
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Number of Crashes
Time Period
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO

4.9.5 Nighttime Crashes
Crashes between 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM were evaluated to identify nighttime crash patterns. A total of 442 of the 1,265 collisions occurred during the time period and Figure 4-10 shows a summary of the total crashes and severity by time of day. Nighttime crash frequency for all severity types was generally higher from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. The most severe crashes (fatal and severe injury) generally occurred from 6:00 PM to 3:00 AM. The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The highest number of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM.

FIGURE 4-12 NIGHTTIME COLLISIONS BY CRASH SEVERITY

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 32

4.10 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Scoring
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) analysis was conducted per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to analyze crash data and evaluate roadway network performance. Crashes were assigned weighting factors relative to property damage only collisions per the crash costs used in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Analyzer and Local Roadway Safety Manual for California Local Road Owners (LRSM). The weighting factor generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal and severe injury collisions versus nonsevere injury collisions. EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:

EPDO Score = (Fatal Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes) + (Severe Injury Weight x Number of Severe Injury Crashes) + (Other Visible Injury Weight x Number of Other Visible Injury Crashes) + (Complaint of Pain Injury Weight x Number of Complaint of Pain Injury Crashes) + Property Damage Only crashes EPDO scoring was conducted for signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and roadway segments. EPDO scores were organized by quintile and displayed graphically by heat maps. The top quintiles identified priority locations with the highest EPDO scores and corresponds with the highest crash frequency and severity. Table 4-13 summarizes the crash cost and EPDO score associated with an individual collision by location type and severity.

Figure 4-10 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections, nonsignalized intersections, and roadway segments.

TABLE 4-11 CRASH WEIGHT BY CRASH SEVERITY AND CRASH LOCATION CRASH

LOCATION

CRASH WEIGHT

FATAL AND

SEVERE INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE INJURY

COMPLAINT OF

PAIN INJURY

PROPERTY

DAMAGE ONLY
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
Signalized
Intersection 123.7 $1.46m
Unsignalized 10.7 $126,500 6.1 $71,900 1 $11,800
Intersection 195.8 $2.31m
Roadway 169.5 $1.46m

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 33

4.10.1 Priority Signalized Intersections
Figure 4-11 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 161.3 to 480
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 87.0 to 161.2
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 54.0 to 86.9
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 31.1 to 53.9
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 31.0

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 34
FIGURE 4-13 CITYWIDE EPDO SCORING

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 35
FIGURE 4-14 CITYWIDE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS EPDO SCORING

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 36
The top two quintile signalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 4-14 and graphically on Figure 4-12. Most of the locations are along arterial corridors with fewer top quintile intersections on lower-order roadways.

TABLE 4-12 TOP QUINTILE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS BY EPDO SCORE

RANK SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EPDO SCORE
1 Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr 480
2 Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr 443.4
3 Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr 361.6
4 El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave 314.8
5 Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr 299
6 University Ave & Baltimore Dr 292.8
7 El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr 196.6
8 Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr 194.2
9 Spring St & Palm Ave 193.7
10 Spring St & Allison Ave 186.1
11 University Ave & Massachusetts Ave 183
12 University Ave & Harbinson Ave/Marian St 161.2
13 University Ave & La Mesa Blvd 157.6
14 University Ave & Yale Ave 140.8
15 Fletcher Pkwy & Trolley Ct 138.3
16 Murray Dr & Wakarusa St 137.8
17 Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Entr #1 136.3
18 Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr 131.7
19 University Ave & Allison Ave 126.6
20 Spring St & University Ave 116.9
21 La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Blvd 101.7
22 Spring St & I-8 EB On Ramp 90.6

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 37
FIGURE 4-15 PRIORITY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Top 20th Percentile Signalized Intersections Top 40th Percentile Signalized Intersections

1. Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr

2. Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr

3. Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr

4. El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave

5. Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr

6. University Ave & Baltimore Dr

7. El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr

8. Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr

9. Spring St & Palm Ave

10. Spring St & Allison Ave

11. University Ave & Massachusetts Ave

12. University Ave & Harbinson Ave/Marian St

13. University Ave & La Mesa Blvd

14. University Ave & Yale Ave

15. Fletcher Pkwy & Trolley Ct

16. Murray Dr & Wakarusa St

17. Murray Dr & Grossmont Center Entr #1

18. Grossmont Center Dr & Healthcare Dr

19. University Ave & Allison Ave

20. Spring St & University Ave

21. La Mesa Blvd & Grossmont Blvd

22. Spring St & I-8 EB On Ramp

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 38

4.10.2 Priority Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 4-13 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for unsignalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 16.9 to 595.5
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 7.2 to 16.8
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 4.1 to 7.1
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.1 to 4.0
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 1.0
The top quintile unsignalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 4-15 and graphically on Figure 4-14. The majority of priority unsignalized intersections are on arterial corridors with fewer top quintile intersections located on lower-order roadways.

TABLE 4-13 TOP QUINTILE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS BY EPDO SCORE

RANK UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EPDO SCORE
1 Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Blvd 595.5
2 Jackson Dr & Nentra St 387.5
3 El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave 275.2
4 Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr 215.6
5 Grossmont Blvd & Wood St 215.1
6 Parkway Dr & Buckland St 214.1
7 La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave 214.1
8 Jackson Dr & Dallas St 209.5
9 Lemon Grove Ave & High St 200.9
10 High St & Costa Bella Dr 200.9
11 Jackson Dr & Madison Ave 200.9
12 Parkway Dr & Guessman Ave 198.3
13 Bancroft Dr & Mariposa St 197.3
14 Marengo Ave & Vincetta Dr 191.2
15 Pomona Ave & W Point Ave 191.2
16 Massachusetts Ave & N Pearson St 191.2
17 Pennsylvania Ln & Colorado Ave 190.2
18 Murray Dr & Nokomis St 190.2
19 Hercules St & Timken St 190.2
20 Culowee St & Clarview Way 190.2
21 La Mesa Blvd & Nebo Dr 190.2
22 Bancroft Dr & Spice St 190.2
23 Baltimore Dr & Lake Park Way 43.7
24 Amaya Dr & Water St 40.7

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 39

RANK UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EPDO SCORE
25 Spring St & Finley Ave 36.6
26 Bancroft Dr & Madison Ave 36.1
27 Massachusetts Ave & Blackton Dr 34.6
28 Lemon Ave & Jackson Dr 34.5
29 Massachusetts Ave & Hoffman Ave 31
30 Palm Ave & Echo Dr 30.5
31 70th St & Colony Rd 29
32 E Center Dr & Health Center Cir 23.9
33 70th St & Bruce Ct 23.9
34 Normal Ave & Schoolridge Ln 23.9
35 Massachusetts Ave & S Pearson St 22.9
36 La Mesa Blvd & Acacia Ave 22.9
37 University Ave & Culowee St 22.9
38 Dallas St & Dalhart Ave 22.4
39 Tower St & Toni Ln 21.4
40 University Ave & Palm Ave 21.4
41 Spring St & Gateside Way/Spring Gardens Rd 21.3
42 Alvarado Rd & Guava Ave 20.3
43 70th St & Adams Ave 18.3
44 Campina Dr & Bari Ct 17.8
45 Massachusetts Ave & Carmenita Rd 17.8
46 Yale Ave & Orien Ave 17.8
47 Normal Ave & Olive Ave 17.8
48 Lemon Ave & Garfield St 17.8

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 40
FIGURE 4-16 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS EPDO SCORING

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 41
FIGURE 4-17 PRIORITY UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Top 20th Percentile Unsignalized Intersections

1. Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Blvd

2. Jackson Dr & Nentra St

3. El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave

4. Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr

5. Grossmont Blvd & Wood St

6. Parkway Dr & Buckland St

7. La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave

8. Jackson Dr & Dallas St

9. Lemon Grove Ave & High St

10. High St & Costa Bella Dr

11. Jackson Dr & Madison Ave

12. Parkway Dr & Guessman Ave

13. Bancroft Dr & Mariposa St

14. Marengo Ave & Vincetta Dr

15. Pomona Ave & W Point Ave

16. Massachusetts Ave & N Pearson St

17. Pennsylvania Ln & Colorado Ave

18. Murray Dr & Nokomis St

19. Hercules St & Timken St

20. Culowee St & Clarview Way

21. La Mesa Blvd & Nebo Dr

22. Bancroft Dr & Spice St

23. Baltimore Dr & Lake Park Way

24. Amaya Dr & Water St

25. Spring St & Finley Ave

26. Bancroft Dr & Madison Ave

27. Massachusetts Ave & Blackton Dr

28. Lemon Ave & Jackson Dr

29. Massachusetts Ave & Hoffman Ave

30. Palm Ave & Echo Dr

31. 70th St & Colony Rd

32. E Center Dr & Health Center Cir

33. 70th St & Bruce Ct

34. Normal Ave & Schoolridge Ln

35. Massachusetts Ave & S Pearson St

36. La Mesa Blvd & Acacia Ave

37. University Ave & Culowee St

38. Dallas St & Dalhart Ave

39. Tower St & Toni Ln

40. University Ave & Palm Ave

41. Spring St & Gateside Way/Spring Gardens Rd

42. Alvarado Rd & Guava Ave

43. 70th St & Adams Ave

44. Campina Dr & Bari Ct

45. Massachusetts Ave & Carmenita Rd

46. Yale Ave & Orien Ave

47. Normal Ave & Olive Ave

48. Lemon Ave & Garfield St

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 42

4.10.3 Priority Roadway Segments
Figure 4-15 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for roadway segments. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 35.2 to 346.2
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 16.9 to 35.1
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 10.8 to 16.8
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.1 to 10.7
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 1.0
The top two quintile roadway segment locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 4- 16 and graphically on Figure 4-16. The majority of the priority roadway segments are arterial corridors with fewer lower-order roadways.

TABLE 4-14 TOP QUINTILE ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY EPDO SCORE

RANK ROADWAY CORRIDOR SEGMENT EPDO SCORE
1 La Mesa Blvd Grossmont Blvd to I-8 EB Ramps 346.2
2 70th St/Lake Murray Blvd Saranac St to Kiowa Dr 268.5 3 El Cajon Blvd 73rd St to Parks Ave 260.8
4 Alvarado Rd 70th St to Comanche/Fletcher Pkwy 229.3
5 La Mesa Blvd Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd 193.7
6 Spring St Lemon Ave to High St 192.2
7 Spring St High St to Palm Ave 176.9
8 Riviera Dr/Gateside Rd High St to Spring St 165.7
9 Laird St Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr 164.7
10 Baltimore Dr Lake Murray Blvd to Parkway Dr 144.9
11 El Cajon Blvd Guava Ave to Baltimore Dr 81.9
12 Parkway Dr Lake Murray Blvd to Baltimore Dr 53.4
13 El Cajon Blvd Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd 46.3
14 Jackson Dr & Lemon Ave La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr 41.2 15 University Ave Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd 37.6
16 Murray Dr Grossmont Center Entr #1 to Grossmont Center Dr 35.1 17 Lake Murray Blvd Baltimore Dr to Cowles Mountain Blvd/Aztec Dr 34.6 18 Fletcher Pkwy Baltimore Dr to Marengo Ave 34.6
19 University Ave Harbison Ave/Marian St to Massachusetts Ave 34 20 Baltimore Dr Fletcher Pkwy to El Cajon Blvd 33.6
21 Fletcher Pkwy Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr 30.5
22 Fletcher Pkwy Bus Ct to Albertson's Dwy Entrance 27.5 23 Center Dr Grossmont Center Entr #6 to Grossmont Center Dr 25.4 24 70th St Tower St to University Ave 23.9

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 43

RANK ROADWAY CORRIDOR SEGMENT EPDO SCORE
25 Lake Murray Blvd El Paso St to Dallas St 21.4
26 La Mesa Blvd University Ave to Normal Ave 21.4
27 High St Waite Dr to Valley View Cir 21.4
28 Mariposa St/Merritt Blvd Upland St to Campo Rd 21.4
29 Boulevard Dr Lois St to Massachusetts Ave 19.8
30 Wellesley St Parkway Dr to Baltimore Dr 17.8

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 44
FIGURE 4-18 ROADWAY SEGMENTS EPDO SCORING

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 45
FIGURE 4-19 PRIORITY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Top 20th Percentile Roadway Segments Top 40th Percentile Roadway Segments

1. La Mesa Blvd: Grossmont Blvd to I-8 EB Ramps

2. 70th St/Lake Murray Blvd: Saranac St to Kiowa Dr

3. El Cajon Blvd: 73rd St to Parks Ave

4. Alvarado Rd: 70th St to Comanche Dr/Fletcher Pkwy

5. La Mesa Blvd: Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd

6. Spring St: Lemon Ave to High St

7. Spring St: High St to Palm Ave

8. Riviera Dr/Gateside Rd: High St to Spring St

9. Laird St: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr

10. Baltimore Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Parkway Dr

11. El Cajon Blvd: Guava Ave to Baltimore Dr

12. Parkway Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Baltimore Dr

13. El Cajon Blvd: Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd

14. Jackson Dr / Lemon Ave: La Mesa Blvd to Bancroft Dr

15. University Ave: Parks Ave to La Mesa Blvd

16. Murray Dr: Grossmont Center Entr #1 to Grossmont Center Dr

17. Lake Murray Blvd: Baltimore Dr to Cowles Mountain Blvd/Aztec Dr

18. Fletcher Pkwy: Baltimore Dr to Marengo Ave

19. University Ave: Harbison Ave/Marian St to Massachusetts Ave

20. Baltimore Dr: Fletcher Pkwy to El Cajon Blvd

21. Fletcher Pkwy: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr

22. Fletcher Pkwy: Bus Ct to Albertson's Dwy Entrance

23. Center Dr: Grossmont Center Entr #6 to Grossmont Center Dr

24. 70th St: Tower St to University Ave

25. Lake Murray Blvd: El Paso St to Dallas St

26. La Mesa Blvd: University Ave to Normal Ave

27. High St: Waite Dr to Valley View Cir

28. Mariposa St/Merritt Blvd: Upland St to Campo Rd

29. Boulevard Dr: Lois St to Massachusetts Ave

30. Wellesley St: Parkway Dr to Baltimore Dr

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 46

4.11 Roadway Characteristics Screening
Roadway characteristic data was obtained for the priority locations determined for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments based on EPDO scoring. Data was collected based on a combination of information provided by the City of La Mesa, an online field assessment of aerial imagery, and field visits. The physical roadway characteristics data that was collected and reviewed is summarized below.

Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Intersection control
• Number of approaches
• Presence of marked crosswalks
• Left-turn and right-turn lane configurations
• Intersection geometry complexity (offset approaches, medians, etc.) Roadway Segments
• Roadway surface
• Roadway geometry complexity (horizontal / vertical curves, etc.) • Number of lanes
• Posted speed limit
• Bike lanes
• Shoulder width
• Median type and width
• Number of unsignalized and signalized traffic control devices • Roadway safety hardware (guardrail, fence, etc.)
The roadway characteristics data was screened with the results of the crash data analysis to identify commonality which, for the purpose of the La Mesa LRSP, was defined as a potential connection or contributing factor for crashes and does not prove causality. The presence of commonality indicates a potential for higher risk crashes among locations with similar physical characteristics. This analysis enables the City to proactively identify locations that may have higher risk for crashes resulting in fatal or severe injuries but are not reflected in the crash data analyzed.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 47
Potential risk factors for intersections and roadway segments based on trends consistent across priority locations is summarized below.

Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Lack of raised medians and exclusive turn lanes
• Side street stop control
• Intersection geometry complexity (at-grade rail crossings, offset approaches, etc.) Roadway Segments
• Roadway geometry complexity (horizontal curves, vertical curves, etc.) • Lack of dedicated bike lanes
• Narrow shoulder width
• Multilane (four or more lanes) roadways without raised medians • Multilane (four or more lanes) roadways with long segments of contiguous two-way left turn lanes
• Significant number of driveways and cross streets.

The roadway characteristic data tables are provided in Appendix C.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 48
5 COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
This section presents a countermeasure toolbox that supports local needs and strategies based on guidance from Vision Zeron in East County, FHWA’s 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, California SHSP, and Caltrans LRSM. The LRSP identifies countermeasures that could be implemented based on the roadway safety needs identified during collision analysis.

Countermeasures were organized based on the 5E’s of traffic safety from the California SHSP:
• Engineering: implementation of infrastructure-oriented safety treatments • Enforcement: enforcement of actions that reduce high-risk behaviors • Education: education of all roadway users on safe behaviors • Emergency Response: improvement of emergency response times and actions • Emerging Technologies: application of emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles, and/or roadway users
In order to supplement local City resources, this LRSP focuses on developing a toolbox of engineering countermeasures and improvements that are eligible for HSIP funding. Future LRSP updates will include increased development of the countermeasure toolbox for nonengineering countermeasures and strategies.

5.1 Engineering
Engineering safety countermeasures were selected based on the results of the crash data analysis and roadway network screening. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the City’s Traffic Calming Toolbox from the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Several of these traffic calming measures are applicable for HSIP funding. Table 5-2 through 5-4 provide a summary of engineering countermeasures for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments consistent with the 2020 Caltrans LRSM (v1.5). A brief summary of each countermeasure is provided based on the LRSM for signalized intersections (S), non-signalized intersections (NS), and roadway segments (R) including countermeasure number, type, name, crash types addressed, crash reduction factor (CRF), HSIP grant funding eligibility, and systemic approach opportunity.

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 49
TABLE 5-1 CITY OF LA MESA TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX

LOCAL TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Education Lateral Shift
Police Presence Chicane
Radar Trailer Semi-Diverter
Police Enforcement Partial-Diverter
Speed Limit Signs Forced Turn Channelization
Speed Limit Pavement Legends Intersection Bulb-Out
Warning Signs Curb Radius Reductions
Turn Restriction Signs Realigned Intersection
Special Signs Roundabout
High Visibility Crosswalks Diagonal Diverter
Narrowing Lanes (Striping) Textured Pavement
Entry Treatment Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle Raised Intersection
Center Island Narrowing Neighborhood Signs
Median Barrier Speed Humps
Mid-Block Choker Speed Tables
Note: Traffic calming measures were developed as part of the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.

Local traffic calming measures highlighted in bold are applicable for HSIP funding.

TABLE 5-2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
CM# TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH

TYPE CRF
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I) Night 40% 100% Medium S03 Signal
Mod.

Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
All 15% 50% Very High
S05 Signal
Mod.

Install emergency vehicle
pre-emption systems
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 100% High
S08 Signal
Mod.

Convert signal to mast arm
(from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 100% Medium
S16 Geometric
Mod.

Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal) All Varies 100% Low
S17PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads P & B 25% 100% Very High
Note: Countermeasures originate from the LRSM. CRF = Crash Reduction Factor

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 50
TABLE 5-3 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
CM# TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH

TYPE CRF
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 100% Low
NS05 Control
Convert intersection to roundabout
(from stop or yield control on
minor road)
All Varies 100% Low
NS06 Operation
/Warning
Install/upgrade larger or additional
stop signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
All 15% 100% Very High
NS07 Operation
/Warning
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings (NS.I.) All 25% 100% Very High
NS11 Operation
/Warning
Improve sight distance to
intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 100% High
NS20
PB
Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (new signs
and markings only)
P & B 25% 100% High
NS21
PB
Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
P & B 35% 100% Medium
NS22
PB
Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 100% Medium
Note: Note: Countermeasures originate from the LRSM.CRF = Crash Reduction Factor TABLE 5-4 ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTERMEASURES
CM# TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH

TYPE CRF
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 100% Medium R04
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Guardrail All 25% 100% High
R05
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install impact attenuators All 25% 100% High
R14 Geometric
Mod.

Road Diet (Reduce travel
lanes from 4 to 3 and add a
two way left-turn and bike
lanes)
All 30% 90% Medium
R23 Operation/Wa
rning
Install chevron signs on
horizontal curves All 40% 100% Very High
R24 Operation/Wa
rning
Install curve advance warning
signs All 25% 100% Very High
R28 Operation/Wa
rning
Install edge-lines and
centerlines All 25% 100% Very High
R32PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 90% High

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 51
CM# TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH

TYPE CRF
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
R34PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 90% Medium
R35PB Ped and Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced
safety features)
P & B 35% 90% Medium
Note: Note: Countermeasures originate from the LRSM. CRF = Crash Reduction Factor Appendix D provides detailed information for each engineering countermeasure including:
• Countermeasure description
• Example image
• Description of where to use the countermeasure
• Description of why the countermeasure works
• Caltrans HSIP countermeasure reference
• Funding eligibility
• Crash types addressed
• Crash reduction factor (CRF)
• Expected design life
• Planning-level cost estimate

5.2 Enforcement
The following enforcement strategies and programs have been presented to reduce high-risk behaviors and reflect feedback received from the La Mesa Police Department. • California OTS Grants:

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement include: Alcohol Impaired Driving, Distracted Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Police Traffic Services, and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records. Priority program areas related to enforcement include:
o Alcohol Impaired Driving
o Distracted Driving
o Drug-Impaired Driving
o Police Traffic Services

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 52
• Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Enforcement-related campaigns include:
o Distracted Driving
o Drunk Driving
o Law Enforcement Appreciation
o Seat Belts
o Speed Prevention
Figure 5-1 illustrates the primary collision factors for crashes citywide that occurred during the study period. The most common collision factors were unsafe speed (21%), improper turning (17%), automobile right-of-way violations (15%), and driving under the influence (12%).

Targeted hotspot enforcement for these PCF’s is recommended.

FIGURE 5-1 CITYWIDE PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (2015-2019) Unsafe speed is a critical PCF, as studies by the USDOT, FHWA, and NHTSA indicate that the consequences extend far beyond breaking traffic laws. Speeding has been linked to an increase in the degree of crash severity, which has led to more fatal and severe injuries, a greater potential 1 3
6 7
13 23
28 34
34 48
60 78
108
153
187
219
263
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Brakes
Impeding Traffic
Hazardous Parking
Improper Passing
Unsafe Lane Change
Following Too Closely
Wrong Side of Road
Pedestrian ROW
Pedestrian Violation
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unknown / Not Stated
Other
Traffic Signals and Signs
DUI
Automobile ROW
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 53
for loss of vehicle control, reduced effectiveness of occupant protection equipment, and reduce driver field of vision.

Illustrated to the right is an image from the USDOT study “The Effects of Higher Speed Limits on Traffic Fatalities In the United States”, which demonstrates that higher speeds quickly reduce a driver’s field of vision. This impacts the ability to see vulnerable roadway users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, and reduces driver ability to react and avoid crashes.

Illustrated on the following page is an image from the USDOT study “Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries”, which demonstrates the relation between the pedestrian survival rate in a motor vehicle crash in relation to vehicular speed. A pedestrian struck by a vehicle driving at 20 miles per hour (MPH) has a 90% chance of surviving the collision, whereas a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 40 MPH has a 20% chance of surviving the collision. The USDOT study found that pedestrian survivability in relation to vehicle speeds are exponential rather than linear. Roadway safety enforcement of vehicle speeding must be balanced with the use of speed as a key mobility performance metric, especially for emergency response.

Improper turning includes drivers making unsafe left-turns, right-turns, and u-turns. This creates hazards as vehicles do not properly yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, watch for cyclists in bicycle lanes, check for blind spots, or cannot see oncoming traffic properly at night or when sunlight is very bright. Automobile right-of-way violations involve vehicles making maneuvers without respecting the right-of-way of another vehicle. Strategies for addressing roadway behaviors such

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 54
as improper turning and automobile right-of-way violations were included in both the Education and Enforcement report sections.

Driving under the influence of alcohol and / or drugs is one of the biggest and deadliest threats to public safety on roadways and has become a national epidemic. Use of these substances can inhibit driving ability, creating hazardous conditions for both the driver and adjacent roadway users. Due to the preventable nature, education campaigns to shift social norms combined with enforcement strategies have proven most effective by NHTSA studies. Strategies for addressing DUIs were included in both the Education and Enforcement report sections.

5.3 Education
The City of La Mesa has several programs in place that provide the public with roadway safety information and training including:
• La Mesa Safe Routes to School (SRTS): In partnership
with WalkSanDiego and with support from the County of
San Diego Health and Human Services Agency and La
Mesa-Spring Valley School District, the City implemented the La Mesa Kids Walk & Roll to School SRTS program at
eight La Mesa elementary and middle schools. The
program included 5E’s:
o Education: Teaching children and adults about the
broad range of transportation choices, instructing
them in important lifelong bicycling and walking safety skills, and driver safety campaigns in the vicinity of schools
o Encouragement: Using events and activities to promote walking and bicycling and to generate enthusaism for the program with students, parents, staff, and the surrounding community
o Engineering: Creating operational and physical improvements to the infrastructure surrounding schools that reduces speed and potential conflicts with motor vehicle traffic, and establishes safer and fully acessible crossings, walkways, trails, and bikeways
o Enforcement: Partnering with local law enforcement to ensure that traffic laws are obeyed in the vicinity of schools, enforcing speed limits, ensuring drivers yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and initiating community enforcement such as crossing guard programs and student safety patrols
o Evaluation: Monitoring and documenting outcomes, attitudes, and trends through the collection of data before and after the SRTS program interventions

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 55
• La Mesa Walks!: In partnership with the La Mesa Park and Recreation Foundation, the City hosts a community walking group on Wednesday mornings. Friends and neighbors throughout La Mesa and surrounding communities walk along the La Mesa Urban Trails, which include three different routes that are marked with colored markers based on level:
o The Stroll: 1 mile beginner route with flat terrain
o The Stride: 5 mile intermediate route with slight hills o The Challenge: 3.5 miles advanced route with hills and steps • Active Bike Safety Workshops and Community Bicycle Rodeos:

In partnership with the La Mesa Police Department, the City has hosted a variety of active bike safety workshops and bike rodeos to teach local students and community members safe bicycling behavior and rules of the road. Participants are provided an opportunity to learn and practice bike skills. This includes how to perform a bike safety check and maneuvering for quick stops, quick turns, dodging and riding over roadway obstacles, weaving, scanning, and signaling.

Additional education strategies that the City may consider including in the future are:
• Local Public Safety Campaigns
Public safety campaigns provide opportunities to partner with local schools, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and emergency responders to promote awareness and education to communities to improve safety.
o Community Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Training
o The Neighbors Together Program
o Walk / Bike Assessments
• Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Education-related campaigns include:
o Bicycle Safety
o Child Safety
o Motorcycle Safety

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 56
o Older Drivers
o Pedestrian Safety
o Seat Belts
o School Bus Safety
o Teen Safety
o Vehicle Safety

5.4 Emergency Response
The following emergency response strategies and programs can improve safety and emergency response times and reflect feedback received from the Heartland Fire and Rescue. • Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
This program helps train members of the community to be better prepared to respond to emergency situations. The program entails disaster preparedness, small fire suppression, basic disaster medical operations, and light search and rescue operations. • Caltrans LRSM Countermeasure S5: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
This countermeasure is eligible for 100% grant funding through the Caltrans HSIP and is used for installing and/or upgrading existing emergency vehicle preemption systems at signalized intersections to address crashes involving emergency vehicles. This countermeasure can be utilized for both traditional infrared (IR) transmitter systems that rely on line-of-sight between traffic signals and emergency response vehicles and for global positioning system (GPS) systems which can transmit emergency vehicle speed, direction, and turn signal status to traffic signals to provide more efficient clearance of intersections along the route, improve response times, and eliminate traffic operations issues on coordinated corridors due to use of illegal emitters. • California OTS Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. Priority program areas related to emergency response include:
o Motorcycle Safety
o Occupant Protection
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 57
o Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing
• Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Emergency response-related campaigns include:
o First Responder Safety
o Vehicle Safety
o Child Safety
o Seat Belts

5.5 Emerging Technologies
The California SHSP identifies emerging technologies as the use of technology to prevent, identify, and respond to collisions. Emerging technology strategies includes exploring technology advancements that are new or underutilized to potentially reduce frequency or severity of collisions. Emerging technologies can be applied to roadways, vehicles, and / or users.

The City of La Mesa is exploring emerging technologies such as smart intersections and intelligent transportation systems to improve roadway safety. Other examples of emerging technologies to consider include autonomous and connected vehicles, future vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication that will connect all roadway users with the intent to eliminate human error and collisions, the use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) for cars, bikes, or scooters, advancements to safety devices in vehicles, mobile applications, improvements to emergency response from drones and roadway videos.

The SHSP identifies 6 general categories for emerging technologies in transportation safety:
• Alerting Drivers at Risk: Technology that can alert drivers at risk, can reduce the risk by monitoring speed or blinds spots, and alert drivers to the situation with a visual or audible alert so that drivers can act accordingly
• Assisting Drivers at Risk: Technology that can assist a driver at risk when a collision is imminent. An example of this is lane keeping assist, which helps drivers stay in the designated lane by alerting them through a visual, audible, or tactile warning when they begin to depart from the lane.
• Protecting Vehicle Occupants: Technology upgrades by vehicle manufacturers to improve safety features in seatbelts, airbags, and vehicle structure features are an important factor in injury severity and fatality during collisions

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 58
• Communicating with Drivers and the Environment: Communication between drivers and their environment is a support to alerting drivers to risk and then assisting them. This can fall in several categories, Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) such a blind spot detection, Vehicleto-Infrastructure (V2I) such as a roadway conditions warning alerting drivers to a collision ahead, and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) such as a forward collision warning alerting a driver to a pedestrian in the crosswalk ahead
• Vehicle Performing as Designed: It is important that once vehicles enter the roadway they perform as designed for their full lifespan. This can be done through vehicle upkeep, maintenance and vehicle record keeping. A supporting technology for vehicle upkeep is many cars have an oil change indicator light, which alerts drivers to a potential need to do an oil change after so many miles
• Mobile Technology and Applications: Examples include driving apps which restrict texting and mobile application use may reduce distracted driving and TNC applications may reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 59
6 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Various safety projects were evaluated based on local roadway needs, City of La Mesa capital improvement priorities, the results of the crash data analysis and roadway network screening, stakeholder feedback, and the countermeasure toolbox. To supplement local funds in implementing roadway safety projects, priority projects identified are eligible for HSIP grant funding. Development included a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis based on the HSIP Analyzer or HSIP funding set aside category, for which a BCR is not required. Priority projects that address pedestrian and bicycle fatalities previously identified on Figure 4-10 are also noted. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the priority projects.

TABLE 6-1 PRIORITY PROJECTS

PRIORITY PROJECT
Citywide Bike Lanes – Set Aside
SA: Bike Safety Improvements
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
• Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Ave (F1) – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave (F3/F4) – Current HSIP Grant (Under Construction) SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Murray Dr & Wakarusa St – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Palm Ave & Lemon Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• University Ave & Palm Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• University Ave & Pine Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
• Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr (F2) – Current HSIP Grant S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads • Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr (F5) – Current HSIP Grant
S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads • Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr (F6) – Current HSIP Grant S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing – BCR 9.17
S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval – BCR 9.37
S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 60

PRIORITY PROJECT
Jackson Dr Bike Lanes – BCR 16.97
R32PB: Install Bike Lanes
Citywide Guardrail Upgrades – Set Aside
SA: Guardrail Upgrades
Citywide Installation of Edgelines – Set Aside
SA: Edgelines
Citywide EVPE System Upgrades – 11.71
S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Appendix E provides detailed priority project summaries including:
• LRSM Countermeasure Description
• Project Description
• Map and Table of Project Locations
• Crash Analysis Summary by Severity, Collision Type, and Collision Factor • Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Construction Items
• Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right-of-Way (ROW), and Construction (CON) phases
• Total Expected Benefit
• Total Project Cost
• BCR Analysis

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 61
7 IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION
The process for implementing the La Mesa LRSP, evaluating the application of the countermeasure toolbox and priority projects, and recommendations for future LRSP report updates are described in the following section.

7.1 Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP demonstrates the City of La Mesa’s commitment to proactively addressing safety needs. Priority projects will be implemented based on current City needs, local resources, and available HSIP and other roadway safety infrastructure and non-infrastructure grant funding opportunities. Private development should also contribute to implementation of safety countermeasures, where appropriate. Implementation will include a combination of a systemic approach, spot location approach for priority EPDO locations, and a comprehensive approach that addresses the 5E’s of traffic safety: engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. When applicable, it is recommended to incorporate safety countermeasures with new development projects.

7.2 Evaluation
Following the implementation of priority projects and application of countermeasures, the City will evaluate the success of LRSP strategies based on Section 7 of the Caltrans LRSM for Evaluation of Improvements. A database will be developed to track countermeasure installations, crash history, and field assessments on an annual basis. Feedback from the public, safety partners and City maintenance crews should be included in the evaluation.

Effective monitoring of the success of a project should take place after a project has been implemented for 3 to 5 years to ensure sufficient crash data for before / after studies and to reduce the effect of the random nature of roadway crashes. The before / after studies should compare crash data and community feedback on the safety countermeasure being evaluated.

This will help the City monitor the progress of this document’s implementation and determine if strategies are effective or if other safety improvements may be necessary and appropriate.

The evaluation should also track whether the City’s LRSP goals are being met.

7.3 Future LRSP Updates
The La Mesa LRSP is considered a living document and must be updated every five (5) years at a minimum for the City to maintain compliance with Caltrans HSIP eligibility requirements. It is recommended that the City update the LRSP every two (2) years to maintain alignment with the standard Caltrans HSIP call-for-projects and LRSM updates. This will ensure the most

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 62
competitive benefit cost ratios (BCRs) for any HSIP grant applications that the City may pursue.

This will also allow the City to ensure the LRSP continually reflects the most recent crash data, crash trends, countermeasures, and BCR calculations. Between LRSP updates, City staff should continue to monitor crashes, identify locations with high crash frequency and severity, match locations with the countermeasure toolbox, and implement projects in coordination with the City’s current CIP and development opportunities. Future updates should also revisit the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals based on evaluation of safety projects and programs that were implemented and evaluated during the current LRSP.
8 CONCLUSION
The City’s vision for road safety is to create a safe and sustainable transportation system for all users, reduce fatal and serious injuries, and improve people’s lives by creating a culture that promotes and implements strategies that advance the La Mesa zero-death vision. The LRSP goals to support the vision include:
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe injuries crashes to zero by 2025 • Create a safe travel experience for all roadway users • Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements where safety is a concern • Decrease the number of roadway collisions
• Implement proven safety countermeasures systemically to reduce fatal and severe crashes • Expand and support existing programs that focus on educating the community on safety and implementing traffic calming features
• Continue coordination with safety partner
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) performance was measured per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and the crash costs used in the HSIP Analyzer and Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners. EPDO scores were calculated for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments and the top quintiles were determined for priority locations.

Top 10 Priority Signalized Intersections

1. Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr

2. Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr

3. Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr

4. El Cajon Blvd & Guava Ave

5. Grossmont Center Dr & Center Dr

6. University Ave & Baltimore Dr

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 63

7. El Cajon Blvd & Baltimore Dr

8. Grossmont Center Dr & Murray Dr

9. Spring St & Palm Ave

10. Spring St & Allison Ave
Top 10 Priority Unsignalized Intersections

1. Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Blvd

2. Jackson Dr & Nentra St

3. El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave

4. Fletcher Pkwy & Old Baltimore Dr

5. Grossmont Blvd & Wood St

6. Parkway Dr & Buckland St

7. La Mesa Blvd & Guava Ave

8. Jackson Dr & Dallas St

9. Lemon Grove Ave & High St

10. High St & Costa Bella Dr
Top 10 Priority Roadway Segments

1. La Mesa Blvd: Grossmont Blvd to I-8 EB Ramps

2. 70th St/Lake Murray Blvd: Saranac St to Kiowa Dr

3. El Cajon Blvd: 73rd St to Parks Ave

4. Alvarado Rd: 70th St to Comanche/Fletcher Pkwy

5. La Mesa Blvd: Jackson Dr to Grossmont Blvd

6. Spring St: Lemon Ave to High St

7. Spring St: High St to Palm Ave

8. Riviera Dr/Gateside Rd: High St to Spring St

9. Laird St: Marengo Ave to Jackson Dr

10. Baltimore Dr: Lake Murray Blvd to Parkway Dr

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 64
A countermeasure toolbox was developed for implementation of citywide systemic improvements and EPDO priority locations for the 5E’s of traffic safety which include:
• Engineering: implementation of infrastructure-oriented safety treatments • Enforcement: enforcement of actions that reduce high-risk behaviors • Education: education of all roadway users on safe behaviors • Emergency Response: improvement of emergency response times and actions • Emerging Technologies: application of emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles, and/or roadway users
To maximize City resources, this LRSP focused on identifying engineering countermeasures from the LRSM for HSIP-eligible improvements for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Future updates to the LRSP will establish countermeasures and strategies for the other E’s of traffic safety.

Signalized Intersection Countermeasures:

S01: Add intersection lighting (Signalized =>S.I.)
S03: Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S05: Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) S16: Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures:

NS01: Add intersection lighting (NS.1)
NS02: Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) NS03: Install signals
NS05: Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road)
NS06: Install / upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning / regulatory signs
NS07: Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I)
NS11: Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) NS20: Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only)

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 65
NS21PB: Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Roadway Segment Countermeasures:

R01: Add segment lighting
R04: Install guardrail
R05: Install impact attenuators
R14: Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) R23: Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
R24: Install curve advance warning signs
R28: Install edge-lines and centerlines
R32PB: Install bike lanes
R34PB: Install sidewalk / pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) R35PB: Install / upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) The City evaluated potential safety projects based on a comparison of local roadway needs, the crash data and roadway network screening results, and the countermeasure toolbox. Priority projects that would be eligible for Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding were identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis based on the HSIP analyzer or HSIP funding set aside category, for which a BCR is not required. Priority projects that address pedestrian and bicycle fatalities previously identified on Figure 4-10 of the citywide crash data analysis were also identified. • Citywide Bike Lanes – Set-Aside
SA: Bike Safety Improvements
• Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
• Lake Murray Blvd & Marengo Ave (F1) – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• El Cajon Blvd & Jessie Ave (F3/F4) – Current HSIP Grant (Under Construction) SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Murray Dr & Wakarusa St – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Palm Ave & Lemon Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• University Ave & Palm Ave – Set Aside

LA MESA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 66
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• University Ave & Pine Ave – Set Aside
SA: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
• Fletcher Pkwy & Baltimore Dr (F2) – Current HSIP Grant S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads • Fletcher Pkwy & Jackson Dr (F5) – Current HSIP Grant
S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads • Fletcher Pkwy & Grossmont Center Dr (F6) – Current HSIP Grant S8/S17PB: Signal Timing Improvements/Pedestrian Countdown Heads • Citywide Protected Left Turn Phasing – BCR 9.17
S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) • Spring St Leading Pedestrian Interval – BCR 9.37
S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) • Jackson Dr Bike Lanes – BCR 16.97
R32PB: Install bike lanes
• Citywide Guardrail Upgrades – Set Aside
SA: Guardrail Upgrades
• Citywide Installation of Edgelines – Set Aside
SA: Edgelines
• Citywide EVPE System Upgrades – 11.71
As funding opportunities arise from grant programs, local funds, and development projects, planned improvements should be considered for application of the La Mesa LRSP countermeasure toolbox. The La Mesa LRSP is considered a living document and should be updated as roadway conditions change and new data becomes available. City staff should continue to monitor crashes, identify locations with high crash frequency and severity, match locations with the countermeasure toolbox, and implement projects in coordination with the City’s current CIP and development opportunities. Future updates should also revisit the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals based on evaluation of safety projects and programs that were implemented and evaluated during the current LRSP.

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

Location:

March 26, 2024, 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California

Present: Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Laura Lothian
Councilmember Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Colin Parent
Councilmember Jack Shu
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
Assistant City Manager Amanda Lee
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
_____________________________________________________________________

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

The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.

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

1.1 INVOCATION - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.

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

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

2 There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.

5. PRESENTATION

5.1 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION PRESENTED TO SONJA BELLA FOR HER "BRACELETS FOR BANCROFT" COMMUNITY

FUNDRAISER EFFORTS
Mayor Arapostathis presented a Certificate of Recognition to Sonja Bella Hans for her community-minded project, "Bracelets for Bancroft," which raised $800 to aid in the January 22, 2024, flood recovery efforts at Bancroft Elementary School.

Truth praised Sonja Bella Hans for her fundraising efforts.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Joseph Cryer spoke regarding remote public comment.

Gene Carpenter spoke regarding remote public comment.

Janet Castanos spoke regarding leadership skills.

Wendy Mihalic spoke regarding the Harry Griffen Regional Park Joint Powers Agreement Governing Board's approval of the purchase of two diesel engine mowers.

Dianne Osterling spoke in support of Item 10 and on behalf of Mairs Ryan regarding remote public comment.

Truth spoke regarding remote public comment.

Mairs Ryan submitted a comment regarding remote public comment.

George Jiracek submitted a comment regarding remote public comment.

Christopher Glenn submitted a comment regarding remote public comment.

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

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
Truth spoke on Items 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4.

Dianne Osterling spoke on Items 9.2 and 9.4.

Wendy Mihalic spoke on behalf of David Harris on Item 9.4.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

3 (Items 9.1 through 9.4)
City Clerk Wiegelman stated a scrivener's error was identified in Item 9.4. The staff report and Attachment A showed 175 units of newly permitted housing (Building Permits Issued). The number of newly permitted housing should have read 217 units. An errata was prepared and published to the agenda to reflect the identified error and correction to the staff report and Attachment A.

Moved By Councilmember Parent
Seconded By Councilmember Shu
Approve Consent Calendar Items 91. through 9.4.

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

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

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.

9.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2024
Approve.

9.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH ECS IMAGING, INC. TO TRANSITION THE CITY’S

ELECTRONIC CONTENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE (ECMS) FROM

ON-PREMISE SERVER TO THE CLOUD AND PROVIDE ANNUAL

MAINTENANCE AND RELATED SERVICES
Resolution No. 2024-029
Adopt Resolution.

9.4 ACCEPT THE 2023 ANNUAL REPORT - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

GENERAL PLAN AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO TRANSMIT THE

REPORT TO THE STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Approve.

10. STAFF REPORT

4 10.1 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 CONGRESSIONALLY

DIRECTED SPENDING
Assistant City Manager Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the recommended projects for the federal grant application, including the requested amount for each project.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Truth spoke on the projects recommended for the federal grant application.

Resolution No. 2024-030
Moved By Councilmember Shu
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
Approve Resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for Fiscal Year 2025 Congressionally Directed Spending.

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

11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
Truth spoke on the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).

The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.

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

13. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.

14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m.
_________________________

5 City Clerk

DATE: April 9, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DIRECTING REVIEW OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
The Political Reform Act requires every local agency to review its Conflict of Interest Code every even-numbered year to ensure that it is accurate and current. The attached resolution directs staff to review the Conflict of Interest Code for possible amendments.

It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution directing review of the City of La Mesa Conflict of Interest Code.

Attachment

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA DIRECTING

REVIEW OF THE CITY OF LA MESA CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE ___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Government Code Section 87306.5 requires that no later than July 1 of each even-numbered year the City Council shall direct staff to review the Conflict of Interest Code for possible amendments; and
WHEREAS, this review must be completed and submitted to the City Council prior to October 1.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa that the City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and City Manager, on behalf of City staff, all departments of the City and designated City boards, commissions and committees, are hereby directed to review the Conflict of Interest Code for possible amendments.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of April 2024, 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. 2024- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

DATE: April 9, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Manager, Greg Humora
Chief of Police, Raymond Sweeney
FROM: Leroy Johnson, Community Police Oversight Board Chair SUBJECT: 2023 Community Police Oversight Board Annual Report ______________________________________________________________________ Overview
The La Mesa Community Police Oversight Board (CPOB) was established by ordinance in 2020 with the addition of Municipal Code Chapter 2.30. The purpose of the CPOB is to serve as a liaison between the community and the La Mesa Police Department (LMPD) on matters of public safety and to advise the Chief of Police (Chief), Mayor, City Council, and City Manager on the administration of public safety duties within the City.

This work includes but is not limited to:
● Directing and reviewing audits of internal investigations, ● Reviewing and recommending policies, practices, and programs, ● Promoting and encouraging open communication and cooperation between LMPD and residents, and
● Informing the community of its rights and responsibilities regarding the complaint and conflict resolution process involving LMPD officers.

The work of the CPOB is designed to affirm the LMPD’s ongoing commitment to policing that is fair, impartial, and objective in meeting the needs of the City and its residents.

Membership
The CPOB consists of eleven voting members who are current City residents. The categories of representation are:
● A representative from each of the four police beats
● A representative from each of the four communities: faith-based, business, young adult (18-30 years of age), and older adult (62+ years of age) ● Representatives from Helix Charter High School and the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District

● An advocate for people experiencing homelessness, substance abuse, mental health, or other social issues
Introduction
The CPOB is tasked with a number of responsibilities that include working with the City and the Chief to make recommendations regarding LMPD policies, procedures, and practices. These duties include recommendations for training programs, hiring, promotions, internal investigations, de-escalation training, in-service training, and other areas of policing appropriate for review. Over the past year, the CPOB has worked to develop and maintain productive working relationships with LMPD Command Staff, the La Mesa Police Officers’ Association (POA), the City, and community stakeholders to support its mission. As reflected in the following section, the CPOB has focused its efforts on ensuring that the community is represented in decisions that influence LMPD operations. The CPOB has and will continue to maintain a dialogue with the Chief and LMPD Command Staff, the Independent Police Auditor (IPA), and the CPOB counsel to continue this work.

Summary of 2023 Accomplishments
The CPOB has worked with the City Manager’s Office and LMPD to develop an Annual Workplan to organize its workload and ensure compliance with the Municipal Code.

The CPOB achieved the following accomplishments during 2023:

1. Ongoing collection of baseline data through an informal survey to assess information to measure community perceptions about the LMPD and subsequently compare this information over time. Presentation of survey results to date given at the September 20, 2023 CPOB meeting.

2. Participation on selection panels to interview candidates for LMPD command staff positions including Captain and Lieutenant.

3. Continuation of ongoing continuing education for all CPOB members on matters related to:
 Confidentiality of Police-related records
 LMPD Policies and Procedures
 Community Oriented Policing
 Emergency Operations and Communications
 LMPD hiring practices and employee wellness
 Workshops and seminars presented by the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)
 Brown Act and Roberts Rules of Order

4. Dissemination of an internship application and program for youth ages 16-22.

5. Dissemination of information to the public regarding access to the complaint process form and flow chart.

6. Collaboration with the IPA to develop a quarterly reporting process.

7. Collection of research on various crime prevention and social service strategies.

8. Participation in the Chief’s community outreach efforts by promoting the series of Community Conversations to residents and stakeholders.

9. Continued work of three subcommittees to develop reports and offer recommendations that are focused on:
a) Community Policing and Outreach
b) Hiring Practices, Promotions, and Officer Wellness Programs c) Policies, Operations and Training

10. Development and approval of the 2023 Annual Report to City Council, Chief, City Manager, and IPA.
2024 Work Plan
Over the next year, the CPOB plans to continue building upon its successful foundation by pursuing additional opportunities to partner with the LMPD towards achievement of the following:

1. Continue working with the Chief to engage in the LMPD hiring process whenever possible. Offer recommendations to the Chief regarding the hiring processes, procedures, exams, and interview questions.

2. Provide recommendations on officer trainings, procedures, and policies including alternative social service and crime-prevention policies and strategies.

3. Work with the Chief, LMPD, and subject matter experts to analyze data submitted to the Department of Justice through the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). Utilize this data, along with supplemental information received through the CPOB’s survey, to make informed recommendations to the Chief regarding best practices.

4. Collaborate with the IPA to review audits of LMPD investigations on a quarterly basis and ensure the adopted complaint manual is accessible to the community.

5. Receive ongoing training and updates regarding various aspects of police work; participate in ride-alongs and other hands-on training opportunities to understand policing procedures and laws that will inform the CPOB’s role in making recommendations to the Chief.

6. Promote the CPOB intern application process and select an intern for the Youth Internship Program.

7. Work with the Chief and POA to promote the mediation program. Work with the IPA, City staff, the Chief, and the POA to select an unbiased mediator for the mediation program.

8. Engage with members of the media and City leaders to showcase various new and valuable programs of the LMPD. Assist and recommend in identifying and developing programs for greater community outreach to schools, non-profits, faith communities, and other local groups. Work with the City to review, evaluate, and implement outreach and messaging strategies that showcase the work of the CPOB and the LMPD.

9. Explore opportunities for recommending improvements to employee wellness, especially as it relates to mental health and stress, and address community public safety concerns regarding health and wellness of the public.

10. Work with the Chief to review and implement trainings such as implicit bias and age-appropriate interactions provided to LMPD and to the CPOB.

11. Provide semi-annual and annual reports to the City Council and City Manager.

CPOB Ad-Hoc Subcommittees
In 2023, three Ad-Hoc Subcommittees were established to offer recommendations on key areas of emphasis of the CPOB. The three added ad-hoc subcommittees are:
● CPOB Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Community Policing and Outreach ● CPOB Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Hiring Practices, Promotions and Officer Wellness Programs
● CPOB Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Policies, Operations and Training In 2023, the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Policies, Operations and Training conducted meetings with representatives from the POA to continue working on a mediation policy.

The meetings, facilitated by City staff, were productive and the new mediation policy was approved by City Council in 2023.

Moving forward, the three ad-hoc subcommittees will convene meetings in 2024 and continue to work in their areas of emphasis. Future subcommittee reports will be included in the Annual Report as necessary.

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 9, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER NO. 4 TO PORTILLO CONCRETE, INC. FOR
BID 23-04, ANNUAL CONCRETE MAINTENANCE

PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 4 to Portillo Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $73,644.51 for Bid 23-04, Annual Concrete Maintenance Project?
Recommendation:

Approve the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 4 to Portillo Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $73,644.51 for Bid 23-04, Annual Concrete Maintenance Project.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds are available in the following capital improvement accounts as shown below:

CCO-4 TO PORTILLO CONCRETE, INC. FOR BID 23-04, ANNUAL CONCRETE MAINTENANCE

PROJECT

FUND SOURCE ACCOUNT AMOUNT

REQUESTED
AMOUNT

AVAILABLE
TransNet - Repair, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk & Ramps 24 302-2241TR $59,712.40 $76,109.36 HUTA - Street Improvements 22 302-2227FT $13,932.11 $63,980.00 TOTAL $73,644.51 $140,089.36

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.  Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.  Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.

BACKGROUND:

On September 12, 2023, a construction contract for Bid 23-04, Annual Concrete Maintenance Project, 1st renewal option, was awarded to Portillo Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $223,693.99. There have been three contract change orders executed.

Contract Change Order No. 1 for $15,870 was issued on January 9, 2024, and included the following:

1. Repair of 310 SF street panel on Cinnabar Street

2. Removal and replacement of a D-25 Curb Outlet
Contract Change Order No. 2 for $16,400 was issued on February 6, 2024, and included the following:

1. Removal of 1,200 SF of existing sidewalk, ramp, driveway, cross gutter

2. Installation of 800 SF of concrete sidewalk

3. Installation of 100 SF of concrete driveway
Contract Change Order No. 3 is for $16,396.96 was issued on March 21, 2024 and included:

1. Removal of 90 LF of existing concrete curb and gutter

2. Removal of 552 SF of existing sidewalk, ramp, driveway, cross gutter

3. Installation of 90 LF of 6-inch concrete curb and gutter

4. Installation of 322 SF of concrete driveway
DISCUSSION:

During the construction of the Annual Concrete Maintenance Project, additional locations of concern were identified by the City. New locations included restoration of concrete after emergency sewer repairs, new and updated ADA ramp access, additional damaged sidewalk, and restoration of poorly draining curb and gutter.

To address the additional locations of concern, the City decided to actively repair and restore the public ROW to provide safe, comfortable, and smooth pedestrian access. As a result, additional costs have been incurred, necessitating a change order to address new and continual restoration and maintenance of City Infrastructure.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 4 to Portillo Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $73,644.51 for Bid 23-04, Annual Concrete Maintenance Project.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ __________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Tristan Leger__________________
Tristan Leger
Assistant Engineer
Attachments: A. Resolution Approving CCO-4 to Portillo Concrete, Inc.

B. Contract Change Order 4 Quantity’s Portillo Concrete, Inc.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 FOR THE ANNUAL
CONCRETE MAINTENANCE PROJECT, BID 23-04, TO PORTILLO
CONCRETE, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the Annual Concrete Maintenance Project is a crucial project providing repairs to tripping hazards and dangerous concrete, essential in the City’s continuous efforts to provide excellent ADA compliance, and providing pedestrians safe and walkable Public access; WHEREAS, on September 12, 2023, a contract was awarded to Portillo Concrete, Inc. to provide construction services for the Annual Concrete Maintenance Project; WHEREAS, the City identified additional locations of concern in need of restoration and repair after the contract was awarded; and
WHEREAS, Administrative Instruction F-13 requires approval by the City Council for Public Works construction change orders over $25,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is hereby authorized and instructed to execute for and on behalf of said City, Contract Change Order No. 4 for additional construction services between the City of La Mesa and Portillo Concrete, Inc., in an amount of $73,644.51 for the Annual Concrete Maintenance Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of April 2024, 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. 2024- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council on said date and by the vote therein recited.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

RE Contract: Date:

P.O. No.:

No.
1 1
2 2
3 3
5 5
6 6
8 8
The time provided for the contract is
Therefore, the revised contract time is working days, and the revised completion date is
$ 3,000.18
$ 17,732.46
$ 9,997.50
$ 23,026.50
$ 14,512.77
Remove Existing Curb and Gutter
Remove Existing Sidewalk, Curb Ramp, Cross Gutter, and Driveway 4/29/2024
I, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT, have given careful consideration to the changes proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefore the price shown above.

Michael Throne, Director of Public
Works
Greg Humora, City Manager
PORTILLO CONCRETE, INC.

Mario Portillo, Owner
55%
.

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY: APPROVED BY:

This document shall become an amendment to the contract and all provisions for the contract will apply hereto. The contractor accepts this change order as full compensation for additional work and delay to the project caused by this change order. This change order was requested by the City/Contractor. increased by 10 working days.
100
NEW CONTRACT AMOUNT (C + B + A) $ 345,964.01 % Change
$ 73,644.51
Total Change
NET CHANGE THIS CCO (+ or -) 33% % Change
TOTAL CCO's (+ or -) 122,311.47 $ % Change 55%
CCO's PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (+ or -) 22% $ 48,666.96 % Change 23-04
TO:

ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
$ 73,644.51
$ 223,652.54
Portillo Concrete, Inc.

Install 6" Curb and Gutter
Install PCC Sidewalk
Traffic Control and Safety Plan $ 5,375.10
Install 'Type B' Curb Ramp

CITY OF LA MESA
You are hereby requested to comply with the listed changes in the contract plans and specifications. Furnish to the City of La Mesa as follows:

Change in
Contract Price
4/9/2024
242191
Detailed Description of Changes & Quantities or Scope of Work Annual Concrete Maintenance Project, 1st
Renewal Option
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
Bid No.:

Bid
Item

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 9, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND

ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING FOR THE SAN DIEGO

COMMUNITY POWER (SDCP) MEMBER AGENCY

GRANT PROGRAM FOR BIKE EDUCATION CLASSES

AND A BIKE AND E-BIKE GIVEAWAY PROGRAM
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a resolution to apply and accept funding for the San Diego Community Power (SDCP) Member Agency Grant Program to fund Community Bike Education Classes (e.g. City Cycling, All About E-Bikes, Bike Rodeo) and develop a Bike and E-Bike Giveaway Program?
Recommendation:

Adopt City Council resolution authorizing the application and acceptance of funding for the San Diego Community Power (SDCP) Member Agency Grant Program, and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute any grant documents and agreements necessary for the receipt and use of these funds.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds will be appropriated to the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budgets to grant fund 215 There are no matching funds required for this grant.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 T-2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (Vision Zero) – Advance community-wide active transportation through safety programs, public engagement, education, and advocacy.

BACKGROUND:

In 2018, the City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), and in alignment with the City’s CAP, in 2019, the City Council approved the formation of San Diego Community Power (SDCP). SDCP provides a mechanism to increase the amount of renewable energy and help the City achieve its CAP target of 100% clean energy.

DISCUSSION:

In 2023, SDCP launched a Community Clean Energy Grant Program (“Grant Program”) to support SDCP member agencies’ climate action goals. La Mesa has been allocated $50,000 that must be expended within 12 months from the award start date.

Staff has evaluated the Grant Program criteria and recommends utilizing the funds to implement a program that supports CAP Measure T-2, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program. In partnership with the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, the program will provide free Community Bike Education Classes (e.g. City Cycling, All About E-Bikes, Bike Rodeo) and develop a Bike and E-Bike Giveaway Program. The Bike and E-Bike Giveaway Program details will be developed in the first three months of the grant award to ensure both community feedback and equity considerations are incorporated into the program design.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution to apply and accept funding for the SDCP Grant Program, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any grant documents and agreements necessary for the receipt and use these funds.

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

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
_____________________ ____________________________
Amanda Lee Hilary Ego
Assistant City Manager Environmental Sustainability Manager Attachments: A: Resolution

Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING FOR

THE SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY POWER (SDCP) MEMBER AGENCY GRANT

PROGRAM FOR BIKE EDUCATION CLASSES AND A BIKE AND E-BIKE

GIVEAWAY PROGRAM
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa adopted a Climate Action Plan in March 2018 to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and includes measure T-2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (Vision Zero) to advance community-wide active transportation through safety programs, public engagement, education, and advocacy;
WHEREAS, On September 10, 2019, La Mesa City Council approved Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) through a regional CCA program in partnership with the City of Chula Vista, City of Encinitas, City of Imperial Beach, and City of San Diego and formed San Diego Community Power (SDCP);
WHEREAS, San Diego Community Power is a community-driven, not-for-profit public agency providing cleaner energy to the San Diego region; WHEREAS, The SDCP Member Agency Grant Program (“Program”), administered by the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative, aims to support SDCP member agencies’ climate action goals and initiatives;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has been allocated up to $50,000 and will be awarded through a non-competitive process; and
WHEREAS, the proposed funds will be used to enter into a professional services agreement with the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition to provide free Community Bike Education Classes (e.g. City Cycling, All About E-Bikes, Bike Rodeo) and develop a Bike and EBike Giveaway Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of an application and funding request to San Diego Community Power for any and all grant and payment programs offered that the City of La Mesa is eligible.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or a designee is authorized and to execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited applications, agreements, amendments, and so on, for all grant documents and forms necessary to secure these funds and to implement and carry out the approved activities.

Attachment A
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of April 2024, 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. 2024- , 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: April 9, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND

ACCEPTACE OF FUNDING FOR THE ENERGY

EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT,

AND, IF AWARDED, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR

BEAM GLOBAL SOLAR-POWERED ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the application and acceptance of funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, and, if awarded, appropriating funds for Beam Global solar-powered Electric Vehicle charging stations?
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the application and acceptance of funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, and, if awarded, appropriating funds for Beam Global solar-powered Electric Vehicle charging stations.

Fiscal Impact:

The City of La Mesa was allocated $120,950 from the Department of Energy to expend funding on energy efficiency through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG). Staff recommends purchasing two solar powered electric vehicle charging stations (called EV ARCs) which cost approximately $140,600 for the two units. EECBG funds do not cover the full amount, therefore additional grant funding and FY 26-27 operating budget will be

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 2 of 5
reviewed to cover the remaining cost during the duration of the 2-year project and budget grant spending period in order to successfully purchase the second EV ARC.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 E-5 Solar Photovoltaic Program – Promote efforts that increase the generation of local renewable energy, such as solar, within the City  T-5 Alternative Refueling Infrastructure Development – Support communitywide use of alternative fuel vehicles through expansion of alternative vehicle refueling infrastructure.

BACKGROUND:

In March 2018, City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which charts a course to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020, and 53% below 2010 levels by 2035. In February 2021, the City Council adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution. Development of a CAP was identified as a mitigation measure in La Mesa’s 2012 General Plan Update. La Mesa prepared the CAP-established targets to be consistent with State goals and guidance. The CAP provides a roadmap by which La Mesa can reduce GHG emissions through the implementation of measures and key actions in energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and green infrastructure. The CAP is currently being updated as committed to in the 2018 CAP.

The CAP includes Measure T-5, Alternative Refueling Infrastructure Development, which details the City’s commitment to supporting community-wide use of alternative fuel vehicles through expansion of alternative refueling infrastructure, including electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and Measure E-5, Solar Photovoltaic Program, to install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on residential and non-residential property in the community, and identify opportunities for municipal installations on City property.

Additionally, it is expected that there will be a large increase in zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on California roads due to the Governor of California issuing a number of Executive Orders (EO) to achieve the following goals relating to EVs and EV charging:

EO B-16-2012: At least 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on California roadways by 2025, with easy access to zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, or EV charging

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 3 of 5
stations; EO B-48-2018: At least 5 million ZEVs on California roadways by 2030 and 250,000 zero-emission vehicle chargers by 2025; and EO N-79-20: In-state sales of passenger cars and trucks will be 100 percent ZEVs by 2035.

The Department of Energy allocated $120,950 to the City of La Mesa through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block (EECBG) grant program to spend on energy efficiency activities. Complete local government applications are due to the Department of Energy by April 30, 2024.

After conducting research, planning, and soliciting quotes for potential programs and services to use the EECBG funds on, City staff recommend purchasing two Beam Global EV ARC 2020 systems (EV ARCs), which are large portable electric vehicle charging stations that are powered by embedded solar panels. These EV ARCs would be made available to the public, encouraging the increased adoption of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy. Providing EV ARCs to La Mesa residents would allow residents to charge their electric vehicles for free.

Beam Global, founded in 2006, is a San Diego-based company that has provided their services and products to over 100 other U.S. jurisdictions.

DISCUSSION:

The project quote from Beam Global includes the cost of two EV ARCs with the ChargePoint dual-plug charging station on each system and includes a remote monitoring and management system and 12-month service and manufacturer warranty. The quote given is based off of a discounted price that was pre-negotiated between Beam Global and the California Department of General Services that is honored until June 14, 2024.

EV ARCs are capable of generating and storing enough clean, solar electricity to charge up to 265 electric miles in a single day. These mobile charges offer versatility with battery storage and use BeamTrak, which follows the sun throughout the day, providing the system ability to charge electric vehicles day, night, and on cloudy days. This means the solar array will move to maintain the best incidence angle with the sun.

These systems would be equipped with the base level of battery storage, so that the EV ARCs can be used after the sun has set. Additionally, the solar charging and battery system are an asset in the case of a power grid failure, providing energy resiliency. Due to the mobile nature of EV ARCs, they do not need to undergo permitting, construction, or electrical work. Therefore, the purchase of the EV ARCs will help accelerate La Mesa’s switch to renewable fuel alternatives. An EV ARC includes two electric vehicle charging station ports and can fit in a single standard size parking space. The EV ARCs will be

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 4 of 5
placed in a City-managed parking lot and will be available for use by City fleet electric vehicles and for public use.

A total of approximately 40 EV ARCs are deployed throughout the San Diego region.

Other San Diego jurisdictions that have purchased EV ARCs include the City of San Diego (6 units), the Port of San Diego (1 unit), and the County of San Diego (11 units).

Government agencies such as the California Department of Transportation, the US Navy, and the US Marine Corps also have deployed EV ARCs.

Grant administrators verified EV ARCs are eligible to purchase using EECBG grant funds. BEAM Global provided a quote for two EV ARCs for $140,600, which includes the one-year plan for remote monitoring and management. EECBG funds do not cover the full amount; therefore, additional grant funding and FY 26-27 operating budget will be reviewed to cover the remaining cost during the duration of the 2-year project and budget grant spending period in order to successfully purchase the second EV ARC. Staff are committed to identifying appropriate funding by prioritizing grant funding opportunities to cover the remaining cost of approximately $20,000 to successfully purchase the second EV ARC. After the grant is received, there is a 2-year project and budget grant spending period during which staff can apply for other funding. If grants are not available within the next 2 years after receiving EECBG funding, other avenues will be reviewed to obtain the remaining balance.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the application and acceptance of funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant for $120,950, and, if awarded, accepting and appropriating funds for Beam Global solarpowered Electric Vehicle charging stations.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:

Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Hilary Ego
Environmental Sustainability Manager

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 5 of 5
Serena Lee
Environmental Analyst II
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. EV ARC 2020 Diagram and Image

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING FOR THE

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR BEAM GLOBAL SOLAR POWERED ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
WHEREAS, in March 2018, City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which charts a course to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; WHEREAS, In February 2021, the City Council adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution; WHEREAS, as part of the CAP, the City is committed to reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which is the largest emitter of the community-wide GHG emissions; WHEREAS, the Department of Energy allocated $120,950 to the City of La Mesa through the non-competitive Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block (EECBG) grant program to spend on energy efficiency activities;
WHEREAS, the proposed funds will be used to purchase two Beam Global EV ARC 2020 systems (EV ARCs), which are large portable electric vehicle charging stations that are powered by embedded solar panels; and
WHEREAS, the EV ARCs would be made available to the public, encouraging the increased adoption of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that that the City Council authorizes the submittal of applications and funding request to the Department of Energy for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or a designee is authorized and to execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited applications, agreements, amendments, and so on, for all grant documents and forms necessary to secure these funds and to implement and carry out the approved activities.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of April 2024, 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. 2024- , 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)

BeamForAll.com
[email protected]
+1 858-799-4583
Beam Global
5660 Eastgate Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
EV ARC™ 2020 Diagram

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 9, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AWARD FOR A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 24-13 TO
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR AN ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING STATION MASTER PLAN
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council approve a resolution approving a professional services agreement with Kittelson & Associates for the development of a City Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan?
Recommendation:

That the City Council should approve a resolution approving a professional services agreement with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for the development of a City Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan.

Fiscal Impact:

The agreement with Kittelson & Associations, Inc. is for $99,665. Funding is available in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 and 2024-25 Operating Budgets in the Environmental Professional and Specialized Services Account (No. 208-64300- 301).

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
 T-5 Alternative Refueling Infrastructure Development – Support communitywide use of alternative fuel vehicles through expansion of alternative vehicle refueling infrastructure.

BACKGROUND:

In March 2018, the City Council approved the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). In February 2021, the City Council adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution. Included in the CAP are various measures that are aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Measure T5, Alternative Refueling Infrastructure Development, details the City’s commitment to supporting community-wide use of alternative fuel vehicles through expansion of alternative refueling infrastructure, including EV charging stations.

The EV Charging Station (EVCS) Master Plan was identified as a key CAP action that will outline available opportunities to install EV charging infrastructure; set a roadmap for future policies that will require EV-ready infrastructure and installation as a part of new construction projects and retrofits; identify incentives, rebates, and funding opportunities for the City, as well recommend incentive programs it can implement to support private EVCS installation; and make the City a more competitive applicant for grants and funding.

DISCUSSION:

On January 8, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 24-13) for the development of a City EVCS Master Plan. The RFP was advertised on the City’s website and the City’s online procurement portal, PlanetBids. On February 12, 2024, the City received 10 responsive bids from the following firms:

Company Name Location
Alternative Energy Systems Consulting, Inc. Carlsbad, CA Arup US, Inc. Los Angeles, CA
C&S Engineers, Inc. San Diego, CA
Cordoba Corp. Los Angeles, CA
Energeia USA Davis, CA
Energetics San Diego, CA
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. San Diego, CA
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. San Diego, CA
Michael Baker International, Inc. San Diego, CA
S Curve Strategies La Mesa, CA
Staff reviewed and evaluated each proposal based on predetermined criteria including approach to scope of work, qualifications, references, and technical experience. After interviewing the top scoring firms, staff recommends the selection of Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Kittelson).

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 9, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
Kittelson has demonstrated extensive experience in the EV industry, development of EVCS master plans for other jurisdictions throughout the country, and design and construction of EV charging stations. Kittelson maintains a full-service office in San Diego and has worked with local utilities including SDG&E. The proposed project team includes staff who are highly experienced in EV outreach and education, and are committed to ensuring that the final EVCS Master Plan includes an equitable approach that serves La Mesa residents. In order to ensure equity is built into the Master Plan, Kittelson plans to help establish a Project Advisory Committee with representatives of key parties, and will coordinate and facilitate listening sessions with stakeholders.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve a professional services agreement with Kittelson for the development of an EVCS Station Master Plan in the amount of $99,665.

The proposed EVCS Master Plan is a separate project from upcoming projects led by Public Works to analyze the City’s fleet replacement schedule and plan for electric vehicle charging infrastructure needs for the City’s fleet.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________ ____________________________
Amanda Lee Hilary Ego
Assistant City Manager Environmental Sustainability Manager ____________________________
Serena Lee
Environmental Analyst II
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Scope of Work Proposal

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPROVING

AN AWARD AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIAL

FORM AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 24-13 FOR ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING STATION MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, in March 2018, City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which charts a course to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; WHEREAS, In February 2021, the City Council adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution; WHEREAS, as part of the CAP, the City is committed to reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which is the largest emitter of the community-wide GHG emissions; WHEREAS, the EV Charging Station (EVCS) Master Plan was identified as a key CAP action that will outline available opportunities where the City can install EV charging infrastructure; WHEREAS, the City released Request for Proposals 24-13 the week of January 8, 2024, and a review committee comprised of City staff reviewed the 10 submitted proposals received from various consulting firms; and
WHEREAS, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. was found to be the most highly qualified firm and is recommended for contract award based on their proposal and interview.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to approve an award and professional services agreement in substantial form as presented, subject to the final review and approval by the City Attorney, for Request for Proposals 24-13 for Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan to Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for an amount of $99,665.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of April 2024, 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. 2024- , 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)

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan City of La Mesa

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING

STATION MASTER PLAN
Submitted by:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. February 12, 2024

INFORMATION STATEMENT
Legal Name of Organization: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Date Established: March 4, 1985
Legal Status, i,e, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship: Subchapter S Corporation Officer/Owners of Organization
Kittelson’s ownership consists of 41 shareholders, including the following Executive Leadership Officers:

Name: Brandon Nevers Title: Chief Executive Officer
Name: Karl Passetti Title: Chairman of the Board
Name Larry Van Dyke Title: Chief Financial Officer
Number of Employees:

Permanent Full-Time: 302 Part Time: 59
Business Address: 3919 30th Street, Suite 107, San Diego, CA 92104 Contact Information Mychal Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP1; 714-468-1180; [email protected] Organization Bank Name: Chase Bank
Branch Portland, OR
Address 1211 SW 5th Avenue, Floor 28, Portland, OR 97204 Contact Name Angel Eyestone, Relationship Executive
The City of La Mesa reserves the right to perform a credit check on your organization to obtain information regarding your organization’s financial stability.

Are you or your organization currently engaged or involved in any litigation over the proprietary rights or patent rights for the software or services to be used for the City of La Mesa? No

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Information Statement ...................................................................1 Approach to Scope of Work .........................................................2 Statement of Qualifications ........................................................12 Contract Experience & References.......................................... 24 Cost Proposal.................................................................................. 25 Addendum ....................................................................................... 26

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

APPROACH TO SCOPE OF WORK
Electric vehicle (EV) technology is not just
coming, it’s here. And it’s poised to dominate the
transportation landscape not just because it’s
better for the environment but also because it
provides tangible benefits to drivers in the form
of fuel savings; fueling location flexibility; reduced
maintenance costs; a quieter driving experience;
and improved acceleration, braking, and torque.

The Kittelson team is enthusiastic about working
with the City of La Mesa (City) in developing the
Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Master
Plan. With over 370 professionals in 25 offices,
Kittelson specializes in spearheading practical and
implementable electrification projects nationwide.

Our national proficiency is complemented by a
localized presence in San Diego and a strong
footprint throughout California. Teaming up with
subject matter experts Green Paradigm Consulting
(GPC), Imperial Electric Services, Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Solutions, and EVSE EngineerRaoul Wood fortifies our capabilities and brings decades of California-specific experience in charger
installations and utility coordination.

La Mesa boasts a diverse and vibrant community
with residents that embody a blend of backgrounds,
lifestyles, and perspectives contributing to La Mesa’s
dynamic atmosphere. The demographics of La Mesa
reflect its inclusive nature, with a mix of families,
young professionals, retirees, and individuals from
various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. This
diversity is celebrated and embraced, adding depth
and richness to La Mesa’s cultural landscape.

Like many cities in California, personal vehicles
remain a primary mode of transportation for many
residents of La Mesa. Personal charging options
for EVs will vary depending on the location and
demographics of residents. Owner-occupied singlefamily homes often include a dedicated driveway or garage that provides a plug-in option, while
multi-family homes or rental units do not. Finding
locations that are conveniently situated in a way
that allows charging to occur during a person’s
daily activities helps to accelerate EV adoption. For
example, the San Diego Trolley Orange Line serves La
Mesa with the Spring Street, La Mesa Boulevard, and
Grossmont Station stops. These stations offer transit
options to downtown San Diego and other popular
destinations, and could be a desirable place to
integrate EV charging options. A Tesla supercharger
site is located adjacent to Grossmont Station.

La Mesa’s residents are known for their strong sense
of community spirit and civic engagement. They
actively participate in local events, neighborhood
associations, and volunteer initiatives, fostering a
tight-knit social fabric. Whether it’s organizing block parties, supporting local businesses, or advocating
for social causes, La Mesa residents take pride in
shaping the identity and character of their city.

Moreover, La Mesa residents value sustainability and
environmental stewardship, actively promoting green
initiatives and eco-friendly practices.

The City is currently updating their 2018 Climate
Action Plan and has identified planning for EVs as an
implementation action.

Finding locations that can be used
during different times, for different
users, and conveniently combined with
land uses that allow charging to occur
during a person’s daily activities helps to
accelerate EV adoption.

Photo: Chelsea Gastelum

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 3 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan Demonstrated Commitment
to Sustainability
The City has demonstrated its commitment to
sustainability through participation in many regional
partnerships with the San Diego Associated
Governments (SANDAG), San Diego Air Pollution
Control District, and San Diego Gas & Electric
(SDG&E). These collaborations include a San
Diego Plug-in EV Readiness Plan (2014), La Mesa
Energy Roadmap (2013), and a Fleet Replacement
Assessment prepared for the City by the Center
for Sustainable Energy. The City also has an
Environmental Sustainability Commission and an
Environmental Program Manager.

The City is updating their 2018 Climate Action Plan.

Progress to date includes holding two of three
community workshops; implementing an online
public opinion survey; and identifying planning for
EVs as an implementation action.

The City’s long history on sustainability and
electrification provide an excellent foundation for
the proposed EVCS Master Plan. The Kittelson team
will utilize the 2018 Climate Action as a starting point to assess what has already been accomplished and
what remains to be done.

LA MESA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
La Mesa EVCS Partnerships
Creating commuter-oriented programs
including EV charging stations.
1 Facilitating the installation
of home charging
2 Collaborating regionally to increase the
installation of EV charging in multi-unit dwelling
3 Providing links to clean vehicle rebate
information and alternative fuel site
maps on the City website
4 Installing a charging station at City Hall
5 Using EV expertise from Plug-in San
Diego (program has since closed)
6 Regional collaboration to explore grant funding or
partnerships with EV Service Providers
San Diego Association
of Governments
San Diego Air Pollution
Control District
San Diego Gas
& Electric
Center for
Sustainable Energy
Others Organizations
Promoting EVs
7 Photo: Bob Lebb

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 4 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan Develop Functional
Specifications for EVCS
Site Development &
Cost Estimates
4 Gather Input & Feedback
Throughout the Planning Process 3
Identify Near- and Long-term
EVCS Gaps with EV-Pro Lite Tool 2

APPROACH
An effective EVCS Master Plan must fulfill the needs
of local EV users. Our approach understands the
importance of recognizing that different EV users
and trip purposes have different charging needs with
respect to metrics, like location, duration and cost.

The nine use cases shown below comprise the
various environments within which EVs must be
integrated. It is anticipated that the EVCS Master Plan should focus on meeting the needs of the following
four use cases:
h Urban Light-Duty Vehicle (1)
h Commercial Delivery (4)
h Transportation Network Companies (6)
h Priority Populations (9)

NINE USE CASES
1 Urban Light-Duty Vehicle
2 Rural Light-Duty Vehicle
3 Corridor
4 Commercial Delivery
5 Long-Haul Trucking
6 Transportation Network Companies
7 Transit & School Buses
8 Micromobility
9 Priority Populations
close ties with SDG&E; she also played a major
role in establishing California’s leadership position
in transportation electrification and has been
responsible for installing over 1,000 EV chargers.

Similarly, our proposed Project Manager Mychal
Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP1 has spent the past 17 years as
a transportation engineer in the San Diego region,
including some work within La Mesa. Our team may
therefore be uniquely distinct in its ability to offer
staff who, as individuals, combine local familiarity
and knowledge with national experience, capabilities,
and credibility.

Human-Centered Approach: We take a humancentered approach to all our EV projects, based on best practices and lessons learned from similar
planning efforts. It is a streamlined process to
optimize available resources and minimize using City
staff resources. We expect and encourage interaction
with community-based organizations, businesses,
utilities, and other EV stakeholders with special
emphasis on priority populations. Transitioning to a
new transportation technology is both exhilarating
and challenging. We believe the people who will
drive EVs and use these new charging stations need
to be involved in the decisions, not informed about
them later. With the appropriate plan, EV adoption
and transition can be seamless.

Below, we outline our approach to completing the
project tasks:
h Task 1: Project Management
h Task 2: Stakeholder & Public Outreach
h Task 3: Perform Gap Assessment
h Task 4: Identify Implementation Actions
h Task 5: Prepare Deliverables
Throughout the project, we will provide interim
updates on status, approach, and interim findings
to the City’s project manager during the frequent
project management meetings and through progress
reports. This will keep the City informed and provide
opportunities for feedback and collaboration.

Collect Data About Existing EV
Charging Infrastructure 1
Recommend Prioritized
Deployment Strategy 5
EVCS Master Plan
& Training 6
Process at a Glance
Local & Experienced Team: An especially important
strength of the Kittelson team lies in the individual
team members whose extensive EV experience
and professional careers have occurred in the local
Southern California area surrounding La Mesa. For
example, Enid Joffe (GPC) began her career working
for Southern California utilities and has developed

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 5 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan The planning process will have six steps:

1. Collect data about existing EV charging
infrastructure, key attributes of potential
EVCS sites, adoption trends and goals, charging
placement criteria, location/demographic
data related to multifamily units and priority
populations, and preferred business model(s).

If data is missing, we will fill gaps through field
visits, meetings with appropriate agencies and
institutions, or using assumptions based on data
developed from other projects.

2. Identify near-and longer-term EVCS gaps in
La Mesa using EV-PRO Lite across four use cases
(urban light-duty vehicles, commercial deliveries,
transportation network companies, and priority
populations) and three adoption scenarios (base
case, slow adoption, and fast adoption).

3. Proactively gather input and feedback
throughout the planning process with
surveys, webinars, public meetings, and
other mechanisms.

4. Develop functional specifications for EVCS
site development and cost estimates for
planning, installing, operating and maintaining
charging infrastructure based on current
practices and trends.

5. Recommend a prioritized deployment
strategy including identification of funding
options, incentives, and policies for facilitating or
accelerating the EV adoption process.

6. Deliver the draft and final EVCS Master Plan
and staff training.

SCOPE OF WORK TASKS
TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Objective: Deliver a successful project through
effective day-to-day project management
Mychal Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP1, our proposed Project
Manager, has worked collaboratively with local and
regional agencies of all sizes. He understands that all parties involved have a lot on their plates, and our
team needs to be effective and efficient in all our
interactions. To achieve this, he will have open and
honest communication and implement the following:
h Kick-off Meeting with the City’s Project Manager
(hereafter referred to as the Agency Project
Manager or APM). The purpose of this kick-off
meeting will be to introduce team members and
set the framework for the project work that will
follow. Key agenda items that will be included in
the kick-off meeting include the following:
¡ Amplified Work Plan. The scope of work,
schedule, and budget, established during
negotiations, will be reviewed and confirmed.
¡ Engagement Plan. The Kittelson team will
present an engagement plan that will be
reviewed and modified, as appropriate.
¡ Other. Any other issues that require discussion
and/or resolution at the outset of the project will
be discussed.

A memo summarizing the discussion and outcomes
of the kick-off meeting will be prepared and
submitted within one week following the meeting.
h Bi-Weekly Check-Ins. Recurring check-in
meetings will be held between the Kittelson team
and APM to discuss project status, innovative
ideas, and areas of concern along with proposed
solutions. The meetings will occur every 2 weeks
via 30-minute web-meetings. At a minimum,
Mychal will represent Kittelson at each meeting
and we will include other staff as necessary to
ensure that specific questions and information
needs of the APM can be addressed. E-mailed
agendas will be sent in advance of each meeting,
and follow-up emails with key action items will be
provided after each check-in.
h Internal Team Meetings. Mychal will conduct
weekly internal Kittelson team meetings to discuss
progress, issues and solutions, and quality control
reviews. This allows us to shift workloads among
team members to maintain our schedule.
h Monthly Progress Reports & Invoices. Work
completed during each invoice period will be
documented to facilitate your reports out to
others and include a month’s look-ahead, status
of scope and schedule, work performed, and an
issue/resolution summary.

We propose all project meetings to be virtual web
meetings to avoid unnecessary driving. Even so,
our project management team will be led from our
San Diego office and can be available for in-person
meetings, if desired.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control. All deliverables
developed over the course of the project will go
through Kittelson’s rigorous Quality Assurance/
Quality Control process (see illustration on the
following page). Kittelson will develop a projectspecific Quality Management Plan, including a checklist for each deliverable and deadline. All
deliverables will require internal sign-off from the
project manager, project principal, and quality
assurance reviewer before submission to the City.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 6 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan Quality Assurance/Control Process

DISCIPLINE LEADS
Prepare Deliverables

TASK LEADS
Quality Control Review

PROJECT MANAGER
Quality Control Review

QUALITY MANAGER
Coordinate Independent Quality Control Reviews

DELIVERABLES

CHANGES
NO
YES

CHANGES
NO
YES

CHANGES
NO
YES
SUBMIT

DELIVERABLE
TASK 2: STAKEHOLDER &

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Objective: Ensure critical members of the
community and affected agencies inform the success
of the EVCS Master Plan.

To build consensus and facilitate subsequent
deployment or implementation activities, we
propose establishing a Project Advisory Committee
(PAC). The PAC will consist of 10 to 12 representatives of key parties that could include local government
agencies, school district, priority populations, electric utilities, environmental advocacy groups, regional
government and air quality agencies, San Diego
Clean Cities Coalition, and major employers or
local EV drivers. Every effort will be made to ensure
geographic representation from all parts of La Mesa,
with special emphasis on priority populations. We
anticipate the PAC will meet 3 times during the
project to provide input and comment on findings or
results through 90-minute web meetings.

The proposed PAC meeting topics can be adjusted
during the project kickoff meeting, but initially we
propose asking the PAC to review:

1. Types of charging needed (i.e., Level 2 or DC fast
charging), charging policies (e.g., idling fees), and
funding opportunities

2. Review of charger placement criteria and
prioritization of EVCS site locations

3. Equity assessment to confirm EVCS infrastructure
serves all segments of La Mesa’s population

4. Study outcomes review and comment
Applying Kittelson’s excellent capabilities in
community outreach and engagement, we will
plan, coordinate, and facilitate two virtual listening
sessions with stakeholders who can offer insights
and suggestions related to challenges and
opportunities associated with siting, installing,
operating, and maintaining EVCSs in La Mesa.

Kittelson will create and monitor a web page with
an overview of La Mesa’s EVCS plans; an interactive
map where people can identify where they would
like charging stations; and a survey that categorizes
respondents according to whether they drive an
EV and if they are a business that hosts or wants to
host an EVCS. We will engage businesses through
business groups, like service clubs, business
improvement districts, and the Chamber of
Commerce. We will also work with local communitybased organizations to showcase the proposed charging station map at community events and
obtain their input and feedback.

TASK 3: PERFORM GAP ASSESSMENT
Objective: Develop targeted recommendations for
EVCS needs and configurations, based on data, best
practices, and input from engaged parties.

The gap assessment task will identify gaps in the
existing level of EVCS infrastructure in La Mesa (see
map on the following page) and the projected need
for EVCS distributed throughout the city considering
factors like population density, current and
anticipated EV purchases, travel patterns, distribution of multifamily housing units, activity destinations,
and access to home charging.1 We will use the EVPro Lite tool offered by the US Department of Energy Alternative Fuel Data Center and the additional
in depth EV-Pro tools offered by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Other resources will
include the California Energy Commission SB 1000
Reports, California Energy Commission Data on EVs
and EV charging infrastructure, and mode share data
supplied to the City by Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.

Use of these resources will assist in prioritizing EVCS sites throughout La Mesa.
1 Facilitating home charging is a goal in the City of La Mesa’s 2018 Climate Action Plan (pp. 84-85)

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 7 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan X Existing EV charging stations in La Mesa according to PlugShare.com
According to the EV charging website afdc.energy.
gov, La Mesa has 31 level 12 Tesla only DC fast
chargers. Compared to La Mesa’s neighbors, the City
has fewer chargers for its population.

Existing & Planned EV
Charging Infrastructure
Using the publicly available data sources above,
Kittelson will map existing and planned EV charging
stations by type for each of the identified four uses
cases. It is anticipated that Kittelson will collect
additional existing conditions data through the
APM and/or PAC members, and will document the
following as part of this task:
h Inventory of existing public and private fleets and
fleet facilities using readily available information
h Inventory of existing and planned EVCS
infrastructure operated within the city (including
facilities operated by private, state, or regional
agencies, where applicable), related to the
identified four use cases
h Number of EVs and Plug-in Electric Hybrids
registered to owners in La Mesa stratified by
census tract or zip code
Should some data be unavailable, Kittelson will work
with the APM to devise alternative approaches.

Equitable Access Analysis
Kittelson will conduct a GIS analysis to identify
how many public charging locations are serving
or planned to serve priority populations. These
will be identified with guidance from City staff
and/or by using publicly available US Census/
American Community Survey demographic data,
and definitions of priority populations. Additionally,
Kittelson will use data available from the California
Energy Commission, such as the SB 1000 report
which analyzes density of chargers distribution
relative to population and distance to a direct
current fast charger (DCFC).

Existing Land Use & Parcels-Level Analysis
The City and APM will identify publicly owned land
and other potential hosting sites based on available
property appraiser databases, information provided
on the interactive web page by local area residents
and property owners, focusing upon where EV
infrastructure can be located without the need for
property acquisition. This will also include identifying places and place types that have a high opportunity
for successful EVCS development. These places
are areas with a high concentration of daytime,
nighttime, and 24-hour populations.

Local Jurisdiction Development &
Zoning Regulations Audit
Kittelson will conduct a high-level review of
appropriate sections of the City’s codes and
ordinances with the APM’s concurrence and
assistance. This will include a critical review of
existing language relative to EVCS infrastructure.

The review of Comprehensive Plan policies, 2018
Climate Action Plan, SANDAG Regional Alternative
Fuels Plan, and other policies will be completed to
provide recommendations on the optimal number
and type of EVCSs to serve future demand. This audit
will be based on a list of best practices identified
through our experience and identify any existing
gaps in the local government codes, like zoning EV
chargers, new construction conditions of approval,
and signage requirements.

Identifying EV Adoption Scenarios
Based on the earlier completed research, stakeholder
and PAC feedback, and existing and planned
conditions analysis results, Kittelson will develop
three EV adoption scenarios. These scenarios will be
based on high, moderate, and low estimates of EV
adoption in La Mesa by 2035 necessary to achieve
established local and statewide goals. Each scenario
will contain a breakdown of adoption assumptions
by selected use cases.

Needs Analysis
Kittelson will use the EVI-Pro Lite tool to estimate
EV charging demand for personal light-duty
vehicles under each of the three scenarios. We
will incorporate information shared by the PAC
and stakeholders as well as publicly available
data to estimate EV charging demand for priority
populations, transportation network companies,
government and commercial fleets, and typical
commercial delivery vehicles under each scenario.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 8 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan The needs analysis methodology will combine GIS
and data analysis using the following data sources:
h Existing and planned land uses
h Existing and planned residential and
employment density
h Publicly owned land parcels
h Everyday destinations and amenities (i.e., grocery
stores, restaurants, department stores, malls,
schools, parks, libraries, and medical services)
h Previously defined priority populations
h American Community Survey results
h Fleet maintenance and parking facilities
maintenance and parking facilities
h Vehicle registrations
h Public feedback
h Adoption scenarios defined earlier
This analysis will identify the number of EVCSs
required for each scenario and use case within the
city. Charging infrastructure will be distributed
throughout the city (at census block or zip code level
or another similar geography) for each scenario and
use census data, facility locations, and employment
data, according to the use case.

X Opportunity for Public Level 2 Charging Based on
Retail, Recreational, and Multi-Family Dwelling Density in the Town of Cary, North Carolina
Next, Kittelson will analyze existing charging
locations and charging capacity to estimate
additional charging needs for each scenario and
use case. Identification of gaps between existing
charging infrastructure and expected charging
demand will feed into subsequent tasks, helping
the City determine where additional public charging
infrastructure may be required to meet shortfalls.

Finally, Kittelson will prepare a GIS-based map
visualizing the areas within La Mesa where
opportunities exist for the various types of EV
charging. The image below is an example of such a
map that was recently prepared for the City of Cary,
North Carolina by Kittelson.

TASK 4: IDENTIFY IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIONS
Objective: Draft action plans that create a clear
pathway for implementing the EVCS Master Plan,
including metrics to measure progress toward the
EVCS Master Plan’s objectives.

Determination of Site Owner
Interest in Installing Fleet or
Public EV Charging Stations
Identifying an ideal charging location is meaningless
if the property owner has no interest in installing
one. In conjunction with the City, Kittelson will
contact the owners of public and private locations
identified as priority sites; present the proposal for
charging station; and make adjustments to the EVCS
Master Plan based on level of interest from site
hosts. We anticipate that feedback received on the
web page and at community events with suggestions
and property owners expressing a willingness to host
a site will expedite this process.

Determination of Charging Site
Business Model(s)
There are multiple business models for building out
an EV charging network including:
h Site Owner/Operator. Site host owns and
operates the charging equipment and makes all
decisions about pricing and availability.
h Charging as a Service (CaaS). Some companies
are now offering CaaS where customers pay one
fee (per kilowatt hour or per month) for services.

The CaaS provider does everything else including
acquiring the site, paying for and installing the
chargers, and operating/maintaining the charger.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 9 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan h Electric Vehicle Service Provier (EVSP) Owner.

Third party EVSP owns and operates the charging
equipment. Under this model, the EVSP pays a
royalty to the site host as rent or a share of the
revenue. Sometimes, the EVSP controls pricing and
is responsible for all the operation of the charger.

Kittelson will coordinate with the APM before
implementing the EVCS Master Plan to confirm which
one (or more) business models will be acceptable to
employ in the context of the EVCS Master Plan.

Charging Equipment Options
The types of EVCSs have multiplied over the past
decade, as have the number of manufacturers of
charging hardware and software. Choosing the
right charging levels and mix of charging stations
for each prioritized location will be essential to the
success of the EVCS infrastructure. Additionally, many
incentive programs require that chargers be on an
approved product list unique to the funding agency.

The Kittelson team will provide an overview of the
available types of charging stations, including Level
1, Level 2 and DCFC; discuss the options for selecting
chargers based on the type of site (public, workplace,
private or fleet), network software, typical dwell time, other charging options available in a half-mile radius; and provide a list of standards and codes that apply
to charging hardware and software.

Constructability Assessment
Kittelson will contact SDG&E to review the list of
priority EVCS locations and determine if there is
adequate utility capacity at each location or the
ability to upgrade power at a reasonable cost.

Preliminary Design of Charging Site
The EVCS Master Plan will include a preliminary
design of up to 10 constructable EVCS locations with
an aerial view of the property, a map view, and a
rough layout of where the chargers will be located.

The initial design will also include an assessment of
ADA compliance for EV charging.

Identification of Potential Funding
Sources, Eligibility Criteria, Application
Timelines, and Readiness Actions
Our deliverables will include an excel spreadsheet
of current and upcoming funding opportunities
at the time of project completion, an assessment
of the suitability of each for the City, and actions
the City must take to qualify. For example, many
current programs prioritize projects with completed
engineering plans and in-hand construction permits.

Outline of a Community Outreach Plan
Development of an EV charging network is a “chicken
and egg” proposition. Drivers considering the
purchase of an EV need to know working chargers
are where they are needed. EVSP companies need
to know that the chargers they install will generate
revenue. The EVCS Master Plan will include a
typical community outreach plan outline to inform
La Mesa drivers about EV benefits and available
incentives to purchase an EV. Additionally, we will
use our experience implementing the Clean Cars 4
All program in the South Coast Air Basin to assist
La Mesa residents in qualifying for similar vehicle
incentive programs. The focus of the outreach
will be on increasing EV purchases within priority
populations by providing information about vehicle
and access to incentives.

Collectively, Kittelson team members have
won over $100 million in grant funding for
clients. Funding opportunities continue to
be very dynamic, and so we continually
track them and assist clients in preparing
for funding submittals.

SANDAG Request for Innovative Concepts -
Automated, Connected, Electrified, and
Shared (ACES) Network
In 2021, SANDAG requested innovative concepts
inviting innovators, entrepreneurs, service providers,
and mobility experts to submit innovative concepts
for transportation “Connector” services. Working
with a consortium of investors, construction
interests, and autonomous vehicle providers,
Kittelson developed the ACES Network, a concept to
improve mobility for priority communities through
a network of electrified mobility hubs, served by a
series of autonomous shuttles.

This community-focused concept will make it
possible to generate revenue from charging
infrastructure while incentivizing EV-based mobility
providers (rideshare, transit, private shuttle
providers) to serve areas where their fleets could
charge. The concept supplements and enhances
the existing regional transit system by providing
first- and last-mile connections to regional mobility
hubs. ACES was selected through a competitive
selection process. Kittelson is now developing a
memorandum of understanding with SANDAG to
partner in its funding and implementation across
the region.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 10 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan Marketing and Communications
Plan Development
A robust communications plan is necessary to
publicize the new charging network as it grows. The
web page used for public outreach activities will be
a valuable resource in this regard. Groundbreaking
events, ribbon cuttings, and EV Ride & Drive events
with car dealerships in and around La Mesa are all an
important part of increasing EV purchases, charger
usage, and zero emission miles.

City Policies that Facilitate Installing
Charging Stations at Home, at Businesses,
and in the Public Right of Way
The EVCS Master Plan will closely coordinate with
the 2018 Climate Action Plan and upcoming 2024
revision. The 2018 Climate Action Plan includes
recommendations to increase charging availability,
as illustrated on page 2 of this proposal. We will
recommend policies and practices appropriate for
La Mesa and based on similar policies and practices
adopted by other cities. As illustrative examples,
these could include free curbside charging or
construction density bonuses for installation of
charging stations.

Staff Training
Based on our discussions with the City staff, we will
develop a training program that meets the specific
needs expressed by City Staff, identified by the PAC,
and expressed through our outreach activities. As
needed, we will provide up to 10 hours of combined
virtual and in person training on any of the above
subjects. We will also provide a two-hour session to
City staff on available grants, rebates, and incentives.

Beyond this, we could hold one or more sessions for
the community on EV incentives to encourage the
lease or purchase of EVs and plug-in hybrids.

The Kittelson team has found that conducting its
work in close collaboration with the client always
results in superior outcomes; it also leaves the client with the understanding, background, and context
associated with all key decisions and deliverables
necessary to move forward effectively following
project completion. Therefore, we envision most
of the required staff training will be a natural by
product of completing the project.

The Kittelson Team members have provided
instruction for numerous workshops and training
sessions, and are well prepared to conduct the
workshop and training sessions to City staff.

TASK 5: PREPARE DELIVERABLES
Objective: Effectively communicate the planning
process and recommendations to various audiences,
building support to EVCS implementation success.

In accordance with Section 2 of the RFP, the
deliverables associated with this project will include:

1. A Technical Memorandum identifying the
recommended priority charging locations,
including a ranking of each of the recommended
additional charging locations (from highest
to lowest) based on estimated investment
cost, proximity to amenities, available grants
(rebates or tax credits), and the priority of the
recommended location from a charging demand,
supply, and equity standpoint

2. GIS map and associated files of recommended
charging locations that separately identifies
chargers currently installed, planned stations, and
additional recommended charging locations

3. Kickoff meeting agenda, materials, and
meeting notes

4. Agendas and notes from biweekly meetings

5. Monthly invoices and progress reports including
the results the community outreach

6. Draft PAC member list and draft invite email text

7. Facilitate up to three PAC meetings with agendas,
meeting notes, and presentation materials

8. Existing Conditions Report documenting findings

9. Draft EVCS Master Plan, inclusive of the priority
charging map

10. Final EVCS Master Plan, inclusive of the priority
charging map
Enid is an experienced EV charging infrastructure
trainer and practitioners. Her experience includes:
h Instructing practitioners on station design,
installation, and operations, as well as
streamlining permitting
h Providing EV 101 training for elected officials and
public safety personnel
h Developing pricing and parking policies, as
well as incentives to encourage private sector
installation of charging, and ordinances for
signage and curbside charging

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 11 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan Schedule MONTHS
1 2 3 4 5 6
Task 1. Project Management

1.1 Kick-off Meeting

1.2 Bi-weekly Virtual Team Meetings

1.3 Monthly Project Management & Invoicing
Task 2. Stakeholder Engagement

2.1 Create Engagement Plan

2.2 Project Advisory Committee Meetings

2.3 Open House Engagement & Two Listening Sessions

2.4 Interactive Website
Task 3: Gap Assessment

3.1 Inventory Existing Infrastructure, Prospective Sites, ADA Compliance & Grid Capacity

3.2 Select Appropriate Business Model(s)

3.3 Quantitative Gap Assessment

3.4 Recommend EVCS/EV Adoption Goals
Task 4: Implementation Actions

4.1 Siting Criteria & Specifications

4.2 Proposed Charging Sites

4.3 Cost Estimates

4.4 Incentive Opportunities

4.5 Funding Opportunities

4.6 Policy Recommendations
Task 5: Deliverables

5.1 Final Report: Implementation Actions

5.2 Prioritized Listing of EVCS Locations

5.3 GIS Mapping

5.4 Grant-writing Support

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 12 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan Enid Joffe / Raoul Wood, PE, LEED AP, CEM /
Windell Pascascio / Aaron Hardy

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Our project team organization is shown below. The
Kittelson team provides the City:
h With unsurpassed and nationally recognized
expertise in transportation electrification
h A vast amount of implementation experience,
much of which is centered in Southern California
h Extensive local, regional, statewide, and national
networking connections that will facilitate the
successful completion of the EVCS Master Plan
Technical & Financial Analysis Capabilities
and Experience
Kittelson. Kittelson has extensive experience helping
agencies understand the practical implications
EVs will have on transportation infrastructure and
operations. From nationally recognized research
efforts to operations planning and installation
programs for electric fleet deployments, we
understand how to anticipate how EVs and
alternative-fuel vehicles will interface with existing
transportation systems and emerging models
for delivering mobility. Combining 39 years of
transportation planning and design experience with
new mobility players, Kittelson can assist the City
with developing a resilient, future-proofed roadmap
for incorporating EVCS.

The experience Kittelson’s has with electrification
planning extends from statewide down to sitespecific planning, design, and implementation. We regularly help agencies assess their current situation
(i.e., existing infrastructure, demographics, trip
characteristics, and demand), use data to forecast
their transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), and
provide guidance preparing for the future, including
recommending infrastructure improvements, and
implementation strategies. EV adoption across a
region requires different strategies and thinking that
honors and respects the residents and businesses
in all neighborhoods and communities. We take
a human-centered approach to our EV planning
projects. We expect and encourage interaction
with employees, community-based organizations,
business associations, residents, and public and
private partners throughout the project.

From site design to citywide transportation system
planning, Kittelson combines transportation and
land use expertise to produce solutions that achieve
sustainable community goals and support healthy
communities. Our effective plans are data-driven
and solution-oriented, framed by clearly defined
goals, and guided by performance metrics. Our
subconsultants have worked with many of the major
automakers as they rolled out their first ZEVs.

CITY OF

LA MESA
Wayne Kittelson

PROJECT PRINCIPAL/

QUALITY MANAGER
Wayne Kittelson
Enid Joffe

FUNDING ASSESSMENT
Mychal Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP
Enid Joffe
Marissa Tucker-Boquez

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Jennifer Marks
Susan Mah

TECHNICAL EDITING &

GRAPHIC DESIGN

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Legend
 Kittelson GPC  Imperial Electric Services  EVSE Engineering  Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Solutions
Mychal Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP

PROJECT MANAGER
Mychal Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP
Wayne Kittelson
Enid Joffe
Windell Pascascio
Aaron Hardy

ANALYSIS & FIELD WORK
Mychal Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP
Wayne Kittelson
Enid Joffe

DEPLOYMENT EVALUATIONS
Team Organization

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 13 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan Summary of Experience Feature
Project Experience:

Electric Vehicle Master PlansElectric Vehicle SupplyEquipment PlanningElectric Vehicle SupplyEquipment DesignElectric Grid PlanningTechnology Transition PlansEvaluation Plans Oregon DOT Transportation Electrification Infrastructure Needs Assessment(K) P P P P P
Town of Cary Electric Vehicle Master Plan & Fleet Transition Study (K) P P Hillsborough County Electric Vehicle Readiness Study(K) P P P P P P New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Clean Transportation Roadmap & Clean Transportation Prizes, (K) P P San Francisco Curb Management & Parking Impacts of
Emerging Technologies; San Francisco, CA(K) P P
Towson University Zero Emission Electrical Vehicle Fleet Transition Study; Towson, MD(K) P P
Whatcom County Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Study; Whatcom County, WA(K) P P P P P
Boise Electric Vehicle Readiness Study; Boise, ID(K) P P P Yamhill County Public Works Facility - Electric Vehicle Charging Stations; Yamhill County, ORK)
P P
San Joaquin Council of Governments Transportation Innovation Planning Study & Fiber Readiness Study; San Joaquin County, CA (K)

P P P P P
Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative: Plug-in Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Guidelines for Multiple-Unit Dwellings P P Electric Power Research Institute: Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Installed Cost Analysis P P P P
Kittelson has been working with EV and ZEV
manufacturers to plan for new fleet operations
in urban environments. Working with the vehicle
operator Beep, we assessed how their current and
future charging capabilities could affect the range,
hours of service, and reliability of a fleet of 20
automated electric shuttles in Lake Nona, Florida.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 14 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

OREGON DOT TRANSPORTATION

ELECTRIFICATION INFRASTRUCTURE

NEEDS ASSESSMENT &

TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION

ACTIVITIES MAPPING
Statewide - Oregon
Kittelson led development of the Oregon DOT
Transportation Electrification Infrastructure Needs
Assessment to evaluate EV charging infrastructure
needs to meet the light-duty, ZEV adoption goals
articulated under 2019 Oregon Senate Bill 1044,
while also examining charging needs for other
vehicle types and use cases. The charging needs
of rural drivers and those residing in historically
marginalized communities were of particular note.

Based on the analysis results, Kittelson
recommended policies and implementation
priorities to accelerate infrastructure deployment
with an emphasis on the near-term to set an
appropriate pace to achieve the mid- and longterm milestones. Kittelson provided specialized expertise in travel demand forecasting, scenario
planning, electrification technologies, stakeholder
engagement, and policy formulation.

Electrification Activities Mapping. Kittelson
inventoried and characterized the transportation
electrification activities occurring in Oregon. The
activities involved investor- and consumer-owned
utilities, municipal electric districts, state agencies, private companies, non-government organization’s,
addressing equity and environmental justice issues,
cities, counties, transit agencies, and others.

The resulting database is being used to identify
barriers and challenges to transportation
electrification in Oregon; levers and tools being used
to address these challenges; specific activities being
undertaken by the various entities and how they
communicate or connect with one another; and gaps
that will benefit from additional focus and activity.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ELECTRIC

VEHICLE READINESS PLAN
Hillsborough County, FL
The Hillsborough Transportation Planning
Organization (TPO) worked with Kittelson to
complete their first EV infrastructure plan. The
plan was prepared to position the TPO for funding
opportunities; inform long-range planning efforts;
provide near-term goals and guidance to make
EV charging accessible; and complement the
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Zero-Emission
Fleet Transition Plan and Florida DOT Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Master Plan.

Kittelson completed the plan, which includes a
framework for deploying widespread, convenient,
and accessible EV charging in Hillsborough County.

Because of the nature of this planning process,
Kittelson provided expertise in GIS analysis, scenario
planning, electrification technologies, stakeholder
engagement, and policy formulation.

The plan is adaptable so the TPO can adjust to
changes in EV charging technology while meeting
current needs. The plan identifies existing conditions, analyzes demand and needs, and provides guidelines
for installing future charging infrastructure. The plan considers urban and rural light-duty, disadvantaged
communities, commercial delivery (medium-duty
freight), transportation network companies and gig
drives, and transit fleet use case studies.

The plan identifies the new public EV charging
infrastructure by charger type (Level 2 Workplace,
Level 2 Public, and DCFC), by quantity required in
each target year, and by location (at census block
group level of resolution). Kittelson recommended
policies that local jurisdictions can adopt to assist in implementation, including guidance for developing
accessible stations or requirements for EV charging
spaces as a proportion of parking spaces.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 15 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

CARY ELECTRIC VEHICLE MASTER PLAN
& FLEET TRANSITION STUDY
Cary, NC
Kittelson led the analysis and outreach efforts to
complete the Cary Electric Vehicle Master Plan &
Fleet Transition Study to assist the Town of Cary
meet their goals to reduce community carbon
emissions 100% by 2040. This involved completing
an existing conditions evaluation of Cary’s land use,
key destinations, Justice40 communities, fleet vehicle
storage sites, and public and municipal EVCSs.

Kittelson forecasted future charging demand by
estimating the current number of registered battery
electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and
projecting growth rates out to 2030. Based on this
forecast, Kittelson estimated the number of public
electric chargers for Level 2 Workplace, Level 2
Public, and DCFC.

Working with the Town’s Fleet Manager, Kittelson
analyzed the existing municipal fleet based on
vehicle type, use, average daily mileage, and
storage location. The analysis identified vehicles
with equivalent or similar battery EV options today
or vehicles that could be right sized or transitioned
to alternative fuel vehicle options during the
replacement cycle. Kittelson created a Fleet
Electrification Planning Checklist to help identifying
fleet vehicles to transition to electric, support EV
charging needs, and fund and procure alternatives.

Other elements Kittelson was involved with included
providing guidance for procuring EV supply
equipment to support the fleet transition; reviewing
the local ordinance and peer municipalities’
policies, guidelines, and best practices; providing
ADA accessibility and design best practices; and
recommending code and policy updates to facilitate
equitable access to EVCSs.

KEY PERSONNEL
The Kittelson team’s key personnel can combine
their expertise as transportation practitioners with
their experience planning and designing multimodal
transportation networks, which includes integrating
electrification infrastructure. The following describes their expertise, experience, and capabilities to
complete an EVCS Master Plan that facilitates the
intended outcomes of equitably meeting the needs
of EV users, accelerating EV adoption to achieve
regional and statewide goals, reducing green house
gas emissions, and mitigating climate change.

MYCHAL LOOMIS, PE (CIVIL &
TRAFFIC), PTOE, RSP1

KITTELSON
Project Manager
Mychal is an experienced transportation
engineer who has managed large
projects to guide agencies with
investment decisions, which
includes incorporating transportation
electrification infrastructure into the
transportation network. He is leading efforts
with SANDAG to locate and integrate EVs into
communities across the region.

As a transportation engineer, Mychal has led
community planning efforts in San Diego, master
plans for naval bases in San Diego, and continues to
help agencies plan roadways that provide a complete
network and options for all users. He regularly
leads near-and long-term project development
projects, involving land use code and development
regulations; working with agencies developing new
policies and priorities through local application
of national research and consensus building; and
planning and implementing relevant elements and
evaluation metrics.

His public engagement and facilitation capabilities
are applied to effectively communicate with diverse
viewpoints, including equity focus groups, to inform
needs and outcomes while assessing practical
applications and recommendations related to
electrification infrastructure.

Relevant Project Experience:
h SANDAG Request for Innovative Concepts – ACES
Mobility Network
h City of San Diego Community Plans (University,
Mira Mesa, Uptown, North Park, Golden Hill, Otay
Mesa, Barrio Logan)
h City of La Mesa On-Call Transportation Services
(While with a previous employer)

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

WAYNE KITTELSON, PE (OR)

KITTELSON
Project Principal/Quality Manager

ENID JOFFEGPC
EV Charging Subject Matter Expert
Wayne has influenced significant changes in how
transportation systems are planned and designed, as
a transportation researcher, planner, and designer.

He has contributed to these shifts by leading
multidisciplinary teams that addressed diverse issues
ranging from public policy to design guidance. As a
project manager, he knows how to take advantage
of team members’ capabilities to build ownership,
durability, and resilience into the solutions and
programs that result.

Recently, he has worked with statewide and local
agencies on assisting them with electrification of the
transportation system. He managed the Oregon DOT
Transportation Electrification Infrastructure Needs
Analysis and Electric Vehicle Plan. For Hillsborough,
Florida, he assisted with preparing the Electric
Vehicle Readiness Plan. All these plans will assist
these agencies with investment decisions related
to EV infrastructure, including decisions related to
priority populations.

In addition, Wayne has demonstrated an exceptional
ability to engage various people, listen to them, and
shift established practices to improve transportation
networks. This includes his leadership to shift the
transportation industry towards systemic safety
analysis while preparing the Highway Safety Manual,
First Edition and influencing the use of bicycle and
pedestrian performance measures while preparing
the FHWA Guidebook for Pedestrian and Bike
Performance.

Relevant Project Experience:
h Oregon DOT Transportation Electrification
Infrastructure Needs Assessment; Transportation
Electrification Activities Mapping; and State
Electrical Vehicle Plan
h New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority Clean Roadmap & Clean Transportation
Prizes – Support Electrification Infrastructure
Needs Assessment
h Hillsborough Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan;
Hillsborough, FL
Prior to founding GPC in 2019, Enid owned Clean
Fuel Connection, an EVCS installation company. Over
a 20-year period, the company provided charging
infrastructure for every major automaker as they
rolled out their initial electric car models. Major
customers included Kaiser Permanente and Disney
Worldwide Resorts, as well as dozens of local and
regional governments. Clean Fuel Connection
provided or installed 10,000+ EVCSs.

As one of the leaders in the new field of
transportation electrification, Clean Fuel Connection
helped create and implement the regulations and
incentive programs that guide the growth of the
EV charging industry today. The firm authored a
number of EV readiness guides, including “Ready,
Set Charge!” for a coalition of Bay Area cities
and EV charging recommendations for the City
of Riverside, California. For the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Clean Fuel Connection
held EV 101 workshops throughout Southern
California and EV permitting workshops with
local and regional building officials. They also
created charging installation permit streamlining
guidelines, P&L models for structuring charging
fees, model ordinances related to EV charging, idling
enforcement procedures, and signage guidelines.

Enid also has a long history of being a public servant, giving her first hand insights into the operations
of local governance. She served as a local
government relations representative for Southern
California Edison; Planning Commissioner, General
Plan Committee member, City Council member,
and Mayor of the City of Sierra Madre; and is the
founding Chair of the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments Environmental Committee.

Relevant Project Experience:
h Associated Bay Area Governments: Ready, Set,
Charge California; A Guide to California
h Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative: Plug-in
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Guidelines for Multiunit Dwellings h Electric Power Research Institute, Electric Vehicle
Supply Equipment Installed Cost Analysis
h Riverside: EV Readiness Technical Support

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 17 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

WINDELL PASCASCIO IMPERIAL

ELECTRIC SERVICES
EVCS Installation Expert
Imperial Electric Services, an Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Training (EVIT) certified firm and
Minority-Owned Business, was founded by Windell
Pascascio in 2016 and specializes in EV charging
infrastructure, solar and battery storage systems,
and underground utility work. The company has
completed more than 100 EVCS installations for
the cities of Palm Dale and Arvin in California, San
Joaquin County Housing Authority, City of Los
Angeles Department of Transportation, Housing
Authority of Los Angeles, and dozens of commercial
installations. The firm is registered with the
Department of Industrial Relations to work on public
works projects.

RAOUL L. WOOD, PE,

LEED AP, CEMEVSE ENGINEERING
Electrical Engineer
Raoul is a California Registered Electric Engineer
(P14982) specialized in the power industry. He has
worked in the oil and gas industry, photovoltaic,
power electronics, energy efficiency, and EVCSs. He
has worked for Chevron, Arco, Honeywell, Edison
Source, and several renewable energy companies.

For the past 10 years, Raoul has been designing
EVCS as Engineer of Record for several large EVCS
providers including MaxGen and BryteMove.

Projects include sites for major utilities (SDG&E,
Southern California Edison, and PG&E), as well as
car dealerships for Kia, Mercedes, Toyota, Rivian,
and Tesla. Commercial customers include large
supermarket chains, as well as CVS, Microsoft,
Facebook, Disneyland, UPS, Fedex, Amazon, Penske,
Hitachi, and Electrify America. Raoul’s experience
designing over 4,000 EVCS will be extremely useful
in evaluating and prioritizing the potential charging
locations in the city.

AARON HARDY ELECTRIC

VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS
Constructability Advisor
Aaron has over 30 years of experience in electrical
and construction management. He has worked for
and advised multiple utilities including Southern
California Edison, SDG&E, PG&E, and Los Angeles
Department of Water & Power. Since 2019, he has
owned his own company advising clients such as
Tesla, Penske, BNSF, Victor Valley Transit, and Foothill Transit on utility coordination and constructability
project management. His background includes
working for Southern California Edison as a field
inspection and construction coordinator for multiple
electrical distribution system projects. He also led
the Southern California Edition project team that
coordinated with customers and EVSPs on charging
installations funded by multiple State initiatives.

Aaron will coordinate with SDG&E and provide
technical support on issues of constructability.

CALIFORNIA-BASED

FULL SERVICE OFFICE
Kittelson maintains two full service offices in
Southern California, including one in San Diego and
another in Orange. The proposed Project Manager
for this project, Mychal Loomis, PE, PTOE, RSP1, is
located in Kittelson’s San Diego office, which is a
short drive (or trolley ride) from La Mesa.

PENDING / RECENT

LITIGATION
Neither Kittelson nor its subcontractors have any
pending or recent litigation in the past 36 months.

PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
Imperial Electric Services is a California licensed C-10 contractor, certified Minority Owned Business, and
EVIT Certified.

Raoul Wood, PE, LEED AP, CEM is a California
Registered Electrical Engineer (#14982)

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 18 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan MYCHAL LOOMIS, PE, PTOE, RSP1
Project Manager
Education BS, Civil Engineering,
Oregon State University
License(s)/
Certification(s)
h Professional Engineer: CA (Civil) #76101
h Professional Engineer: CA (Traffic) #2918
h Professional Traffic Operations Engineer: #4347
h Road Safety Professional - Level 1 #286
Years of
Experience
17 Mychal is a certified transportation engineer and road safety professional serving an array of project and client types.

He has experience developing long-range mobility plans for communities, creating traffic and circulation plans to support new development, authoring local and statewide road safety plans, and designing several major roadways and phasing plans. Mychal provides responsiveness and holistic viewpoints on mobility, with a drive for serving clients and finding solutions supported by the community. He continues to learn and adapt to the ever-changing world of mobility to best serve his projects and the communities they benefit.

Project Experience
ACES (Automated, Connected, Electrified Shared
Network); Project Manager. In response to SANDAG’s
request for innovative concepts, ACES Network was
developed by a consortium, of which Kittelson was a
part of. Mychal served as Kittelson’s project manager
and worked on developing the ACES Network to improve
mobility for priority communities through a network of
electrified mobility hubs served by autonomous shuttles.

ACES will supplement the regional transit system with
first- and last-mile connections to regional mobility
hubs; generate revenue from charging infrastructure;
and incentivize electric-vehicle based mobility providers to serve other areas where their fleet could charge. The concept was selected by SANDAG through a competitive
selection process and the team is developing a
memorandum of understanding with SANDAG to partner
in its funding and regional implementation.

La Mesa On-Call Services; La Mesa, CA; Project Engineer.

With a previous firm, Mychal served as extension of
staff for the City of La Mesa. He was responsible for
responding to community concerns about traffic-related
issues in the city. Most frequent requests included stopsign warrant analyses, sight visibility evaluations, and speeding concerns. In addition, he performed field visits to examine the location related to the citizen concern, obtained traffic count or speed information as necessary, and completed traffic engineering evaluations. The
recommended actions were provided to the City Engineer
and improvements were made as needed.

San Diego Neighborhoods Mobility Elements; San
Diego, CA; Project Manager. With a previous firm, Mychal led the development of the Mobility Element for the
neighborhoods of North Park, Hillcrest, Golden Hill, Mira Mesa, University, Otay Mesa, and Barrio Logan. Mychal
and the team determined the preferred transportation
network by assessing the existing transportation facilities and transit operations. Based on analysis results, the team identified opportunities to use technology, repurpose
existing roadways, improve pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, and expand transit services to reduce reliance on single occupany vehicles. In addition, the team found ways to enhance connectivity, as well as emergency
vehicle routes and evacuation plans.

SANDAG Military Multimodal Access Strategy; San
Diego, CA; Planner. With a previous firm, Mychal
developed a regional military multimodal access strategy by assessing mobility connections to military installations and highlighting funding challenges, housing issues,
and misaligned work hours. The study informed regional
transportation priorities, benefiting a key stakeholder and traffic contributor. The study results have informed regional transportation project prioritization, providing a valuable input opportunity for one of the region’s largest stakeholders and a major contributor to traffic.

Caltrans Road Safety Infrastructure Plans; Project
Manager. Kittelson is establishing a methodology to
evaluate safety data along the California State Highway System by engaging stakeholders and prioritizing
infrastructure modifications. Using the methodology
established, Kittelson will develop 12 plans concurrently for all 12 districts. Mychal, along with the team, will work with stakeholders to identify improvements on
district-level priorities and highways. The project includes incorporating the Safe System Approach, which aligns
with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and
providing opportunities for public input and stakeholders at the regional and statewide level.

Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide; Project Engineer.

Kittelson is preparing two transportation analysis guides for Caltrans, the Traffic Calming Guide on the State
Highway System and Transportation Analysis Report
Guidance. The first guidance will assist with implementing the Zero-Fatality Task Force recommendation following
Assembly Bill 2363 (Friedman). The second guidance will help identify transportation analysis scope following the FHWA Interstate System Access Information Guide.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 19 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

WAYNE KITTELSON, PE (OR)
Quality Manager
Education h MS, Transportation
Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley
h BS, Civil Engineering,
Northwestern University
License(s)/
Certification(s)
h Professional Engineer: OR (Civil, #11494)
h Licensed Drone Pilot
Years of
Experience
48 Wayne served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Kittelson from its founding in 1985 to 2010 and is now a fulltime project manager and staff member. Throughout these years he has managed, participated in, or overseen many project types, including planning for transportation electrification. These projects typically involve multidisciplinary teams addressing diverse issues ranging from public policy to recommended technical practice. In the managerial role, Wayne’s communication, facilitation, and empowering skills take advantage of the individual strengths of his team mates to build ownership, durability, and resilience into the solutions and programs that result.

Project Experience
Oregon DOT Transportation Electrification Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TEINA); Project Manager. Wayne
managed the Kittelson team that conducted a statewide
assessment of its electrification charging infrastructure needs through 2035, when over 90% of all new-vehicle
sales in Oregon are expected to be zero-emission
vehicles (ZEVs) and over 50% of the statewide fleet is
expected to be fueled by electricity. Input was received from a 17-member Advisory Group representing the full
range of electric constituencies and through listening
sessions focused on special-interest groups, like light duty vehicles, rural environments, fleets, transit, and school buses. A detailed model was built and applied to predict charging needs throughout Oregon at a census
tract level of detail for 2025, 2030, and 2035 and across three growth scenarios. Near-and longer-term policy
recommendations were developed to facilitate movement
toward transportation electrification.

Oregon Transportation Electrification Activities
Mapping; Project Manager. Wayne managed the
Kittelson team that inventoried and characterized the
wide range of transportation electrification activities occurring throughout Oregon. These activities involve
investor- and consumer-owned utilities, municipal electric districts, State agencies, private sector companies,
non-government organizations addressing equity and
environmental justice issues, cities, counties, transit agencies, and others.

The resulting database is being used in to identify the key existing barriers and challenges to transportation
electrification in Oregon; levers and tools being used
to address these challenges; specific activities being
undertaken by the various actor entities and how they
communicate/connect with one another; and current
gaps and “electrification deserts” that will benefit from additional focus and activity.

Oregon Electric Vehicle Plan; Project Manager.

Wayne managed the team that prepared the Oregon
Electric Vehicle Plan, that was submitted and approved
in conjunction with the National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) program. The plan was among the
first to be submitted in the nation and also among the
first to be approved. It presents a 5-year deployment
program for electric vehicle charging stations located
along 11 designated alternative fuel corridors in Oregon.

Hillsborough Electric Vehicle Readiness Study;
Hillsborough County, FL; Project Principal. The
Hillsborough Transportation Planning Organization
completed their first electric vehicle infrastructure plan for Hillsborough County. Wayne supported the team
that forecasted electric vehicle adoption; assessed the charging infrastructure needed through 2050; identified priority locations for installing charging infrastructure, and reviewed policies and code language to recommend
policies for local jurisdictions to encourage electric vehicle adoption. The planning process included engaging
stakeholders through an Advisory Council, listening
sessions, and a public survey.

New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority Clean Transportation Prizes Technical
Support; Project Principal. Wayne supported providing
grant awardees with technical assistance by reviewing
the existing electric vehicle charging infrastructure;
identifying locations for charging infrastructure; and
reviewing utility rate structures. He also engaged
stakeholders, like the City of Peekskill and electric vehicle service providers to identify challenges and opportunities to implement electric micro-transit.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 20 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

ENID JOFFE
Alternative Fuels Subject Matter Expert
Work History
Green Paradigm Consulting
President (2019 to Present)
Founded Green Paradigm Consulting after selling
Clean Fuel Connection (CFCI) to EV Charging Solutions
in December 2019. Assigned existing contracts with
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Southern
California Gas Company, and Los Angeles World Airport.

New clients include Port of Long Beach (subcontractor to Starcrest, LLC) and Chevron (CNG and Hydrogen).

Galileo Technologies, Inc.

Sales Consultant, formerly Senior Vice President (2016-2021) Manage North American sales for Galileo Technologies
Corporation. Assess market opportunities for Galileo
products. Business development for new and existing
markets. Respond to Requests for Proposals and bids.

Apply for grants and incentives. Provide technical support to sales and service personnel. Oversee construction
project management. Ensure customer satisfaction with
Galileo products and services. Maintain customer contact and resolve service issues. Transitioned to 30% time in March 2021 to focus on consulting.

Clean Fuel Connection, Inc.

Director of Business Development (2019-Present) / President (1999-2019)
Co-founder of CFCI, which consists of three divisions:
electric vehicle infrastructure, natural gas infrastructure, and consulting. Responsible for new business
development and corporate strategy. Supervise project
management and construction. Create and manage
network of Distributors and Resellers for Galileo products.

Oversight of internal business functions including contract management, billing, accounting administrative and
human resource functions. License holder for California Electrical Contractor’s license (A, B and C-10).

After sale of CGCI to EV Charging Solutions, remained on staff as Director of Business Development.

Edison EV
Manager Charger Infrastructure (1996-1999)
Responsible for more than $2 million in annual sales
at unregulated subsidiary of Edison International.

Advocate with state and local regulatory agencies on
air quality policy and financial incentives. Helped to
create more than $15 million in vehicle and infrastructure incentives for zero emission vehicles. Developed working relationships with regulatory agencies including California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mobile Source
Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and other state and regional regulatory agencies
Southern California Edison
Government Affairs Liaison (1996-1999)
Governmental Affairs Liaison for electric transportation at large investor owned utility. Helped develop and
implement strategic plans, governmental policies and
incentives to promote the electric vehicle Industry.

Initiated several projects and programs to support electric buses and cars. Worked with Metro staff and Board
members on the effort to re-introduce electric trolley
buses to Los Angeles. Monitored and recommended
positions on regulatory and legislative proposals.

United Way of Los Angeles
Director of Allocations & Agency Relations (1975-1982)
Responsible for allocating funds to member agencies and community organizing to increase childcare services and social services to the Hispanic community.

Education h MA, Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles h BA, Sociology, Barnard College
h Certificate, Management Development for Entrepreneuers, University of California, Los Angeles - Anderson School of Management
Years of
Experience
30+
Enid is a pioneer in the transportation electrification movement with more than 30 years of experience. She is a recognized expert in transportation electrification, in particular for her expertise in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Her expertise on equity, clean energy policy, and funding opportunities are applied throughout California to establish electric vehicle charging stations at private and public facilities. She routinely assist organizations with assessing charging infrastructure needs, developing and implementing electric vehicle charging projects, grant-writing, implementing government incentive programs, conducting community outreach, and developing equity programs and metrics. In addition, she help develop and implement workforce development programs to train people in the electric vehicle related field.

Her current firm, Green Paradigm Consulting has won over $100 million for clients, including $60 million from the Federal Charging & Fuel Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 21 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

WINDELL PASCASCIO
EVCS Installation Expert
License(s)/Certification(s) h CSLB: #1015336
h MBE: #17001289
h DBE: 46438
h SB: 2018214
h C-10 Classification
h OSHA 30-Hour Certified
h EVITP Certified
h ISMerwpr;d Certified
h Avetta Certified
Years in Business
8 Windell is the visionary founder of Imperial Electric Services, a distinguished Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) certified Minority-Owned
Business, established in 2016. With a lifelong passion for electrical engineering and infrastructure development,
Windell transformed his dream into reality at the
remarkable age of 26. Drawing inspiration from his
family, Windell›s entrepreneurial journey began humbly
in his garage, driven by a deep-rooted commitment to
excellence and a desire to make a meaningful impact in
the industry.

Under his leadership, Imperial Electric Services has
flourished, specializing in cutting-edge electric vehicle charging infrastructure, solar and battery storage
systems, and underground utility work. His relentless
pursuit of professional growth and expertise is
underscored by an impressive array of certifications,
including St. Mary Economic Business, Western Electrical Contractors Association, Turner Construction School of
Management, and several others, reflecting his dedication to continuous learning and mastery of his craft.

The firm services California and Washington, with
strategic facilities established in the Central Valley to ensure efficient client service statewide. The staff at Imperial Electric Services has an unwavering commitment to quality, reliability, and trust. This commitment has cultivated a culture of excellence and built a reputation as a trusted industry leader.

Windell remains deeply committed to serving his
community. Through initiatives such as providing
employment opportunities, youth training programs,
and community outreach efforts, he continues to make a
positive difference in the lives of others.

His professional journey is guided by a singular focus:
to create a better world for his family and future
generations. Every decision and action he takes is a
testament to his unwavering dedication to this noble
cause and his relentless pursuit of excellence in all aspects of his life and work.

Project Experience
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Fresno, CA
Electric vehicle infrastructure project, including four direct connect fast charger (DCFC) Tritium chargers and four
Evo Charge singel port Level 2 chrgers. Installed a 600A Millbanki Switchgear.

Oroville Utility Infrastructure Project
Oroville, CA
Installed four DCFC, one Level 2 charger with new utility infrastructure (R29).

Tesla New Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Marina, CA
Installation of new Tesla electric vehice charging station in Marina, California.

Awards
h California Black Chamber - Small Business of the
Year (2019 & 2022)
h California Small Busines Recognition (2022)
h California American Water Diverse Business
Enterprise (2022)
h Southern California Glenn Moore Diversity
Award (2023)
100
Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations Installed

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 22 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

RAOUL WOOD, PE, LEED AP, CEM
Electrical Engineer
Education h BSEE, Electrical Engineering,
California State University, Los Angeles
h MSME, Aerodynamics, Stanford
University
h MSME, Petroleum Engineering,
University of Louisiana, Lafayette
h MSEE, Electrical Engineering, California
Institute of Technology
h Continuing Education (Over 120
Graduate Units in Engineering
& Management}
License(s)/
Certification(s)
h Professional Engineer: AK, CA, IL,

NV, OR, PR, TX, WA
h LEED AP Accredited
h Certified Energy Manager
h Certified Demand Side Manager
h OSHA 30-Hour Trained:

Construction & General Industry
h Certified (NFPA 70E) Electrical
Safe Work Practice Trainer
Years of
Experience
30+
Raoul, a California Registered Electrical Engineer (P14982), brings decades of experience spanning oil and gas, photovoltaics, power electronics, energy efficiency, and electric vehicle charging. His broad background includes roles at Chevron, Arco, Honeywell, Edison Source, and various renewable energy firms. For the last decade, Raoul has served as Engineer of Record for leading electric vehicle charging providers like MaxGen and BryteMove. His portfolio boasts over 4,000 charging stations across major utilities (SDG&E, Southern California Edison, PG&E), car dealerships (Kia, Mercedes, Toyota, Rivian, Tesla), and commercial giants such as supermarket chains, CVS, Microsoft, Facebook, Disneyland, UPS, Fedex, Amazon, Penske, Hitachi, and Electrify America.

Work History
Verde Watts Renewables
Chief Technology Officer (2013 to Present)
h Developed large scale bio-gas processing plant
in Brazil
h Developed utility scale gas turbine base
generation project
One Planet Caribe
Chief Technology Officer (2011 to 2013)
h Developed large scale photovoltaic plant in Puerto Rico h Designed seven gasification power plants
h Developed seven distribution generation projets for
pharmaceuticals industry
MaxGen Energy Services
Vice President Engineering (April 2010 to February 2011) h Developed 23 public sector photovoltaic projects
h Performed 3rd party financial and technical reviews of renewable projects
Chevron Energy Solutions
Engineering Manager Renewables – Project Development
Manager (2001 to 2010)
h Managed Native American Renewable Project
Development Program Complex Offering
h Developed Large Scale Renewal Projects PV, Wind
h Designed, Project Managed & Installed Over 2,200 MW
of Photovoltaic Systems
h Educational Show Case Winner East Los Angeles
Community College 1 MW Solar Photovoltaic Carport
h Installed Wastewater & Public Sector Fuel Cell
Generation Projects
h Implemented Demand Side Management for
10 Campuses for a Community College District:

Comprehensive Energy Audit, Lighting Retrofit, HVAC
Upgrades, Enterprise Wide EMS Controls, Utility
Rebates, Measurement & Validation, Performance
Guarantee, and Complex Project Financing
h Managed Complete MEP Energy Modernization Project
for 28 K-12 Schools
h Designed over 10 Central Plants with Co-Generation,
Thermal Storage, WEB Base EMS Controls, Multiple
Staged Boilers, Electric Centrifugal Chillers, and Dual Fired Absorption Chillers
Honeywell
Global Engineering Manager -- Food & Beverage
(1998 to 2001)
h Developed adaptive energy saving compressed
air systems
h Installed over 100 microturbine distributed
generation systems
h Designed advanced large scale energy efficient
ammonia refrigeration systems
h Designed small gas separation plant for industrial
customers liquid nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium
(Cost saving measure over purchased industrial gas)
Edison Source
Chief Electrical Engineer (1996 to 1998)
h Implemented Energy Efficiency Performance Contracts:

Con-generation, Thermal Storage
h Distributed Generation and Conventional Energy
Efficiency Measures, Lighting, EMS Controls,
Replacement of Boilers, Chillers, Air Handlers, and
Package Units

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 23 February 12, 2024
City of La Mesa / Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

AARON HARDY
Constructability Advisor
Education h High School Diploma,
Hemet High School
License(s)/
Certification(s)
h Air Quality Management District Rule
403.1 Certified
h California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
h OSHA Certified for Confined Space, Fall
Protection, and Injury Prevention
h Class C Drivers License, CA
Years of
Experience
30+
Aaron is a construction professional with 30+ years of experience, specializing in land development and underground construction activities, including electric vehicle infrastructure installations. He is known for his leadership in resource planning, project delivery, and team building. Aaron is an expert in utility construction standards and regulations, advising major California utilities and facilitating charging infrastructure development for prominent organizations, like Southern California Edison, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Caltrans, and Tesla.

Outside of his professional endeavors, Aaron finds relaxation on his 500-acre grapefruit orchard, irrigated with recycled water. He enjoys exploring the natural beauty of mountains and deserts, with plans for a future home powered entirely by renewable energy sources. His commitment to excellence, integrity, and environmental sustainability underscores his professional and personal pursuits, making him an invaluable asset to any project or initiative.

Work History
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Solutions
Chief Technology Officer (2013 to Present)
Responsible for forward planning, engineering, utility
coordination, site acquisition, development thru
energization supporting electric vehicle and heavy
duty electric vehicle infrastructure installation. Work has been completed for Tesla, Southern California Edison, Los Angeles DOT, Los Angeles Department of Water &
Power, EVGO, Charge Point, Penske, Trillium, Enel X, BNSF, Visalia Transit, Porterville Transit, Victor Valley Transit, Foothill Transit.

Southern California Edison
Field Inspector & Construction Coordinator
Southern California Edison field inspector and
construction coordinator on multiple electrical
distribution system projects. Workd on the EV-Charge
Ready Initiative for Southern California Edison, Tesla, Charge Point, Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Caltrans, BNSF, cities, NRG/EVGO, MHP (Mobile Home Park Initiative), and IMS
(Installation Management Services).

Other responsibilities included:
h Leading the inspection, management, and coordination
of multiple projects under tight time constraints
h Ensuring compliance with Southern California Edison
construction standards
h Confirming site readiness, coordinating traffic and
pedestrian control, and ensuring environmental and
legal requirements are met
h Collaborating with internal and external stakeholders to coordinate material and equipment staging for
timely project commencement
h Analyzing equipment needs and coordinating related
customer outages
h Maintaining a safety-conscious work environment
Skills
h Thorough knowledge of safe work practices, basic
electrical theory, construction/maintenance standards,
methods, techniques, tools, and equipment as they
relate to the electric distribution system
h General knowledge of tariffs and Southern California
Edison Distribution resource books, like DDS, ESR,
DOI-I, DUG, and UGS Manual
h Strong project management skills managing multiple
projects, updating project status, creating and editing reports, adjusting schedules, reallocating resources,
and identifying and managing risks
h Experienced with the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual