LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting
Date: Tuesday, April 23, 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 3700 characters (approximately 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. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
4. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
5. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
6. PRESENTATIONS
6.1 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION PRESENTED TO ZAIDA
DONNELLY, HELIX CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, 2024
CALIFORNIA STATE SPEECH CHAMPION IN ORIGINAL ADVOCACY
6.2 PROCLAIMING JUNE 12, 2024 AS SAN DIEGO COUNTY FAIR DAY
6.3 PROCLAIMING MAY 15, 2024 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS'
MEMORIAL DAY
6.4 PROCLAIMING MAY 2024 AS WATER SAFETY MONTH
6.5 PROCLAIMING MAY AS BIKE MONTH 1
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
NOTE: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take any action on the item at this meeting.
If appropriate, the item will be referred to Staff or placed on a future agenda.
8. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time in which members of the Council or audience may pull items from the CONSENT CALENDAR for discussion. Public Comments are also invited on Consent Calendar items.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 10.1 through 10.10)
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.
*If a public hearing item is part of the Consent Calendar, the public hearing shall be deemed held if the item is not removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action (Items 10.9 and 10.10)
Recommended Motion:
Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.10.
10.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT
OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2024
2 Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.3 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE CITYWIDE EDGELINE STRIPING PROJECT, BID 23-16, TO
WGJ ENTERPRISES DBA PCI
11 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES
FOR BID 24-04, LEMON AVENUE PARKING LOT TO DUDEK
16 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.5 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS PLAN, SEGMENT 1
21 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.6 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIFTH AMENDED NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM SAN DIEGO
REGIONAL STORMWATER CO-PERMITTEES MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
56 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN
APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES
BOARD FOR A STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN FOR THE INFLOW
AND INFILTRATION MITIGATION PROJECT PHASE 7 FOR A NOTTO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $7,000,000 77 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.8 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN FOR THE
CITY OF LA MESA
85 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.9 *SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG)
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTCIP) DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE
165
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANDAG ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO
THE RTCIP DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01
AND TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE
PLAN
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.10 *QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK
ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE
170
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINDINGS FOR THE QUIMBY ACT
PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK ACQUISITION
AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ. AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PROJECTS AS OUTLINED IN THE
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11. STAFF REPORT
11.1 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT DESIGN FOR PUBLIC ART: COLLIER PARK MURAL
175
Staff Reference: Ms. Richardson
Recommended Motion:
Approve the concept design for the Collier Park public mural project.
12. COUNCIL INITIATED
12.1 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TO DEFEND HEALTH AND
SAFETY SETBACK REGULATIONS (SENATE BILL 1137) AND
ENDORSE THE CAMPAIGN FOR A HEALTHY AND SAFE
CALIFORNIA - COUNCILMEMBER SHU
181
13. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
14. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
15. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
16. ADJOURNMENT
SANDAGregion SANDAG SANDAGregion SANDAGregion SANDAG
#BikeAnywhereSD
Bike Anywhere Day 2024
Thursday, May 16
Ride your bike to work, school,
the beach, or anywhere in
the San Diego region on
Thursday, May 16. Pedal to
one of our many pit stops
between 7 and 10 a.m. to pick
up your free t-shirt.
Sign Up
SANDAG.org/bikemonth
Everyone 18 or older who signs up to participate in the free event will be automatically entered for the chance to win one of three e-bikes, courtesy of Velotric.
9009
March
1 La Mesa City Council
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Date:
Location:
April 9, 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, except for Item 10.1 which was considered following Public Comments and before Conflict Disclosures.
Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1.1 INVOCATION - VICE MAYOR LOTHIAN
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
2 The Mayor, Council and staff made announcements and reported on various events taking place in the City. No action was taken.
4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
Mayor Arapostathis announced that Item 10.1 would be considered following Public Comment and before Conflict Disclosures.
5. PRESENTATIONS
5.1 PROCLAIMING APRIL 26, 2024 AS ARBOR DAY
Mayor Arapostathis read the proclamation proclaiming April 26, 2024 as Arbor Day.
5.2 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS ART, CULTURE, AND
CREATIVITY MONTH
Mayor Arapostathis read the proclamation proclaiming the month of April as Art, Culture, and Creativity Month.
The following members of the public spoke in support of the proclamation proclaiming the month of April as Art, Culture, and Creativity Month:
Michael Angelo Camacho
Ada Shido
5.3 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS VOLUNTEER MONTH
Mayor Arapostathis read the proclamation proclaiming the month of April as Volunteer Month.
5.4 PRESENTATION OF THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE
STREETS PLAN, SEGMENT 1
Engineering Project Manager Kinnard provided a PowerPoint presentation on the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1. The presentation highlighted the project overview, schedule, and key concepts, which included consistency with the Climate Action Plan, reducing exposure times for pedestrians and bicycles, balancing modes, enhancing transit stops, ensuring equitable access for all, and maintaining and adding parking where feasible. Engineering Project Manager Kinnard also summarized the outreach and engagement efforts, survey feedback, existing conditions of the project area, proposed roadway configurations, mode-share before and after improvements, and outlined the next steps.
Council questions and comments ensued.
3 The following members of the public spoke in support of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1:
Chloe Lauer
Corinna Contreras
Mike Rancourt
Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.
5.5 PRESENTATION OF THE LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
Engineering Project Manager Kinnard provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), highlighting the purpose of an LRSP, the citywide collision analysis, the locations of fatal injuries that occurred in the city between 2015 and 2019, the updated priority projects, and the next steps.
Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Drake Garvin spoke on remote public comment.
Dianne Osterling spoke on government transparency.
Leslie Fadem spoke on remote public comment.
Gene Carpenter spoke on the conduct of the City Councilmembers.
Bill Hohnhorst spoke on remote public comment.
Mike Rancourt spoke on remote public comment.
Carol Ortiz spoke on remote public comment, single-use plastics, and clean energy.
Ricardo Sanchez spoke on tax fraud.
Bonnie Baranoff announced the La Mesa Collaborative's Spring 2024 Family Resources Fair was scheduled for Saturday, April 13, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at La Mesa First United Methodist Church Fireside Park.
Brenda Hammond spoke on the actions of the La Mesa Fire Department.
Wendy Mihalic submitted a comment regarding remote public comment.
7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflict of interest disclosures.
4 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
Dianne Osterling spoke on Items 9.2 and 9.3.
Janet Castanos spoke on Item 9.2.
Larry Emerson spoke on Items 9.7 and 9.8.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 9.1 through 9.12)
Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Parent
Approve Consent Calendar Items 9.1 through 9.12.
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 26, 2024
Approve.
9.3 RESOLUTION DIRECTING REVIEW OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
Resolution No. 2024-032
Adopt Resolution.
9.4 COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD 2023 ANNUAL REPORT 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.
Resolution No. 2024-033
Adopt Resolution.
5 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
Resolution No. 2024-034
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
Resolution No. 2024-035
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
Resolution No. 2024-036
Adopt Resolution.
9.9 BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RESOLUTIONS
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.
Resolution No. 2024-037
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
Resolution No. 2024-038
6 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
Resolution No. 2024-039
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)
Resolution No. 2024-040
Adopt Resolution.
9.11 RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROJECT 2022-0973 (BOULEVARD LA MESA LLC)
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
Approve.
9.12 RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROJECT 2024-0417 (GEORGEES)
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
Approve.
10. COUNCIL INITIATED
7 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
Councilmember Shu explained the purpose for requesting the Council adopt the Resolution in support of AB 3024: The Stop Hate Littering Act, introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward.
Janet Castanos spoke in support of the adoption of the Resolution in support of AB 3024.
Council questions and comments ensued.
Vice Mayor Lothian stated that she would not support the adoption of the Resolution in support of AB 3024 due to concerns regarding its potential conflict with the First Amendment right to free speech.
Resolution No. 2024-031
Moved By Councilmember Shu
Seconded By Councilmember Dillard
Adopt Resolution.
For (4): Mayor Arapostathis, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Parent, and Councilmember Shu
Against (1): Vice Mayor Lothian
Approved (4 to 1)
10.2 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO BEGIN CONVERTING
ALL CITY LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT TO NONPOLLUTING POWER
AND AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUEL - COUNCILMEMBER SHU
Councilmember Shu explained the purpose for requesting the Council direct staff to begin converting all city landscape equipment to nonpolluting power and away from fossil fuel.
The following members of the public spoke or submitted a comment in support of directing staff to begin converting all city landscape equipment to nonpolluting power and away from fossil fuel:
Wendy Mihalic
Larry Emerson
8 Nastassia Patin
Mairs Ryan
Lawrence Emerson
Muriel Spooner
Peter Andersen
Alexander Rivest
Christopher Glenn
Ronald Askeland
Council questions and comments ensued.
Moved By Councilmember Shu
Seconded By Councilmember Parent
Direct staff to begin converting all city landscape equipment to nonpolluting power sources, moving away from reliance on fossil fuels.
This directive applies to new purchases, leases, and rentals of landscape equipment, including blowers, trimmers, hedgers, chain saws, and lawn mowers. Exceptions may be granted in emergency circumstances or with a waiver from the City Manager following review by the Environmental Sustainability Commission (ESC) and consideration of their recommendations.
For (4): Mayor Arapostathis, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Parent, and Councilmember Shu
Against (1): Vice Mayor Lothian
Approved (4 to 1)
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.
12. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
There were no reports.
13. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.
9 14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER NO. 2 TO WGJ ENTERPRISES DBA PCI FOR
BID 23-16, CITYWIDE EDGELINE STRIPING PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $40,901.60 to WGJ Enterprises dba PCI for Bid 23-16, Citywide Edgeline Striping Project?
Recommendation:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $40,901.60 to WGJ Enterprises PCI, Inc. for Bid 23-16, Citywide Edgeline Striping Project.
Fiscal Impact:
Contract Change Order 2 will be funded by the following accounts City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community. Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.
FUNDING SOURCE GL ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
REQUESTED
AMOUNT
AVAILABLE
Highway Safety Improvement
Program Grant 302-68300-222BOT
$40,901.60 $98,700.88
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2023
Page: 2 of 2
Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
BACKGROUND:
On June 22nd, 2023, a construction contract for Bid 23-16, Citywide Edgeline Striping Project, in the amount of $42,110 was awarded to WGJ Enterprises dba PCI.
One contract change order, in the amount of $9,189.12 for additional quantities was awarded to WGJ Enterprises PCI, Inc. on October 9th, 2023.
Additional locations for roadway safety improvements were identified by the City. The contractor provided the City of La Mesa a quote in the amount of $40,901.60 to edge line stripe additional locations.
DISCUSSION:
To enhance public and pedestrian safety, promote safe driving speeds, and upgrade the City Public right of way, Staff requests an additional $40,901.60. These funds will be secured from an existing Highway Safety Improvements Project, HSIP – Edgeline Improvements, dedicated to edgeline improvements in the City.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $40,901.60 to WGJ Enterprises dba PCI for Bid 23- 16, Citywide Edgeline Striping 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-2 to WGJ Enterprises PCI, Inc.
B. Contract Change Order 2 Form with WGJ Enterprises PCI, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE CITYWIDE EDGELINE STRIPING PROJECT, BID 23-16, TO WGJ
ENTERPRISES DBA PCI
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the Citywide Edgeline Striping Project is a Highway Safety Improvements Project providing safety improvements in La Mesa by reducing lane size in the City of La Mesa’s continuous efforts to provide safe roadways for commuters, homeowners, and residents; WHEREAS, on June 22, 2023, a contract was awarded to WGJ Enterprises dba PCI to provide construction services for the Citywide Edgeline Striping Project; WHEREAS, the City identified additional locations that would benefit from reduced lane size 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. 2 in the amount of $40,901.60 for additional construction services between the City of La Mesa and WGJ Enterprises dba PCI for the Citywide Edgeline Striping Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23rd 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)
RE Contract: Date:
P.O. No.:
No.
1 1
2 3
3 4
4 5
5 N/A
The time provided for the contract is
Therefore, the revised contract time is working days, and the revised completion date is
$ 92,200.72
$ 40,901.60
Total Change
NET CHANGE THIS CCO (+ or -) % Change 97%
TOTAL CCO's (+ or -) $ 50,090.72 % Change 119%
CCO's PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (+ or -) $ 9,189.12 % Change 22% 3/22/2024
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
Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
WGJ ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA PCI
William Jacob, Owner
119%
.
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 0 working days.
30 NEW CONTRACT AMOUNT (C + B + A) % Change
23-16
$ 14,700.00
$ 799.20
$ 18,902.40
$ 4,700.00
Bid
Item
TO:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
$ 40,901.60
$ 42,110.00
WGJ Enterprises Inc., dba PCI
Preperation of Work & Traffic Comtrol
Resident Notifications
Mobilization $ 1,800.00
1 Coat Water Based 6" Edgeline Striping
2 Coat Water Based 6" Edgeline Striping
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
4/23/2024
242013
Detailed Description of Changes & Quantities or Scope of Work Citywide Edgline Striping Project
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
Bid No.:
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER NO. 1 TO DUDEK FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR BID
24-04, LEMON AVENUE PARKING LOT PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 1 to Dudek for Construction Management and Inspection Services for Bid 24-04, Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project in the amount of $30,637?
Recommendation:
Approve the attached Resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 1 to Dudek, for Construction Management and Inspection Services for Bid 24-04, Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project in the amount of $30,637.
Fiscal Impact:
Funds are available from the follow account.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.
FUNDING SOURCE GL ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
REQUESTED
AMOUNT
AVAILABLE
Capital Improvements Program
Fund per Resolution 2024-027 305-68300-524AGF
$30,637.00 $34,957.00
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 2
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
BACKGROUND:
On December 21, 2023, a construction contract for construction management and inspection services was awarded to Dudek in the amount of $46,075.
During the construction of the Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Improvements Project, unforeseen conditions were encountered that necessitated additional work. The additional work constituted further construction management and inspection from Dudek.
DISCUSSION:
To provide additional construction management and inspection services for the Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project, staff requests an additional $30,637. Funds will come from the Capital Improvements Program Fund.
The Capital Improvements Program Funds were secured per Resolution 2024-027, which was approved at the March 12, 2023 City Council meeting.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions Authorizing Contract Change Order No. 1 to Dudek for Construction Management and Inspection Services for Bid 24-04, Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project in the amount of $30,637.
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-1 to Dudek, Inc.
B. Contract Change Order 1 Form with Dudek
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR BID 24-04, LEMON
AVENUE PARKING LOT TO DUDEK
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project is a Capital Improvements Project aimed at revitalizing and enchancing downtown City of La Mesa; WHEREAS, on December 21, 2023, a contract was awarded to Dudek to provide construction managemenet and inspection services for the Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project; WHEREAS, the City identified the Lemon Avenue Parking lot as in need of rejuvenation and enhancement;
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. 1 for additional construction management and inspection services between the City of La Mesa and Dudek, for an amount of $30,637 for the Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23rd 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)
RE Contract: Date:
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/City Engineer
George Litzinger, Project Principal
Dudek
66%
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.
NEW CONTRACT AMOUNT (C + B + A) $ 76,712.00 % Change
$ 30,637.00
Total Change
NET CHANGE THIS CCO (+ or -) % Change 66%
TOTAL CCO's (+ or -) $ 30,637.00 % Change 66%
CCO's PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (+ or -) $ - % Change 0%
Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
DUDEK
242279
TO:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
$ 30,637.00
$ 46,075.00
1 Additional Construction Management and Inspection Services $ 30,637.00
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:
Item No.
Change in
Contract Price
4/23/2024
Detailed Description of Changes & Quantities or Scope of Work Lemon Avenue Parking Lot Project Construction
Management and Inspection Services
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
P.O. No.:
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LA MESA BOULEVARD
COMPLETE STREETS PLAN, SEGMENT 1
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City of La Mesa accept a resolution adopting the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1?
Recommendation:
Accept a resolution for the adoption of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1, with preferred Alternative-B (bike lane at curbside) for the University Ave. segment between Spring St. and Memorial Dr. and the La Mesa Blvd. segment between 4th St. and Memorial Dr.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community. Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
This project contributes to meeting the following CAP criteria:
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
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- 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.
BACKGROUND:
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 will serve as a model for the reinvigoration 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.
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 and construction of roundabouts along the corridor at key intersections to eliminate 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 the general public and numerous stakeholders. Public outreach included the creation of a project website, fact sheets, social media posts, two rounds of public surveys, public meeting events, commission meetings, and a public workshop. Public outreach feedback was utilized to finalize concepts before presenting the plan to the City Council.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
On April 9, 2023, City staff presented the final plan to the La Mesa City Council and received the Council’s support. Council selected the bike lane at curbside (or buffered bike lane) alternative for the University Ave. and La Mesa Blvd. segments.
The La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan provides a road map for the pursuit of final design and construction funding, environmental approvals as well as provide continuing community outreach and education regarding both the plan and benefits of active transportation and Smart Growth.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the resolution for the adoption of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1, and preferred Alternative-B (bike lane at curbside) for the University Ave. segment between Spring St. and Memorial Dr., and the La Mesa Blvd. segment between 4th St. and Memorial Dr.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Michael Kinnard, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments:A. Resolution for City of La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets, Segment 1
B. La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1 presentation
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ACCEPTING THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS PLAN, SEGMENT 1
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, $17 million in funding was made available to jurisdictions through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the 2019 funding cycle;
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2019, City Council approved submittal of an application to the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the preparation of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1;
WHEREAS, in April 2020, the City of La Mesa received notification of an award of $240,000 in grant funding from Caltrans for the preparation of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has adopted a Complete Streets Policy or the equivalent in the 2012 General Plan Update in a public hearing on July 9, 2013, that is consistent with the California Complete Streets Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 9, 2023 received a presentation on the plan and selected the bike lane at curbside (or buffered bike lane) alternative for the University Ave. and La Mesa Blvd. segments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, adopting a resolution accepting the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 1, with preferred Alternative-B (bike lane at curbside) for the University Ave. segment between Spring St. and Memorial Dr. and the La Mesa Blvd. segment between 4th St. and Memorial Dr.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23rd 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)
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 29 of 183
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 31 of 183 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 49 of 183
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 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIFTH AMENDED
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STORMWATER COPERMITTEES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ISSUING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City of La Mesa adopt a resolution for the Fifth Amended National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System San Diego Regional Stormwater CoPermittees Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to:
1. Outline the framework in which jurisdictions under the municipal stormwater NPDES permit cost share for work products?
2. Set a regional spending cap for FY 2025-2029 of $41,967,862? Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the Fifth Amended National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System San Diego Regional Storm Water Co-Permittees Memorandum of Understanding.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this amendment of the MOU. City of La Mesa’s cost share proportion is based on a region-wide formula considering population, land area, and equal share; and is completed for each fiscal year via a separate budget process.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
City’s Strategic Goals:
Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
BACKGROUND:
As a requirement of Order No. R9-2013-0001, San Diego County Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit), as issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on May 8, 2013, all Co-permittees shall execute a formal agreement which at a minimum:
(1) Identifies and defines the responsibilities of the Permittees; (2) Identifies Co-permittees and defines their individual and joint responsibilities, including watershed responsibilities;
(3) Establishes a management structure to promote consistency and develop and implement regional activities;
(4) Establishes standards for conducting meetings, decision-making, and costsharing; (5) Provides guidelines for committee and workgroup structure and responsibilities; (6) Lays out a process for addressing Co-permittee non-compliance with the formal agreement; and
(7) Includes any and all other collaborative arrangements for compliance with this Order.
DISCUSSION:
The MOU is an updated version of an existing agreement that has been in effect in various iterations since 2002. The changes between the previous 2019 version of the and the proposed MOU are related to the spending cap and the expiration date. Some rewording of existing items and clarification of existing language is also included.
This MOU will provide a FY 2024-2029 total regional budget spending cap of $41,987,862. Specifying a cap on spending is requested by the County of San Diego, the lead agency administering the agreement, for internal budgeting purposes. This amount averages to a region wide cap of $8,393,572 per year.
The City of La Mesa’s regional costs fluctuate between $125,000 and $200,000 per year depending on regulatory programs and implementation timeframes. The ability for the City of La Mesa to cost share work products with several jurisdictions based on the 45/45/10 population/land area/equal share spilt leads to significant long-term cost savings
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
as compared to coordinating these programs on our own. La Mesa's share of the total region, per the cost share formula is 1.70%.
There is no financial impact to the City of La Mesa related to the approval of this MOU or a funding cap on the fiscal year budget. Each fiscal year budget is discussed and voted on independently. Dollar figure caps listed in the MOU do not obligate any costs on the City of La Mesa.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the adoption of the Fifth Amended National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System San Diego Regional Stormwater Co-permittees MOU.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. NPDES San Diego Regional Stormwater Co-permittees MOU
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROVING THE FIFTH AMENDED NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STORMWATER COPERMITTEES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. R9-2013-0001 on May 8, 2013; WHEREAS, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) sets forth procedures for the management of funds contributed by the Co-permittees to fund programs implemented in order to facilitate compliance with San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9- 2013-0001;
WHEREAS, the current San Diego Co-permittees MOU expires in August 2024; WHEREAS, the proposed Fifth Amended San Diego Co-permittees MOU shall be in effect through August 2029;
WHEREAS, the Co-permittees wish to cap the 2025-2029 total costs at $41,967,862, and to preserve the ability to cost share regional storm water related work products; and WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa will not encumber any additional costs based on the adoption of this MOU.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Fifth Amended National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System San Diego Regional Storm Water Co-permittees MOU.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23rd 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)
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 1 - Fifth Amended: [date] Fifth Amended National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
2024
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), entered into by the County of San Diego (County), the San Diego Unified Port District (Port), the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Airport), and the incorporated cities of San Diego, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, San Marcos, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista (Cities), collectively called Copermittees, establishes the shared program responsibilities of each party with respect to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit regulations administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under the authority granted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 33 USCA 1251 et seq. as amended.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 1987 Congress amended Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USCA §1342p) to require the U.S. EPA to promulgate regulations for applications for permits for stormwater discharges; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. EPA adopted final permit regulations on November 16, 1990; and WHEREAS, these permit regulations require the control of pollutants from stormwater discharges by requiring an NPDES permit, which would allow the lawful discharge of stormwater into waters of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the County, the Port, the Airport, and the Cities desire to implement an integrated stormwater management program with the objective of improving surface water quality in the County of San Diego, but do so without waiving and expressly subject to any and all objections and appeals made by any Copermittee in response to any NPDES Permit; and WHEREAS, the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) as designee of the U.S.
EPA has delegated authority to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for administration of the NPDES stormwater permit within the boundaries of its region; and WHEREAS, on, May 8, 2013, the Regional Board issued an NPDES permit as Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100, NPDES No. CAS0109266, (Permit) governing waste discharge requirements for stormwater and urban runoff from the County, the Port, the Airport, and the Cities, naming these entities as Copermittees; and WHEREAS, said Permit requires that the Copermittees cooperate in the implementation of various Water Quality Improvement Plans and watershed management strategies to comply with the Permit and any future amendments and/or reissuances thereto.
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 2 - Fifth Amended: [date] NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
At Large means representing all of the Copermittees of this MOU.
Chair means presiding over and providing leadership and direction to a Working Body. This includes serving as a point of contact to external entities such as Regional Board staff, stakeholders, and industry groups, soliciting group input on and developing meeting content, facilitating meetings, and coordinating with the Secretary or Working Body Support staff to finalize work products for distribution to the Working Body. Chair responsibilities may also be divided between Co-Chairs.
Contract Administration means developing, soliciting, awarding, negotiating, and managing contracts.
Consensus means general agreement reached between the participants of a Working Body.
Copermittee, for the purposes of this agreement, means a stormwater agency located within San Diego County identified in Table 1a of the 2013 Permit, as amended.
Default Formula is the formula by which shared costs budgets for Regional General Programs or Watershed General Programs identified in Table 1 of this MOU are calculated, as described in Section II.B.1.a.(1).
Direct Costs mean those costs directly related to the development of a work product, and/or to the performance of a particular function or service. Direct Costs may include the wages of Copermittee employees engaged in an activity and the cost of materials or supplies, and/or contracts or consultants, needed to support that activity. Depreciation, equipment, and office space are not considered Direct Costs.
Fiscal Year starts on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year.
General Programs are collaborative urban runoff management activities which are (1) mandated by or necessary to implement requirements of the Permit, (2) necessary to anticipate the requirements, or prepare for renewal, of the Permit, (3) required to comply with Regional Board Orders or other directives required of Copermittees as point-source dischargers of urban runoff (e.g., 13267 Orders, Total Maximum Daily Loads, etc.), or (4) other stormwater and/or watershed management activities conducted with the unanimous approval of Copermittees sharing the cost or responsibility.
In-kind Contribution means a non-monetary contribution that can be used to satisfy an equivalent monetary obligation. Examples of In-kind Contributions are equipment or services provided for use.
Program Planning Subcommittee or Planning Subcommittee is composed as described in Section III.C.4 and 5.
Regional General Program(s) are activities that apply to all Copermittees, or that provide a regional benefit to Copermittees as determined by the Regional Management Committee.
Regional Principal Permittee is the County of San Diego unless another Regional Principal Permittee is selected in accordance with Section III.A. In addition to the responsibilities of all Copermittees described in Section II, the Regional Principal Permittee provides general coordination for the development and implementation of Regional General Programs, including the specific tasks and responsibilities described in Section III.A.1.b.
Regional Stormwater Management Committee or Management Committee is composed as described in Section III.B.2.
Regional Work Plan is a work plan that is one or more of the following: (1) developed and adopted annually for the purpose of conducting regional business to implement requirements of the Permit, (2) necessary to anticipate the requirements, or prepare for renewal, of the Permit, (3) required to comply with Regional Board Orders or other orders, directives, and/or regulatory mandates required of
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 3 - Fifth Amended: [date] Copermittees as dischargers of municipal stormwater (e.g., 13267 Orders, Total Maximum Daily Loads, etc.), or (4) other stormwater and/or watershed management activities conducted with the unanimous approval of Copermittees sharing the cost or responsibility.
Representative means a Copermittee staff member or consultant who serves as a point of contact and/or participant in the activities of a Working Body on behalf of the Copermittee. Except as described in Section III.B (Regional Stormwater Management Committee), Representatives are not required to attend meetings, but are expected to maintain a reasonable knowledge of, and involvement in, the activities of the Working Body. To the best of their ability each Copermittee Representative should have expertise and knowledge in the subject matter of each applicable Working Body.
Secretary means a person who takes responsibility for the records, correspondence, minutes or notes of meetings, and related affairs of a Working Body. This includes: maintaining group contact lists; preparing and sending out meeting notifications and agendas; arranging for meeting rooms and equipment; taking, preparing, and finalizing meeting minutes or notes; and, coordinating with the Chair or Working Body Support staff to organize and distribute work products to the Working Body.
Simple Majority means at least one-half (50%) of applicable Copermittees, rounded up to the nearest integer, or plus one where the number of Copermittees is even. For the purposes of this MOU, a simple majority may never be less than three Copermittees.
Shared Cost Budget is one that is agreed upon and shared by Copermittees for the purpose of conducting stormwater regulatory activities, and can be developed at a watershed, regional or other scale. The timeframe of shared cost budgets may be annual (fiscal year) or multi-year.
Special Formula means any cost share formula that differs from the Default Formula in the selection or weighting of individual factors or in the methodology used to calculate one or more of them.
Three-fourths Majority means at least three-fourths (75%) of applicable Copermittees, rounded up to the nearest integer. For the purposes of this MOU, a Three-fourths Majority may never be less than three Copermittees.
Two-thirds Majority means at least two-thirds (67%) of applicable Copermittees, rounded up to the nearest integer. For the purposes of this MOU, a Two-thirds Majority may never be less than three Copermittees.
Urbanized Land Area means the total of all SANDAG land uses within the geographic area, subject to the cost share, excepting therefrom, the following coded land uses: 1403 Military Barracks; 4102 Military Airports; 6700 Military Use; 6701 Military Use; 6702 Military Training; 6703 Military Weapons; 7209 Casinos; 7603 Open Space Reserves, Preserves; 7609 Undevelopable Natural Areas; 9200 Water; 9201 Bays, Lagoons; 9202 Inland Water; and 9300 Indian Reservations.
Voting Member means a Copermittee or Watershed Copermittee acting as an at-large representative responsible for voting on items as described in Section III.B. and Section III.C. of this MOU.
Watershed Copermittee means any Copermittee that is identified both as a Copermittee under Table 1.a of the Permit and a Responsible Copermittee under any Watershed Management Area as defined in Table B-1 of the Permit.
Watershed General Programs are activities that apply to the Copermittees comprising any individual Watershed Management Area (WMA) defined in Table B-1 of the Permit, or providing a general benefit to Copermittees within the WMA as determined by a Working Body.
Working Body means Committees, Subcommittees, and Sub-working body(s) such as Ad-Hoc Subcommittees assembled to conduct specific tasks required by, for, or in furtherance of, compliance with the Permit.
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 4 - Fifth Amended: [date] II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL COPERMITTEES
The following apply to General Programs.
A. Performance and Reimbursement of Tasks
1. Any individual Copermittee performing tasks necessary to fulfill budgeted General Program responsibilities for a Working Body is entitled to reimbursement of the costs incurred in accordance with section II.B.
2. Any Copermittee performing contract administration tasks to fulfill budgeted General Program responsibilities for a Working Body is entitled to reimbursement of contract management costs at a rate of 5% of the total contract cost or as otherwise agreed on by the participating Copermittees.
3. Any Copermittee performing tasks other than contract administration or voluntarily serving as a Working Body Chair, Co-chair, or Secretary, is entitled to reimbursement of the Direct Costs of performing those services in accordance with section II.B.
4. A Copermittee shall not be obliged to conduct work, enter into any contract, continue with any work or contract, or incur any other cost on behalf of other Copermittees if each Copermittee has not contributed the funds that it is obliged to contribute toward the activity or program, or if the Copermittee has not received adequate assurances that such funds will be received before payments become due. The Copermittee shall have sole discretion to determine whether assurances that require funds will be timely received or adequate.
5. A member of a Working Body providing Working Body Support may terminate those obligations for convenience, but shall first make a good faith effort to carry out or transfer existing responsibilities to another party by providing written notification of termination to the Copermittees within the Working Body 90 days prior to the intended date of termination.
B. Fiscal Responsibilities
1. Division of Shared General Program Costs
a. Prior to the allocation of shared costs, each proposed or approved budget task or sub-task shall be identified as either a Regional General Program cost or a Watershed General Program cost, and the Copermittees sharing that cost shall be identified. The cost of any particular budget element shall be subject to the approval of only the Copermittees to which it applies. The associated costs shall be divided among participating Copermittees as described below.
(1) Default Formula. Shared costs shall be divided according to a Default Formula of 45% Urbanized Land Area, 45% Population, and 10% Equal Division unless a Special Formula is approved by the Copermittees to which the cost applies. This formula applies only to the geographic boundary of the Regional General Program or Watershed General Program being considered.
(a) Population costs shall be divided among the Copermittees as follows:
Whenever any geographic portion of the Port or Airport jurisdiction(s), respectively, lies(s) within the geographic area to which the shared program or activity is applicable, the Port or Airport, respectively, will each pay a fixed
0.5% of total Population costs. The remaining percentage of the population costs shall be divided among Copermittees by dividing the total population of each Copermittee by the combined total Copermittee population within the geographic area applicable to the shared program or activity. These percentages shall be calculated at least once every 5 years using the most recently available population data available from the San Diego
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 5 - Fifth Amended: [date] Association of Governments (SANDAG), unless more recent data are available from an equivalent source such as the U.S. Census Bureau, and are determined to be acceptable by the Copermittees sharing the cost. (b) Urbanized Land Area costs shall be divided among Copermittees by dividing the total Urbanized Land Area of each Copermittee by the combined total Urbanized Land Area of all participating Copermittees within the geographic area applicable to the shared program or activity. Urbanized Land Area shares shall be calculated using the most recently available San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) land use statistics. The Urbanized Land Area share for the County shall include those urbanized lands in the unincorporated portion of the County that are west of the County Water Authority (CWA) service area boundary as it exists on the date of this MOU or as formally amended by the CWA.
(c) Ten Percent (10%) of the total cost to be shared shall be divided equally amongst all of the Copermittees.
(d) Modification of the Default Formula requires the unanimous vote of all Copermittees. For cost sharing that applies only to a group that contains fewer than all Copermittees, a unanimous vote is required of all affected Copermittees.
(2) Special Formulas. Special Formulas may be applied to any shared Regional or Watershed General Program cost and require the unanimous vote of the Copermittees participating in the cost.
(3) In-kind Contributions. Subject to approval by the Copermittees participating in a particular shared General Program budget, a Copermittee may provide an In-kind contribution of equal value rather than a monetary contribution toward all or part of the cost of an activity. Copermittee In-kind contributions may include Working Body Support.
2. Work Plans and Shared Cost Budgets
a. Limitations on Cost-sharing
General Program activities that are cost-shared by all Copermittees include collaborative municipal stormwater and watershed management activities which are (1) mandated by or necessary to implement requirements of the Permit, (2) necessary to anticipate the requirements, or prepare for renewal, of the Permit, (3) required to comply with Regional Board Orders or other directives required of Copermittees as dischargers of municipal stormwater (e.g., 13267 Orders, Total Maximum Daily Loads, etc.), or
(4) other watershed management activities conducted with the unanimous approval of Copermittees sharing the cost or responsibility.
Examples of such activities include:
(1) Development or implementation of any program requirements of the MS4 Permit, such as, the BMP Design Manual, regional education and outreach, or Water Quality Improvement Plans;
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 6 - Fifth Amended: [date] (2) Public participation activities, such as facilitating public meetings and workshops;
(3) Program assessment;
(4) Plan updates;
(5) Water quality monitoring, assessment and reporting; (6) Annual reporting, including establishment and management of data and information clearinghouses;
(7) Preparation of technical analyses, recommendations and comments regarding the MS4 Permit, total maximum daily loads, and other relevant storm water quality regulations;
(8) Preparation of documents required by the MS4 Permit, such as Reports of Waste Discharge; and
(9) Special studies related to storm water quality-related pollutants, their sources, and potential best management practices.
b. Work Plans and Shared Cost Budgets
(1) No later than October 31st of each year, each Working Body shall prepare and submit to the Planning Subcommittee a proposed Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year.
(2) Each Work Plan shall identify the parties that will serve as a Working Body Chair, Cochair, or Secretary for the upcoming Fiscal Year. These assignments will be served on a fiscal year basis and shall be for a minimum term of one year. (3) A Copermittee may not be compelled to act, or continue acting, as a Working Body Chair, Co-chair, or Secretary, and may at any time terminate an existing assignment. Before doing so, the Copermittee shall first make a good faith effort to carry out or transfer existing responsibilities.
(4) Each budget shall describe major tasks, schedules, and projected costs, which Copermittees will provide Working Body Support, Contract Administration, Inkind contributions, and any other information applicable to regional general program costs.
(5) To ensure that each Copermittee governing body has sufficient time to consider fiscal impacts, the Planning Subcommittee shall prepare a consolidated draft Regional Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget no later than December 31st of each year for the Regional General Programs. After consideration of comments and discussion, a final Regional Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget shall be prepared, approved by the Management Committee, and distributed to the Copermittees no later than January 31st of each year. The consolidated Regional Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget shall also identify the party or parties serving as Regional General Program operations fund managers.
(6) Modifications to any adopted Regional Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget that will result in an overall increase in cost require the approval of the Regional Management Committee.
(7) Copermittees from each Working Body, for which costs will be shared, shall prepare, agree upon and distribute to the participating Copermittees in that watershed, a watershed work plan and Shared Costs Budget. (8) Approval of the Shared Costs Budget for each fiscal year is subject to approval by Copermittee governing bodies as part of their regular annual budgeting process.
3. Cumulative Budget Limits
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 7 - Fifth Amended: [date]
a. The total Shared Cost Budget authorized under this MOU may not exceed the cumulative limits specified for each spending category in Table 1. These values represent the maximum amount that may be cost-shared for each spending category for the duration of this MOU. They do not represent funding commitments. Once a cumulative limit has been reached, the Copermittees must establish separate agreements for sharing additional costs for that budget category. The estimated annual limits shown for each fiscal year are for planning purposes only. Where an estimated annual limit is not reached in any fiscal year, the surplus amount may be carried over into subsequent fiscal years, so long as the cumulative limit is not exceeded. Budget limits apply only to their designated budget category. They may not be exchanged or credited across budget categories. Spending in each budget category may not exceed the applicable cumulative limit under any circumstances.
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 8 - Fifth Amended: [date] Table 1: Not-to-exceed Limits by Budget Category
FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 Cumulative Limit
Regional Budgets $1,082,501 $1,114,976 $1,148,425 $1,182,878 $1,218,364 $5,747,144
San Luis Rey, SLR $753,250 $1,740,123 $1,153,722 $843,838 $1,287,738 $5,778,671 Carlsbad, CAR $572,785 $1,129,049 $1,159,676 $1,052,999 $1,055,576 $4,970,085 San Dieguito, SDG $755,662 $564,235 $481,502 $428,530 $438,369 $2,668,298 Los Penasquitos,
LPQ $843,685 $674,499 $584,117 $617,617 $632,619 $3,352,537 San Diego River,
SDR $1,783,600 $2,795,208 $2,260,918 $1,839,693 $2,926,208 $11,605,627 San Diego Bay,
SDBay $952,200 $855,500 $910,800 $936,100 $836,050 $4,490,650 Tijuana, TJ $691,200 $626,400 $635,850 $681,750 $619,650 $3,254,850 Bacteria TMDL
(Cities of Carlsbad,
Del Mar, El Cajon,
Encinitas, Escondido,
La Mesa, Lemon
Grove, Oceanside,
Port of San Diego,
Poway, San Diego, San
Marcos, Santee, Solana
Beach, Vista and the
County of San Diego. $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 Total Watershed
Management Area
(WMA) Budgets $6,372,382 $8,405,014 $7,206,585 $6,420,527 $7,816,210 $36,220,718 Total WMAs +
Regional Budgets $7,454,883 $9,519,990 $8,355,010 $7,603,405 $9,034,574 $41,967,862
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 9 - Fifth Amended: [date]
4. Management and Payment of Funds
a. For Regional General Programs, the Copermittees shall each pay a yearly assessment into one or more Regional General Program operations funds for their respective portion of any Regional Shared Costs Budget approved pursuant to this MOU and based on the Default Formula. The Regional General Program operations fund shall be managed by the Regional Principal Permittee, or any other Permittee on approval of the Copermittees. b. For Watershed General Programs, the applicable watershed Copermittees shall each pay an assessment into one or more Watershed General Program operations funds for their assigned portion of any watershed shared costs budget approved pursuant to this MOU and based on the Special Formula applicable to that watershed. Each Watershed General Program operations fund shall be managed by the watershed lead permittee, or any other watershed permittee on approval of the participating Copermittees. c. The Copermittee managing each General Program operations fund shall provide budget balance and expenditure status reports following the end of each fiscal year. This shall include a detailed accounting of all costs and expenses in accordance with the accepted work plan and Shared Costs Budget, including those incurred by Copermittees providing Working Body Support, contracting services, In-kind services, or other applicable costs. d. Each Copermittee shall pay invoices within 60 days of receipt from the Copermittee managing the applicable General Program operations fund. e. Funds collected and not expended in any fiscal year shall be credited to the Copermittees’ share of the next fiscal year’s costs in accordance with the Copermittees’ defined shared costs.
f. Copermittees providing Working Body Support, Contract Administration, In-kind services, or incurring other budgeted costs on behalf of other Copermittees shall provide documentation of those expenses as requested by the Copermittee managing the applicable General Program operations fund. They shall only receive credit for those expenses if a detailed accounting of all costs and expenses meeting the minimum standards agreed upon by the Copermittees has been provided. g. Differences in the approved actual cost of expenses from those budgeted shall be either credited or added as appropriate to the amount of the Copermittees’ share. In the event that any Copermittees' share of the next fiscal year's costs is less than the amount to be credited, the difference shall be refunded to the Copermittee. Refunds shall be provided to Copermittees no later than 90 days after final accounting.
At its discretion, a Copermittee managing a General Program operations fund may, prior to the completion of a fiscal year, make payment to any Copermittee providing Working Body Support, Contract Administration, In-kind services, or incurring other budgeted expenditures on behalf of other Copermittees so long as all of the conditions of Section II B.4.f above have been satisfied and there are sufficient funds available to make a payment without requiring additional contributions or jeopardizing program objectives. If for some reason excess payment is made, the Copermittee receiving the payment agrees to return the additional payment without any recourse against the managing Copermittee.
III. REGIONAL GENERAL PROGRAMS
In addition to the requirements of Section II, the following apply to Regional General Programs.
A. Regional Principal Permittee
1. The County is hereby designated Regional Principal Permittee (Principal Permittee).
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 10 - Fifth Amended: [date] a. The County or any other Copermittee may not be compelled to act, or continue acting, as Principal Permittee. A Copermittee may at any time terminate its assignment as Principal Permittee but shall first make a good faith effort to carry out or transfer existing responsibilities.
b. In addition to the responsibilities of all Copermittees described in Section II, the Principal Permittee shall provide general coordination for the development and implementation of Regional General Programs, including the following tasks and responsibilities:
(1) Establish, chair, and provide overall coordination and leadership of the Regional Stormwater Management Committee (Management Committee) and the Regional Program Planning Subcommittee (Planning Subcommittee).
(2) Maintain a current contact list of Copermittees and interested parties. (3) Maintain knowledge of and advise the Copermittees regarding current and proposed state and federal policies, regulations, and other NPDES programs; assist the Copermittees in the development and presentation of positions on these issues before local, state, and federal agencies.
B. Regional Stormwater Management Committee
1. The purpose of the Regional Stormwater Management Committee (Management Committee) is to develop, approve, and coordinate municipal stormwater and watershed management, and to explore issues of regional significance.
2. The Management Committee shall consist of one Representative of each Copermittee. Each Copermittee shall have one vote.
3. The Management Committee shall meet at least annually.
4. At a minimum, the Management Committee shall have the following responsibilities:
a. Address common issues, promote consistency among jurisdictional and watershed programs, and plan and coordinate activities required under the Permit; b. Develop, implement, and arrange for implementation of Regional General Programs; c. Provide a general forum for informing and receiving input from stakeholders and interested parties;
d. Provide a forum for public participation in the development and implementation of regional urban runoff management programs and activities; e. Review specific issues pertaining to Working Bodies, make recommendations, or conduct work in support of shared regional priorities or objectives; f. Formally approve the recommendations, work products, and deliverables of Working Bodies presented for consideration;
g. Adopt an Annual Regional Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget in accordance with the budgetary limits set forth in Table 1;
h. Approve an Annual Regional Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget; and i. Approve year-end Budget Balance and Expenditure Status Reports.
5. The Management Committee shall be chaired by the Principal Permittee or may alternatively be chaired or co-chaired by any other Copermittee. A reassignment or change in the responsibilities of the Principal Permittee requires a three-fourths majority approval of all Copermittees.
6. Voting Requirements for the Management Committee
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 11 - Fifth Amended: [date] a. For a meeting or a vote to be held, a quorum of a Two-thirds Majority of voting representatives of the Management Committee must either be present or participate remotely via legally acceptable electronic communication (telephone, voice over internet protocol, etc.).
b. Management Committee voting shall not be conducted outside of meetings (e.g., by email).
c. For a motion to be approved, an affirmative vote of a Simple Majority of the Management Committee is needed.
d. On approval of the Management Committee, activities undertaken by a subset of Copermittees, but providing a regional benefit to Copermittees, may be considered Regional General Programs.
e. Approval of any shared cost requires a unanimous vote of all Copermittees participating in the cost.
C. Regional Program Planning Subcommittee
1. The purposes of the Planning Subcommittee shall be to provide regional coordination of urban runoff management activities, to develop and implement Regional General Programs, and to coordinate the activities of Working Bodies.
2. At a minimum, the Planning Subcommittee shall have the following responsibilities:
a. Serve as an intermediary between the Management Committee and other Copermittee Working Body(s);
b. Plan and coordinate Management Committee meetings;
c. Review specific issues pertaining to Regional Working Body(s), make recommendations, or conduct work in support of shared regional priorities or objectives; d. Oversee, coordinate, and track the progress of As-Needed Regional Working Body(s) in developing specific work products, responding to information requests, and completing tasks;
e. Establish and maintain a calendar of Copermittee meetings and events; f. Conduct regional program planning including developing an Annual Regional Work Plan and Shared Costs Budget for Management Committee consideration and approval; g. Review and recommend Management Committee approval of work products, recommendations, and requests of Regional Working Body(s) for consideration and approval;
h. Annually receive, review, comment on, and consolidate the recommended Work Plans and Shared Costs Budgets of each Regional Working Body(s); i. Coordinate and liaise with Regional Board staff, stakeholders, regulated parties, and other interested parties to identify and explore key regional issues and concerns. j. Provide Representation to the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA); k. Provide representation or participation for other professional organizations and societies as appropriate and feasible;
l. Provide regular updates to Copermittees and interested parties via Management Committee meetings or other appropriate means (e-mail, etc.); and m. Provide subject area input as needed for the development, implementation, review, and revision of General Programs, and the development of associated reports and work products.
3. The Planning Subcommittee shall be chaired by the Principal Permittee or may alternatively be chaired or co-chaired by any other Copermittee upon approval of the Management Committee.
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 12 - Fifth Amended: [date]
4. Planning Subcommittee meetings shall be open to all Copermittees; however, voting membership in any year shall be limited to one representative of each Watershed Management Area (WMA) listed in Permit Table B-1 except the South Orange County WMA. Any Copermittee may only represent one WMA as a voting member of the Planning Subcommittee. For each fiscal year, each WMA will designate a Copermittee as a voting member of the Planning Subcommittee prior to the beginning of that fiscal year. Each WMA may also designate an alternate voting member.
5. Each voting member shall be considered an at-large member. Their purpose is to represent the interests of all Copermittees of this MOU rather than those of their specific WMAs.
6. The Planning Subcommittee may not alter the responsibilities of, or impose new fiscal obligations on, any Copermittee or Working Body, except as approved by the Management Committee.
However, the Planning Subcommittee may approve changes to approved Annual Regional Work Plans and Shared Costs Budgets within approved annual budget limits.
7. Voting Requirements for the Planning Subcommittee:
a. The Planning Subcommittee shall only make advisory recommendations for items requiring Management Committee approval.
b. The Planning Subcommittee may use any voting methodology it deems appropriate to develop advisory recommendations or conduct other business, and, shall present minority or dissenting recommendations for consideration by the Management Committee as applicable.
IV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Should a dispute arise among any of the parties regarding any matter related to this MOU, the parties agree to first meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute. If that fails to resolve the dispute, they shall submit the matter to mediation.
1. Mandatory Non-binding Mediation. If a dispute arises out of, or relates to this MOU, or the breach thereof, and if the dispute cannot be settled through the meet and confer process as described above, the Parties agree to attempt to settle the dispute in an amicable manner, using mediation under the Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association [AAA] or any other neutral organization agreed to by the parties. A mediation session is required before having recourse in a court of law. The cost of mediation shall be borne by the parties equally.
2. Selection of Mediator. A single Mediator that is acceptable to all Parties shall be used to mediate the dispute. The Mediator may be selected from lists furnished by the AAA or any other agreed upon Mediator. To initiate mediation, the initiating Party shall serve a Request for Mediation on the opposing Party.
3. Conduct of Mediation Sessions. Mediation hearings will be conducted in an informal manner and discovery will not be allowed. All discussions, statements, or admissions in the mediation process will be confidential settlement negotiations under Ca. Evidence Code section 1152. The Parties may agree to exchange any information they deem necessary. a. Both Parties must have an authorized representative attend the mediation. Each representative must have the authority to recommend entering into a settlement. Either Party may have attorney(s) or expert(s) present.
b. Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be documented in writing. All mediation results and documentation, by themselves, shall be “non-binding” and inadmissible for any purpose in any legal proceeding, unless such admission is otherwise agreed upon, in
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 13 - Fifth Amended: [date] writing, by both Parties. Mediators shall not be subject to any subpoena or liability and their actions shall not be subject to discovery.
V. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Term of Agreement
1. This MOU shall become effective on the date the last party executes the MOU.
2. The life of the MOU shall be effective through August 2029, or with the life of the current Permit plus twelve months, whichever is longer. For purposes of this paragraph, any Permit renewal or replacement after May 2024 shall be considered a new permit; any earlier amendment of the Permit increasing the obligations of the Regional Principal Permittee or a Watershed Lead Permittee may at that Copermittee’s sole option, be declared to be a new permit; and the Management Committee shall determine whether any other earlier amendment to the Permit is of such significance as to effectively be a new Permit.
B. Withdrawal of Copermittee
1. Participation in this MOU may be withdrawn by any Copermittee for any reason only after the Copermittee complies with all of the following conditions of withdrawal:
a. The Copermittee shall notify all of the other Copermittees in writing 90 days prior to its intended date of withdrawal.
b. Any expenses associated with withdrawal, including but not limited to, filing and obtaining the withdrawing Copermittee’s individual NPDES permit and the amendment of the Permit will be solely the responsibility of the withdrawing Copermittee. c. The withdrawing Copermittee shall be responsible for their portion of any shared costs incurred according to the conditions of this MOU up to the time that each of the conditions in Section V.B.1.a. has been met.
d. Any monies paid by withdrawing Copermittee in excess of the amount due under the terms of the MOU shall be refunded to the Copermittee at the time the withdrawal becomes final as set forth in Section V.B.1.a.
e. The withdrawing Copermittee shall not be entitled to participate in the division of proceeds in any reserve fund account when the MOU is dissolved.
C. Non-Compliance with MOU Requirements
1. Any participant to this MOU found to be in non-compliance with the conditions of this MOU shall be solely liable for any lawfully assessed penalties resulting from such non-compliance.
Failure to comply with MOU conditions within specified or agreed upon timelines shall constitute non-compliance with the MOU.
2. Limitations on Use of Funds. Notwithstanding the rights and obligations of the Parties created by this MOU, no Party may be found in breach of this MOU where compliance would require that Party to violate any law or grant assurance, including but not limited to provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration 1999 Policy and Procedure Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue [64Fed. Reg. 7696, dated Feb. 16, 1999]; the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47107(b); the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-305 (Aug. 23, 1994); the Airport Revenue Protection Act of 1996, Title VIII of the Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1996, P.L. 104-264 (Oct. 9, 1996), 110 Stat. 3269 (Oct. 9, 1996); 49 U.S.C. § 46301(n)(5); and 49 U.S.C. § 47133. The Parties recognize that the Authority has received federal Airport Improvement Project (“AIP”) grants containing grant assurance 25,
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 14 - Fifth Amended: [date] which provides: “All revenues generated by the airport will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property; or for noise mitigation purposes on or off the airport.”
D. Amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding
This MOU may be amended only by unanimous vote of approval of all 21 Copermittees at a meeting of the Regional Management Committee. No amendment shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of the Copermittees.
E. Governing Law
This MOU shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any provision or provisions shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
F. Headings
The headings used throughout this MOU are for convenience only and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms or provisions of the MOU.
G. Consent and Breach Not Waiver
No term or provision hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the Copermittee to have waived or consented. Any consent by any Copermittee to, or waiver of, a breach by the other, whether expressed or implied, shall not constitute a consent to, waiver of, or excuse for any other different or subsequent breach.
H. No Indemnification
1. Each Copermittee shall have the sole responsibility to comply with the Permit.
2. Each Copermittee shall pay all fines, penalties, and costs which may arise out of such Copermittee’s non-compliance with the Permit.
3. By entering into this MOU, no Copermittee assumes liability for claims or actions arising out of the performance of any work or actions or omissions, by any other Copermittee, its agents, officers, and employees under this MOU.
4. By entering into this MOU, each Copermittee agrees to defend itself from any claim, action or proceeding arising out of the acts or omissions of itself and retain its own legal counsel and bear its own defense costs.
I. Application of Prior Agreements
This MOU constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter; all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, and undertakings are superseded hereby.
J. Right to Audit
Each Party retains the right to review and audit, and the reasonable right of access to other Parties’ respective premises to review and audit the other Parties’ compliance with the provisions of this MOU (Party’s Right). The Party’s Right includes the right to inspect and photocopy same, and to retain copies, outside of the Parties’ premises, of any and all records, including any and all books, records, and documents, related to this MOU with appropriate safeguards, if such retention is deemed necessary by the
San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 15 - Fifth Amended: [date] auditing Party in its sole discretion. This information shall be kept by the auditing Party in the strictest confidence allowed by law.
K. Execution of Agreement
This MOU may be executed in counterpart and the signed counterparts shall constitute a single instrument. In the event that any Copermittee is unable to execute this amendment prior to August 31, 2024, execution of this amendment after that date shall constitute ratification of this amendment, and the MOU and extensions shall be in effect once all signatures are obtained.
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA MESA AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN
APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER
RESOURCES BOARD FOR A STATE REVOLVING
FUND LOAN FOR THE INFLOW AND INFILTRATION
MITIGATION PROJECT PHASE 7 FOR A NOT-TOEXCEED AMOUNT OF $7,000,000 ISSUING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing submittal of a loan application to the California State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan for the Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Project Phase 7 for a not-to exceed amount of 7,000,000?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution and authorize submittal of an application to the California State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund loan for the Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Project Phase 7 for a not-to-exceed amount of $7,000,000.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact to apply for the loan. Should the City be approved for a loan, wastewater enterprise funds will be used for the repayment of the SRF loan.
All expenditures for this loan will be made solely from wastewater accounts.
Individual contracts will be brought to the City Council for approval based on City purchasing rules. No General Funds monies will be used for the project.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 4
City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
BACKGROUND:
This resolution was originally brought to La Mesa City Council and approved November 22, 2022. The State Board is requesting a modification in the resolution as to what was presented in 2022. The new added language refers to the authorized representative and the certification of disbursement requests. This project has a completed design and the anticipated funding timeframe is late 2024 with construction beginning in 2025.
Storm water Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) occurs when the sewer system deteriorates and allows for storm water and/or ground water to enter the wastewater conveyance. Inflow and Infiltration occurs during rain events when the primary structure of the sewer pipe may be intact, but the pipe is conveying significantly more volume than its intended design, typically due to joint leakage. A greater amount of wastewater is carried downstream to the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP) resulting in increased treatment costs. Additionally, the excessive flows in the sewer system can lead to sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) in heavy rainfall events. Eliminating inflow and infiltration will reduce the City’s financial and environmental liabilities and potential for regulatory fines for sanitary sewer overflow.
By eliminating storm water inflow and infiltration into the sewer, the City will reduce its wastewater treatment and transportation costs to the City of San Diego and will reduce the potential for SSOs. Additionally, lower sewer flow puts fewer burdens on the treatment plant and any reduction of sewer flows into the regional facilities will also assist with the environmental challenges associated with the sewer treatment and Clean Water Act.
Such reductions in flow and costs will also benefit La Mesa rate payers in the long run.
The City of La Mesa’s wastewater CIP goals are to:
Avoid sanitary sewer overflows;
Reduce financial burdens;
Enhance the environment;
Eliminate liabilities; and
Reduce the required maintenance efforts.
The Inflow and Infiltration project Phase 7 contains a notable amount of concrete sewer pipe and slip lined pipe. Both concrete and slip lined pipe generally contribute a significant amount of inflow and infiltration due their poor condition or restricted capacity. This project
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 3 of 4
is in one of University’s sewer basins in the College Streets/Harbinson neighborhood bound by University Avenue to the south, Vassar Avenue to the north, Harbinson Avenue to the west and Pomona Avenue to the east (Attachment B). This basin was a tributary to a large SSO in 2010. The project is 43 sewer pipe segments totaling approximately 10,200 linear feet of replacement and rehabilitation and 52 manholes.
The City of La Mesa has previously received six SRF loans for Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation and trunk line projects beginning in 2004. Please see Attachment C for the SRF loans and status. The SRF loans have allowed the City to address the systemic wastewater issues that would otherwise not be addressed due to the project size, costs and City CIP budget limitations.
The cost of the project is estimated at $7M. This includes planning, design, environmental study, surveying, construction, inspection, construction management and administration costs. Due to the magnitude of the cost being beyond the City’s CIP budget, the City is proposing to apply for a new SRF loan. No City funds are allocated for this project under the approved CIP Budget. It is proposed that the City should proceed in applying for SRF funding to expedite the replacement of the concrete sewer pipe and avoid potential liabilities, additional costs and environmental issues that may arise. However, it is noted that applying and eventual approval of the loan does not obligate the City financially or legally to receive the funds and proceed with the project.
Upon approval of the City’s application by the State Board, staff will seek the City Council’s approval throughout the delivery of the project from acceptance of the loan to the construction award via individual contract award actions based on the City’s purchasing rules.
The following are the major milestones to complete the project after approval of the loan:
1. Execute a loan agreement
2. Advertise and award a construction contract
3. Complete the construction
The above process will take approximately one to two years to complete. The City will then be required to make annual repayments towards the loan for 20 years starting one year after the date of completion of the project construction. Depending on the bond markets and economy, the interest rates typically vary from 1.5% to 2.5%.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 4 of 4
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution and authorize submittal of an application to the California State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund loan for the Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Project Phase 7 for a not-toexceed amount of $7,000,000.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Project Map - Phase 7
C. State Revolving Fund Loans History and Status
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD FOR A STATE REVOLVING FUND
LOAN FOR THE INFLOW AND INFILTRATION MITIGATION PROJECT PHASE 7 FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $7,000,000
WHEREAS, this project will advance the City’s goal of investing in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the City’s wastewater capital improvement goals focus on replacement and/or rehabilitation of pipe with inadequate capacity, and/or in poor condition, and reduction of inflow and infiltration;
WHEREAS, the cost of this project is estimated at $7,000,000; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa desires to finance the costs of the project; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa intends to finance the planning, design, construction and construction management of the Project moneys (“Project Funds”) provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board);
WHEREAS, the State Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal tax purposes (the “Obligations”);
WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds the Agency desires to incur certain capital expenses (the “Expenditures”) with respect to the Project from available monies of the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that those monies to be advances on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the Agency for the Expenditures form the proceeds of the Obligations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED, AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
The Mayor of the City of La Mesa (the “Authorized Representative”) or Director of Public Works/City Engineer as the Mayor’s authorized designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City of La Mesa, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Project Phase 7 (the “Project”).
This Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application including executing a financial assistance application and financial agreement for the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto.
The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23
rd 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 WEIGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
S"
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
UB057.00
UC017.00
UC019.00
UC018.00
UC010.00
UC011.00
UC012.00
UC008.00
UC009.00
UC002.00 UC007.00
UB053.00
UB054.00
UB050.00
UB049.00
UB048.00
UB039.00
UB041.00
UB038.00
UB042.00
UB067.00
UB068.00
UB061.00
UB060.00
UB059.00
UB069.00
UB058.00
UB062.01
UB045.00
UB047.00
UB055.00
UC016.00
UB056.00
UB046.00
UC013.00 UC015.00
UC014.00
UB066.00
UB059.01
UC014.01
UB046.01
UB043.00
UB040.00
UC006.00
UC005.05
UC011.01
UC010.01
UB069.01
UB058.01
UB057.01
UC013.01
UB045.01
UB040.01
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community DATE SUBMITTED: OCTOBER 2022
CITY OF LA MESA - PHASE 7 INFLOW AND INFILTRATION MITIGATION
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
0 200 FT
Legend
!. MH - To Replace
!. MH - To Rehab Bench/Channel and Line
!. MH - To Replace and Line
!. MH - To Replace Chimney/Cone
!. MH - To Rehab Bench/Channel
!. MH - New
!. MH - To Abandon
!. MH - To Remain
"S Cleanout - To Abandon
SSWR Pipe - To Replace
SSWR Pipe - To Remain
SSWR Pipe - To Abandon / Relocate
Ex SSWR Pipe (Not Phase 7)
Phase 7 Project Area
¹ STANFORD AVE
W POINT AVE
PRINCETON AVE
CORNELL AVE
VASSAR AVE
HARBINSON AVE
POMONA AVE
HARVARD AVE
YALE AVE
SENECA PL
UNIVERSITY AVE
HELIX HIGH SCHOOL
ANNAPOLIS AVE
73RD ST
DAUER AVE
POMONA WAY
PURDUE AVE
BERKELEY DR
POMONA AVE
HARBINSON AVE
ANNAPOLIS AVE
PURDUE AVE
DANA DR
UNIVERSITY AVE
15092 AVENUE OF SCIENCE, STE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92128
P: 858.385.0500 WWW.NV5.COM
JESSIE AVE
227522-0001422
JOB NUMBER
FIGURE
10 SCALE
1 inch = 200 feet
ATTACHMENT E
Project Name Agreement Number 2022‐2023 2023‐2024 2025‐2026 Final Payment I&I Mitigation Phase 1C‐06‐4729‐110 $304,569 $304,569 $304,569 2/1/28 I&I Mitigation Phase 2C‐06‐4729‐120 $189,473 $189,473 $189,473 7/31/28 I&I Mitigation Phase 3C‐06‐4729‐130 $178,076 $178,076 $178,076 7/15/29 I&I Mitigation Phase 4C‐06‐4729‐140 $184,991 $184,991 $184,991 1/21/30 Alvarado Trunk Sewer Improvements Phase 2C‐06‐7824‐110 $213,494 $213,494 $213,494 5/31/37 Parkway Drive and Alvarado Rd Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Upgrade* C‐06‐8394‐110 $264,380 $398,555 $398,555 7/30/41 I&I Mitigation Phase 6 2043
Total $1,334,983 $1,469,158 $1,469,158
*Annual payment amount will modified/reduced based on final construction cost Attachment F ‐ State Revolving Fund‐ Current Agreements and Financing Schedule Forthcoming in 2024
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LA MESA
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City of La Mesa adopt a Local Road Safety Plan? Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the City’s Local Road Safety Plan.
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. 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.
T-2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (Vision Zero) – Advance community-wide active transportation through safety programs, public engagement, education, and advocacy.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 4
BACKGROUND:
In November 2019, the City of La Mesa received a grant from Caltrans to prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). A LRSP 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.
Five types of capital improvement were identified in the LRSP as potential future priorities for HSIP funding. After meeting with the City Council, priority projects were selected 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 re-evaluated every five years during LRSP updates.
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
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 3 of 4
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
DISCUSSION:
The comments received from the safety partners were subsequently incorporated into the draft LRSP. On March 14, 2023, City staff brought the LRSP to the City Council for adoption. City Council requested revising the project prioritization to better correlate where deaths and injuries are occurring in the City in an effort to better address our Vision Zero Plan and return at a future meeting for adoption.
On April 9, 2024, City staff presented the revised LRSP that included both adding an additional section for fatal and severe injury crash locations and vulnerable roadway users, and updating the project prioritization to better correlate with fatal and severe crash locations. These new sections were well received by the City Council.
Local agencies are required to have an adopted LRSP in place to be eligible for applying for HSIP grant funding.
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 adopt the attached resolution, adopting the Local Road Safety Plan.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 4 of 4
Michael Kinnard
Michael Kinnard
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Local Road Safety Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING A
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LA MESA
WHEREAS, the City’s strategic goals includes maintaining a community where residents and visitors feel safe and investing in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community; WHEREAS, $10 million in funding became available to local jurisdictions through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for local agencies to prepare Local Road Safety Plans;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa received $72,000 in grant funding from Caltrans for the preparation of a Local Road Safety Plan;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has adopted a Complete Streets Policy in the 2012 General Plan Update in a public hearing on July 09, 2013, that is consistent with the California Complete Streets Act and with a goal of being able to travel safely by transit, bicycle and on foot within the community;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan in February 2004, which establishes a goal of creating safe streets by reducing the frequency and severity of collisions through infrastructure improvements and other programs; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has made a commitment to implement a Vision Zero Plan for the safety of pedestrian, bicycle, and other active transportation modes and to reduce traffic deaths and injuries to the maximum extent possible, and WHEREAS, adoption of a Local Road Safety Plan is a prerequisite to be eligible for future Highway Safety Improvement Program grant funds effective with Cycle 11.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City hereby adopts a Local Road Safety Plan for the City of La Mesa;
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23rd 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)
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.
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA MESA ADOPTING THE SAN DIEGO
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG)
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (RTCIP) DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG
COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01 AND TRANSNET
EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the resolution adopting the SANDAG annual adjustment to the RTCIP development impact fee for the fiscal year 2024/2025? Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution adopting the SANDAG annual adjustment to the RTCIP development impact fee for the fiscal year 2024/2025.
Fiscal Impact:
The current fee is $2,741.97. Effective July 1, 2024, the City would collect $2,875.06 per dwelling unit for each new residence constructed in La Mesa. If the City does not comply with the RTCIP adjustments, La Mesa may lose its TransNet funding for improvements to local roads for the following fiscal year.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
BACKGROUND:
The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, also known as SANDAG Commission Ordinance 04-01, requires that each local agency in San Diego County collect fees from private sector development to the RTCIP for each newly constructed residential unit beginning July 1, 2008. The purpose of the program is to ensure that new development invests in the region’s transportation system to offset the impact of growth on congestion and mobility.
In compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2008-2791 on May 13, 2008, establishing the City’s residential traffic impact mitigation fee program and authorizing the collection of RTCIP fees. Revenue collected through the residential traffic impact mitigation fee program must be used on the regional arterial streets in La Mesa to construct transportation improvements such as new roadways, turning lanes, traffic signal coordination, bike lanes, sidewalks and other transportation improvements.
The regional transportation system is comprised of streets that create vital links through communities to freeways. This system of streets is defined as the Regional Arterial System. The following La Mesa streets are classified as regional arterials: 70th Street, El Cajon Boulevard, Fletcher Parkway, Grossmont Center Drive, Jackson Drive, La Mesa Boulevard from the eastern intersection with University Avenue to I-8, Lake Murray Boulevard, Massachusetts Avenue, Spring Street, and University Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
The Transnet Extension Ordinance requires that the RTCIP fee charged by local jurisdictions be adjusted every year on July 1 to ensure the RTCIP retains its purchasing power to improve the regional arterial system. The adjustment shall not exceed the percentage increase set forth in the construction cost index published by the Engineering News Record or similar cost of construction index. In no event, however, shall the increase be less than two percent per year.
SANDAG staff has evaluated construction cost trends and relevant indices and based on this analysis a +4.9 percent fee adjustment was approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at its February 23, 2024 meeting, raising the minimum RTCIP fee from $2,741.97 to $2,875.06 effective July 1, 2024.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve SANDAG’s annual adjustment to the development impact fee for the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, setting the fee at $2,875.06 to be collected for each newly constructed residential unit for the fiscal year 2024/2025.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING
THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) ANNUAL
ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTCIP) DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01
AND TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN
WHEREAS, SANDAG Commission Ordinance 04-01 and the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan requires that each local agency in San Diego County contribute exactions from the private sector to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) for each newly constructed residential housing unit;
WHEREAS, said exactions are intended to ensure that future development contributes its proportional share of the funding needed to pay for the Regional Arterial System and related regional transportation facility improvements as defined in the SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan;
WHEREAS, SANDAG commissioned the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study to assist local agencies in complying with the legal requirements governing development impact fees in California; WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008-2791 establishes a residential traffic impact mitigation fee program for the City of La Mesa in compliance with the requirements of SANDAG Commission Ordinance 04-01, the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study;
WHEREAS, any revenue collected by the City of La Mesa through the residential traffic impact mitigation fee program must be used on the Regional Arterial System to construct transportation improvements such as new or widened arterial roadways, turning lanes, traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements;
WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan requires that the amount collected by each local agency be increased on July 1 of each year; WHEREAS, the amount of the increase shall not exceed the percentage increase set forth in the Engineering Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record or similar cost of construction index and in no event shall the increase be less than two percent per year; WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2023-038 set the residential traffic impact mitigation fee beginning July 1, 2023, at two thousand seven hundred forty-one dollars and ninety-seven cents ($2,741.97), for newly constructed residential housing units, in compliance with the SANDAG RTCIP Fee Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved a 4.9 percent increase to the residential traffic impact mitigation fee raising the fee to two thousand eight hundred seventy-five dollars and six cents ($2,875.06) at their meeting held on February 23, 2024.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the amount of the traffic impact mitigation fee effective July 1, 2024, shall be two thousand eight hundred seventy-five dollars and six cents ($2,875.06).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23
rd 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 23, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINDINGS FOR THE
QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE
AND PARK ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT
IMPACT FEE AS REQUIRED IN CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ. AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PROJECTS AS
OUTLINED IN THE PARKS MASTER PLAN
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Does the City Council approve the findings for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee as required in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and should the City Council appropriate funds for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan? Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution approving the findings for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee as required in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and appropriate funds for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
Fiscal Impact:
Pursuant to the City Council’s adoption of the resolution, $353,599 in fees will be programed into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
City’s Strategic Goals:
Ensure a strong financial outlook through careful planning, sustainable service levels, and fiscal sustainability.
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
BACKGROUND:
In 2005, the City Council accepted and approved a report from MuniFinancial establishing Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, which added two park development impact fees; 1) The Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee; and 2) The Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee. The impact fees are associated with the development of new single and multi-family residential developments and are used to offset the cost of park infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate growth. The fees were based on population and growth projections, facility standards, the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth, and total cost of facilities per unit of development. The use of the fees must be tied to new park amenities in existing parks or acquisition of park land and cannot be used for park maintenance. The City appropriates funds each year as part of the Capital Improvement Program and in alignment with the City’s Parks Master Plan.
The current fees for single and multi-family developments are as follows:
Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee (for subdivisions only) Single Family $3,882
Multi Family $2,815
Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee
Single Family $1,559
Multi Family $1,130
DISCUSSION:
Since the last report in April 2023, the City collected $128,716 in Park Acquisition and Improvement Fees and $224,883 in Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fees. The total collected from both fees is $353,599. Both fees are collected by the City once a building permit has been issued.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
CONCLUSION:
Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code requires that the findings and the Capital Improvement Plan be adopted annually by resolution of the governing body for the use of Park In-Lieu and Park Impact Fees. Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee. Additionally, staff recommends appropriating the fees collected ($353,599) for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
Greg Humora Amanda Lee
City Manager Assistant City Manager
______________________
Lyn Dedmon
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachment “A” Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Mesa approving the findings for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee as required by California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and
appropriating funds for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPROVING
THE FINDINGS FOR THE QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE
AND PARK ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ. AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PROJECTS AS OUTLINED IN THE PARKS
MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code requires that the capital improvement plan be annually adopted by a resolution of the governing body and every five years the City approve the findings with respect to that portion of the account that is unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted;
WHEREAS, Section 9.20.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code outlines the use of Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fees and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fees;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did hold a public meeting on April 23, 2024 to consider the Capital Improvement Program projects paid for with Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fees and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fees; WHEREAS, the City Council did receive and consider a staff report to approve the findings as required by California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and appropriate funds for the recommended Park In-Lieu and Impact Fee project; and WHEREAS, the disposition of revenue generated from appropriation of the Quimby Act shall be pursuant to Section 66477 of the California Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Mesa hereby finds the following:
1. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are true and hereby made a part hereof.
2. The City Council resolves to approve and appropriate funds for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23
rd day of April 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2024- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
(Seal of the City)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE
CONCEPT DESIGN FOR PUBLIC ART: COLLIER PARK
MURAL
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Services
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the concept design for the Collier Park public mural project?
Recommendation:
That the City Council approve the concept design for the Collier Park public mural project.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe. Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
BACKGROUND:
On March 28, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023-029 - Policy for Public Arts, that provides guidelines for the display of arts in public spaces and the purpose of public art in La Mesa which is to:
Create more visually pleasing public spaces
Reflect the rich history and culture of La Mesa; to define its past; and imagine its future
Increase public access to and enjoyment of the arts
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
Enhance neighborhood identity
Invite community participation and interaction with public spaces Encourage economic development
Support the local arts community
As part of the Arts and Culture Commission’s 2023 work plan, three sites were identified for mural projects in public spaces (Walkway of the Stars, Lemon Avenue Parking Lot, and Collier Park). At the January 23, 2024, meeting City Council approved funding for the three projects.
The Collier Park project will entail painting three sides of the new cement block trash enclosure at the entrance to the park, in order to deter graffiti and beautify the park. The allocated budget for the project is $7,000.
DISCUSSION:
In accordance with the Policy for Public Arts, the Commission selected ArtReach, a local non-profit that collaborates with schools, businesses, and foundations to hire professional muralists to work with youth to transform the walls around them. The City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with ArtReach to complete outreach, design and paint the mural.
ArtReach gathered public input at the Collier Park re-opening event on February 10, 2024, and through an online survey about the desired theme, which is reflected in the proposed concept design, which depicts native flora and fauna in colors that complement the park amenities, and blends the natural environment, and seamlessly flows around the three sides of the enclosure. It also included a photo opportunity on one side with a “Welcome to Collier Park” sign in front of large flowers. Note, that the attached concept design is a digital sketch and the artist team may need to fine tune or adjust colors on site For this project, the City’s Youth Advisory Commissioners will work alongside Arts and Culture Commissioners under the direction of artists Izzy Halpern, ArtReach Mural Program Manager and mural artist Lux Sanchez to create the mural, with final touch ups complete by the muralists. The mural is tentatively scheduled to be painted in June.
CONCLUSION:
At the April 10, 2024, Community Services Commission and the April 17, 2024, Arts and Culture Commission meetings, both Commissions unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the concept design.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 23, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Sue Richardson
City Manager Director of Community Services
Attachments:
A. Sample concept design
Attachment B
2399 Fifth Ave • San Diego, CA 92101• artreachsandiego.org • 619.940.7278• Tax ID#39-2067596 •@ArtReachSD Page 178 of 183 2399 Fifth Ave • San Diego, CA 92101• artreachsandiego.org • 619.940.7278• Tax ID#39-2067596 •@ArtReachSD Page 179 of 183 2399 Fifth Ave • San Diego, CA 92101• artreachsandiego.or Page 180 of 183 g • 619.940.7278• Tax ID#39-2067596 •@ArtReachSD DATE: April 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Jack Shu
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO DEFEND HEALTH AND SAFETY SETBACK
REGULATIONS AND ENDORSE THE CAMPAIGN FOR A HEALTHY
AND SAFE CALIFORNIA
We do not have oil wells in La Mesa and there are few if any near schools and homes in San Diego County. But 3 million people in California do have oil wells near them, where they live, go to school, work or play outside. SB 1137 which established a 3,200 feet setback for oil wells was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in 2022. But signatures were gathered that suspended SB 1137 from taking effect, a repeal referendum which will come before voters this November. This resolution will make it clear that La Mesa supports efforts to make it safer and healthier for people throughout California. In the case of oil wells, they should not be placed close to homes, schools, parks and other places where people can get sick from them.
Following our Earth Day event, the Council can consider whether to take a position supporting the efforts to uphold the setback rules established by SB 1137.
Attachment:
A. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA TO DEFEND
HEALTH AND SAFETY SETBACK REGULATIONS AND ENDORSE THE
CAMPAIGN FOR A HEALTHY AND SAFE CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, research shows that living within half a mile of an oil well increases the risk of asthma, high-risk pregnancies, respiratory illnesses, and cancer; WHEREAS, today, nearly three million Californians are exposed to the most toxic emissions, and communities of color are disproportionately harmed the most by neighborhood drilling;
WHEREAS, the California State Legislature passed SB1137 in 2022 to initiate health and safety setback regulations, which prohibit new or modified oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, daycare centers, parks, healthcare facilities, and businesses; and WHEREAS, oil and corporate interests financed a $20 million petition campaign to block immediate implementation of SB 1137, placing a referendum to repeal SB 1137 on the California General Election November 2024 ballot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOVLED that the City Council of the City of La Mesa endorses the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California to keep SB1137 health and safety setback legislation, joining public health leaders, environmental justice groups, community and faith leaders, and youth to stand up to Big Oil and make sure that no Californians have to endure health hazards from living just steps away from dangerous oil wells.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of La Mesa encourages uniting our communities to keep the health and safety setback legislation and defeat the 2024 repeal referendum, which would continue to block implementation of SB 1137.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 23rd 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)