Agenda packet — La Mesa City Council, September 10, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

A Regular Meeting

Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024, 6:00 p.m.

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

Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Laura Lothian
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 - COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER AS NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS
MONTH

5.2 PRESENTATION BY EMERGENCY SERVICES CONSULTING INC. ON

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND

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

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

7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES

8. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

8.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY ON

THE MOBILITY COMMISSION
123
Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:

Approve the reappointment of Alex Mueller to the Mobility Commission as the general population representative and adopt Resolution confirming the reappointment.

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 10.12)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.
*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 (Item 10.10).

Recommended Motion:

Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.12.

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 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

COMPENSATION PLAN TO REFLECT SALARY RANGE

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SAFETY VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR,

CLINICAL HOMELESS OUTREACH SPECIALIST, AND

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT ASSISTANT CLASSIFICATIONS
127
Staff Reference: Ms. Spaniol
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING TASK ORDERS TO COMPASS ROSE

GIS FOR AS-NEEDED MAPPING AND GEOGRAPHICAL
INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
134
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.4 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID 25-03, 2024 PIPE REHABILITATION

PROJECT AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
INSITUFORM TECH, INC.
143
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TASK ORDER FOR

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTION SERVICES TO ARDURRA
GROUP, INC.
149
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH

BEAM GLOBAL FOR SOLAR POWERED ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING STATIONS
155
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.7 STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN (NO. 8723-110) 166
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENT (NO. 8723-110) WITH

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR A STATE REVOLVING

FUND LOAN
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.
b. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FUNDS FROM THE STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN (NO. 8723-110) AND

APPROPRIATING THE EXPENDITURE IN THE CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT ACCOUNT
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2

FOR THE BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, BID NO. 24-16, TO SC VALLEY ENGINEERING, INC.
242
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.9 RESOLUTION RE-ADOPTING THE 2013 CITY OF LA MESA TREE

POLICY MANUAL
249
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.10 *HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 252
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE PALMER "DARRELL"
DIAMOND RESIDENCE AT 9353 LEMON AVENUE, APN 495-
175-04-00 AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.
b. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A HISTORIC

LANDMARK PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT

WITH THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK KNOWN
AS THE PALMER "DARRELL" DIAMOND RESIDENCE AT
9353 LEMON AVENUE, APN 495-175-04-00
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.11 APPROVAL OF CONCEPT DESIGNS FOR PUBLIC ART FOR THE

WALKWAY OF THE STARS AND LEMON AVENUE PARKING LOT

MURAL PROJECTS
415
Staff Reference: Ms. Richardson
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.12 SAN DIEGO ART MATTERS GRANT APPLICATION FOR A LOCAL

ARTS AGENCY NETWORK CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT
423

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT

APPLICATION TO SAN DIEGO ART MATTERS FOR A LOCAL ARTS
AGENCY NETWORK CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT; ACCEPTING

AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IF AWARDED AND APPOINTING THE

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, OR DESIGNEE, TO

DESIGNATE PARTICIPANTS, EXECUTE ALL AGREEMENTS AND

ANY AMENDMENTS
Staff Reference: Ms. Richardson
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

11. STAFF REPORT

11.1 LA MESA DOWNTOWN VILLAGE ENHANCEMENT FUND PROGRAM 432

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE LA MESA

COMMUNITY PARKING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR

THE LA MESA VILLAGE ENHANCEMENT FUND PROGRAM AND
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $76,180 FROM THE
DOWNTOWN PARKING FUND TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

DOWNTOWN VILLAGE ENHANCEMENT FUND BUDGET
Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:
(1) Consider and possibly approve the La Mesa Community Parking Commission’s recommendation for the La Mesa Village Enhancement Fund Program; and (2) adopt Resolution appropriating $76,180 from the Downtown Parking Fund to the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Downtown Village Enhancement Fund budget.

12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)

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

14. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

15. ADJOURNMENT

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND STANDARDS

OF COVER REPORT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: FIRE
SUMMARY:

Recommendation:

That the City Council receives the report from Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) as an informational item.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

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

BACKGROUND:

In recent years, the City has seen changes and grown in many ways, which highlights the need to evaluate the current and future needs and vulnerabilities of the Fire department's service model. The need for emergency services in La Mesa has grown exponentially over the last 15 years; the call volume alone has increased over 17% in the last five years, and increased about 60% overall since 2009. Call volume has grown, although the population growth is at a much slower rate, which does not match the rapid call growth.

As a part of the industry standard, the Fire department hired a consulting firm to review the city’s community risk assessment and standards of cover.

Page 1 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 2
DISCUSSION:

As a part of the Fire department's FY2023-2024 budget, Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI), an International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) company, was contracted to have an assessment performed. The community risk assessment includes analysis of risks such as EMS, Fire, Hazmat, and Natural Incidents. The standards of cover portion of the assessment is the analysis of the jurisdiction's ability of the community and public services to handle and mitigate the identified risks from the community risk assessment.

In December 2023, ESCI began their assessment. They obtained many pieces of data from the Fire Department and made site visits as well to get a full picture of what our jurisdiction is made up of (buildings, staff, community resources, call data, geographical aspects, etc.), and what model(s) would serve our communities best in today's times.

Ultimately, ESCI put together a report showing their analysis of our jurisdiction along with recommendations on areas where we can mitigate those risks and concerns with coverage.

During the City Council meeting, staff and ESCI representatives will present an overview of the study, along with findings and recommendations. The goal of the report is to better assess the current and future needs and vulnerabilities as it relates to the Fire department's service model, which ultimately helps the Fire department with both maintaining existing service levels, and current and long-term planning.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receives the presentation and report from Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) and ask questions of staff and the consultant, as needed.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ___________________________
Greg Humora Bent Koch
City Manager Fire Chief
Attachments:

La Mesa Community Risk Assessment Report
La Mesa Standard of Cover Report

Page 2 of 479 ends

1-800-757-3724
[email protected] www.esci.us
www.esci.us
2024
Heartland Fire & Rescue
Community Risk Assessment
City of La Mesa, California

Page 3 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
2 Community Risk Assessment
City of La Mesa
California

Page 4 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
3 Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................6 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................8 Organizational Overview: .............................................................................................9 Service Area Population & Demographics ..................................................................9 La Mesa & San Diego County Comparison ...............................................................11 History, Formation, & General Description...............................................................12 Description of the Current Service Delivery Infrastructure........................................12 Governance & Lines of Authority .............................................................................13 Review of Services Provided........................................................................................14 Emergency Services Response Types .......................................................................14 Operational Staffing and Assignment Evaluation .....................................................15 Staff Allocation for Emergency Functions ................................................................17 Non-Emergency Staff..............................................................................................17 Community Risk Assessment .....................................................................................18 Topography ............................................................................................................18 Transportation........................................................................................................18 Roads & Highways ...............................................................................................19 Rail Lines .............................................................................................................19 Airports ...............................................................................................................19 Evaluation of Physical Assets Protected ...................................................................20 Community Risk Profiles ............................................................................................22 Planning & Zoning Risk Areas..................................................................................24 Station 11...............................................................................................................24 Station 12...............................................................................................................26 Station 13...............................................................................................................28 Community Land Use Regulations ...........................................................................30 La Mesa General Plan: ..........................................................................................30

Page 5 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
4 Service Delivery & Performance ..................................................................................31 Service Demand Analysis.........................................................................................31 Incident Type Analysis .........................................................................................31 Future Service Demand ........................................................................................34 Temporal Analysis ...............................................................................................37 Geographic Analysis ............................................................................................40 Resource Distribution Analysis................................................................................45 ISO Distribution ...................................................................................................45 NFPA Distribution ................................................................................................51 Resource Concentration Analysis ............................................................................56 Resource Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................58 Workload .............................................................................................................58 Incident Concurrency...........................................................................................60 Response Performance Analysis ..............................................................................61 Alarm Handling Time ...........................................................................................63 Turnout Time..........................................................................................................64 Travel Time..........................................................................................................65 Response Time ....................................................................................................66 Total Response Time ...........................................................................................68 Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid.................................................................................69 Facilities.....................................................................................................................72 Station 11: 8034 Allison Ave, La Mesa (Good Condition)..........................................72 Station 12: 8844 Dallas St, La Mesa (Good Condition) .............................................72 Station 13: 9110 Grossmont Blvd, La Mesa (Good Condition) ..................................73 Apparatus ..................................................................................................................73 Apparatus & Vehicles ..............................................................................................73 Apparatus Reviews..................................................................................................74 Recommendations......................................................................................................75

Page 6 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
5 Recommendation # 1..............................................................................................75 Recommendation # 2..............................................................................................75 Recommendation # 3..............................................................................................75 Recommendation # 4..............................................................................................75 Recommendation # 5..............................................................................................75 Recommendation # 6..............................................................................................76 Recommendation # 7..............................................................................................76 Recommendation # 8..............................................................................................76 Recommendation # 9..............................................................................................76 Recommendation # 10............................................................................................76 Recommendation # 11............................................................................................76 Table of Figures .........................................................................................................77 Appendix ...................................................................................................................79

Page 7 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
6 Executive Summary
The City of La Mesa and Heartland Fire & Rescue contracted with Emergency Service Consulting International (ESCI) to perform a Community Risk Assessment (CRA) and establish a baseline Standards of Cover (SOC). The CRA is an identification of a community’s risks, vulnerabilities, and hazards and its ability to reduce those risks through planning and coping strategies. Once identified, the risks are evaluated in a Standards of Cover for the Fire Department. The SOC provides a numerical benchmark that the community and fire department can utilize over the next three to five years to assess its abilities to handle and mitigate the risks identified in the CRA. La Mesa is well protected by its fire department under the management of Heartland Fire & Rescue. Heartland Fire & Rescue is a collaboration between El Cajon, La Mesa, and Lemon Grove. The progressive outlook and growth of the City of La Mesa are seen directly in its support of the fire service. As with any growing community, hazards and risks will always accompany that growth. Identifying those risks is a significant step in combating and minimizing them to ensure a safe and protected community for its citizens and visitors. ESCI has worked diligently with Heartland Fire & Rescue (HFR) staff to identify those specific risks and future needs for La Mesa to remain a safe place to live and work. Below is the summary of recommendations that ESCI has developed to ensure HFR can continue providing efficient and effective fire service to La Mesa and its citizens. These recommendations include:
• Research operational options for EMT-B/A level positions • Perform an internal assessment of the workload of administrative staff positions • Assess the need for increased staff in the Fire Marshal’s Office • Evaluate and consider the implementation of a Squad Unit for the Station 11 response zone.
• Continue expansion of the HOME (Homeless Outreach & Mobile Engagement) program to encompass more available hours
• Create a Capital Improvement Plan for the City of La Mesa with funding allocated directly for future growth and the replacement of fire department apparatus • Introduce and combine efforts with the Nurse Navigator Program currently operating in El Cajon
• Expand or enhance the current MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding) to include cross-organizational promotional availability throughout all three cities under HFR

Page 8 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
7 • Broaden cost-sharing measures among the three cities to include a pay parity of salaries and benefits for all fire department employees • Research internally the most efficient and effective communication methods for repairs and maintenance with the Public Works Department from beginning to completion

Page 9 of 479 ends

Page 10 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
9 Organizational Overview:

Service Area Population & Demographics
In analyzing the community of La Mesa based on the given data, several elements stand out from a risk standpoint, notably the socio-economic and housing characteristics that could potentially impact community resilience and quality of life.

The percentage of households with a disability in La Mesa is 22%, a significant figure that suggests a considerable portion of the population may require additional support services and accessible infrastructure. The daily population shift is -1,103, indicating a decrease in population during the day, possibly due to residents commuting outside the area for work or education, which could impact local businesses and daytime service provision.

The percentage of households with public assistance is relatively low at 3%, yet 10% of households are below the poverty level, highlighting a disparity between those receiving aid and those potentially in need. The housing situation presents a mixed picture; 57% of housing units are renter-occupied, and 43% are owner-occupied. This reflects a balanced but potentially unstable housing market, especially for renters more vulnerable to rent hikes and eviction. Additionally, the community has a 5% vacancy rate in housing units, which could indicate a healthy turnover rate or, conversely, a lack of affordable housing options.

A critical risk factor is the high percentage of houses built before 1980. Hovering at 73%, this percentage raises concerns about the buildings' energy efficiency, safety standards, and the potential need for costly renovations. The median-year structures were built in 1969, further emphasizing the aging infrastructure. From an environmental health perspective, 48% of households use gas appliances, necessitating robust carbon monoxide alarm systems to prevent poisoning incidents.

On the education front, the community has a modest school-aged population (grades 1-8) of 8%, with a slightly lower high school-age population of 4%, indicating potential challenges in maintaining school enrollments and funding.

In summary, La Mesa's community faces several risks primarily related to aging infrastructure, socioeconomic disparities, and housing stability. Addressing these risks would require targeted interventions focusing on infrastructure upgrades, enhanced support for vulnerable populations, and strategies to improve housing affordability and stability.

Page 11 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
10 Figure 1. La Mesa Community Profile

Page 12 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
11 La Mesa & San Diego County Comparison
From a population and demographics perspective, La Mesa's community presents a unique profile compared to the broader San Diego County. La Mesa is significantly denser in population, with 6,793.5 people per square mile compared to San Diego County's 790.6, indicating a more urbanized and possibly more tightly-knit community structure. Despite a higher density, La Mesa exhibits a lower median household income ($79,802) compared to San Diego County's ($95,879), which may reflect differing economic opportunities or living costs between the two. Moreover, La Mesa's community demonstrates higher engagement in rental housing, with 57% of housing units being renter-occupied, in contrast to San Diego County, where a more significant proportion of housing units are owner-occupied (55%). This difference could suggest a more transient or younger demographic in La Mesa or potentially higher demand for affordable housing options.

The comparison between La Mesa and San Diego County highlights several critical distinctions:
• % Households with a Disability: La Mesa has a higher percentage (22%) compared to San Diego County's 21%, which might imply a greater need for accessible services and infrastructure in La Mesa.
• % Households Below Poverty Level: Both communities (La Mesa and San Diego County) report a 10% rate despite the disparities in median household income and population density.
• % Renter Occupied vs. % Owner Occupied: La Mesa has a higher percentage of renter-occupied housing units (57%) than San Diego County (45%), suggesting a more fluid or possibly younger demographic.
• % Houses Built Before 1980: La Mesa has a significantly higher percentage (73%) than San Diego County's 51%, indicating older housing stock that may require more maintenance and updates to meet modern efficiency and safety standards.

These differences paint a picture of La Mesa as a denser, more renter-focused community with older housing stock and specific social service needs, contrasting with

Page 13 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
12 San Diego County's more extensive, more owner-occupied, and possibly more economically diverse environment.

History, Formation, & General Description
La Mesa is a city in the state of California. It was founded in 1869 and incorporated on February 16, 1912. Originally, La Mesa was part of Rancho El Cajón. This Mexican-era ranch grant belonged to the family of Don Miguel de Pedrorena, a Californio ranchero who signed the Californian Constitution. The name "La Mesa" means "the table" or "the plateau" in Spanish, which refers to its geography. Spanish missionaries previously used La Mesa as part of a larger tract, Mission San Diego de Alcalá. Spanish, Mexican, and American settlers highly valued the natural springs in La Mesa. In 1868, stockman Robert Allison moved to the area and bought 4,000 acres of land from the heirs of Santiago Arguello, the commandant of the Presidio of San Diego. Allison's land became La Mesa, and the "Allison" natural springs were renamed the "La Mesa Springs." The significance of the springs is still evident today in the name of the famous "Spring Street," which runs through downtown La Mesa and with the preservation of the spring house in Collier Park.

Description of the Current Service Delivery Infrastructure Heartland Fire & Rescue manages fire and non-transport EMS services to El Cajon, La Mesa, and Lemon Grove. Operational authority is afforded under a Joint Powers Agreement. Heartland Fire & Rescue is the collective operational name for the El Cajon, La Mesa, and Lemon Grove fire service delivery agency. Heartland Fire & Rescue does not have the purchasing or hiring authority as seen under a Joint Powers Authority.

Constructed as an “Agreement” instead of an “Authority,” cost is shared based on an annual review of the previous year’s service delivery and cost per city. Each of the cities then provides a cost share based on their individual prior year usage. Personnel, apparatus, supplies, and facilities are funded by each city individually. Personnel are hired by a city and paid according to that city’s pay scale to obtain that city’s benefits.

Each city buys apparatus and facilities, and each city retains ownership. Each city funds the repair and maintenance of its respective fleet and facilities. Expendable goods are also allocated and accounted for per usage within each city’s boundaries. The Heartland Fire & Rescue is branded on all apparatus with the respective city’s name under the HFR logo. HFR currently staffs three stations within the city of La Mesa.

These are designated as Stations 11,12 and 13. These stations operate three engines, one ladder truck, one battalion, and one CALOES Type-1 Engine. They are staffed daily

Page 14 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
13 with a minimum of 13 personnel, plus the battalion chief. Most personnel are trained to a paramedic level but do not provide transport functions.

HFR stations and equipment respond to all calls for service in any of the overall jurisdictional boundaries of HFR’s geographic territory. Even though personnel are employees of each city, they can move up or move to other stations in another city’s jurisdiction. Overtime is paid to the staff members from their city of employment, regardless of which station they are working, and the cost is then billed back to their home city. Personnel have varying pay scales, but disparity is minimal across the three cities. The Fire Marshal’s office is also a shared service under the fire department's direction and the Fire Chief's authority. Per California State Law, the Fire Marshal’s office is the direct authority of the Fire Chief or his/her designee. Under this law, the Chief has a Fire Marshal and staff to handle the inspections and investigations required by state and local laws and ordinances. Each city has its own code adoption process and separate municipal codes that the Fire Marshal and staff must utilize when performing code inspections.

Governance & Lines of Authority
The California State Constitution provides for two forms of municipal government:

Charter and General Law. Three principal systems are available under these forms: an equal council, a council-manager, and a strong mayor. The legal distinction between general law and charter cities is that provisions of its charter subject establish the latter's powers to any limitations imposed by federal or state law. A general-law city, on the other hand, may exercise only those powers authorized by state law. However, these powers are sufficiently broad to meet the needs of most municipal entities. In generallaw cities, the equal council system consists of five council members, including the mayor, each with an equal vote. Acting as a body, it is the chief governing authority. In charter cities, the size of the council may be more significant, as is the case in San Diego.

The council elects one of its members as mayor annually unless a municipal ordinance approved by the electorate provides for election by popular vote.

The council-manager system has become the most popular one utilized in California. It was developed to avoid corruption and inefficiency, which began to surface in some eastern cities in the late nineteenth century. It envisions a professional, nonpolitical public administrator responsible to the council for enforcing city ordinances, providing direction for administrative operations, and dispensing technical advice. The committee

Page 15 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
14 appoints the manager and serves at its pleasure. The council retains sole authority to enact local laws, make policy decisions, approve programs, adopt the budget, and provide general direction to the manager.

La Mesa operates under a Council-Manager system. There are five council members, one of whom is the mayor and a City Manager appointed to manage day-to-day operations.

Review of Services Provided
Emergency Services Response Types
Emergency services are provided by Heartland Fire & Rescue as an all-hazards response agency. Heartland Fire & Rescue covers the cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, and Lemon Grove with a total of eight stations, staffed 24/7/365. Three of these fire stations are within the city limits of La Mesa. Heartland Fire & Rescue responds to all fires, medical emergencies, vehicle accidents, hazardous material incidents, and any request for services by the community. Heartland Fire & Rescue also conducts annual fire inspections and plans review through its Fire Marshal’s division to ensure the safety of all its residents. Heartland Fire & Rescue has a highly active community presence with its “Community Emergency Preparedness” programs and initiatives.

Page 16 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
15 Operational Staffing and Assignment Evaluation
Heartland Fire & Rescue, with its three fire stations in the city limits of La Mesa, is manned by a dedicated staff of thirty-nine line personnel. With their unwavering commitment, these personnel staff three Engines, one Ladder Truck, and a Rescue Engine, ensuring a daily staffing minimum of thirteen staff members. Each apparatus is manned by three personnel per engine, and four are on the ladder truck. La Mesa also maintains one Battalion Chief Officer per shift, a testament to our team's high level of commitment and readiness.

Figure 2: La Mesa Fire Stations

Page 17 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
16 Figure 3: HFR Organizational Chart

Page 18 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
17 Staff Allocation for Emergency Functions
Heartland Fire & Rescue efficiently allocates its staff for emergency functions. The La Mesa frontline engines are staffed with three personnel, and the ladder company has four as a minimum daily staffing. An Engine Company and an ALS (Advanced Life Support) transport ambulance provided by AMR are dispatched for minor EMS incidents. AMR, a contracted third-party EMS transport provider for La Mesa, ensures swift and effective response. Complex incidents such as Structure Fires or Specialty Rescues are met with four engines, one ladder truck, one ambulance, and one to two chief officers, demonstrating our preparedness and ability to handle high-pressure situations. As part of the San Diego Central Zone, we have a boundary agreement with all the agencies in the adjoining jurisdictions, and utilizing AVL (Auto Vehicle Location/GPS), the Central Zone dispatch will dispatch the closest unit from any jurisdiction, further enhancing our response efficiency.

Non-Emergency Staff
Heartland Fire & Rescue also provides fire prevention services in all three cities. As a designee of the Fire Chief, the Fire Marshal is tasked with fire prevention, public education, and fire inspections. (Note: engine companies handle the cause of origin on the scene. The Sheriff’s Office handles any further investigation.) The Fire Prevention Division is staffed by the Fire Marshal and Deputy Fire Marshal (which both serve all three cities), five Fire Inspectors (two Fire Inspector II in El Cajon, one Fire Inspector I and one Fire Inspector II in La Mesa, and one Fire Inspector in Lemon Grove), one parttime Geographic Information Systems Technician. It is partially supported by two Senior Management Analysts, one Administrative Secretary, and one Administrative Office Assistant. Inspections are conducted by the Deputy Fire Marshal and Fire Inspectors, while Public Education delivery is shared among all Fire Prevention Division staff, which receives assistance from the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. Plan Review is conducted by the Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Marshal, and an El Cajon Inspectors (in El Cajon). La Mesa contracts with BPR to handle overflow reviews. The rate of new construction is heavily affecting the fire inspection process and causing strain on Fire Prevention Division staff, which creates prioritization challenges and a significantly increased re-inspection schedule.

The above positions are individual employees of each city who handle the inspections and plan review. As noted in a Comparative Study for El Cajon and again in this project review, the Fire Marshal’s office is understaffed for the current and expected growth of the City of La Mesa. As development continues, re-inspections will become increasingly more challenging for both high and low-risk occupancies. This can lead

Page 19 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
18 to potential oversight and missed hazards, directly affecting responding emergency personnel when an incident occurs.

Community Risk Assessment
Topography
La Mesa is characterized by a varied topography that reflects its Southern California setting. Mesa's landscape includes rolling hills, flat areas, and valleys, contributing to its diverse urban and suburban scenery. The city is approximately 12 miles east of Downtown San Diego, nestled among the geographical features that define the region.

The elevation in La Mesa varies, with some areas sitting higher on the mesas or hills, offering views of the surrounding landscapes, including urban San Diego to the west and the mountains to the east. These higher areas typically offer residential neighborhoods with homes that take advantage of the scenic vistas. The lower parts of La Mesa, including its valleys, are where commercial activities are concentrated, particularly along major thoroughfares like La Mesa Boulevard.

The natural topography has influenced the development patterns of La Mesa, with residential areas often spread out in the hills and commercial zones located in flatter, more accessible places. Despite its urban character, La Mesa has preserved green spaces and parks exploiting natural terrain. It offers residents and visitors areas for recreation and relaxation amidst the city's topographical features.

Overall, La Mesa's topography is a blend of natural hills, valleys, and flat lands that contribute to its charm and appeal as a residential and commercial community in the heart of San Diego County.

Transportation
La Mesa, California, benefits from a comprehensive transportation network that caters to the needs of its residents and visitors, facilitating easy access to and from the city and within its boundaries. This network includes a mix of roadways, rail lines, and proximity to major airports, though La Mesa does not have direct access to waterways given its inland location. Below, one will find an overview of the transportation options available to La Mesa’s residents and visitors:

Page 20 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
19 Roads & Highways
• Interstate 8 (I-8): This major freeway runs east-west and is a crucial route for La Mesa. It provides direct access to downtown San Diego to the west and extends eastward towards Arizona.
• State Route 125 (SR-125): Also known as the South Bay Expressway, SR-125 runs north-south along the eastern edge of La Mesa, offering connections to the southern suburbs and Mexico via the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. • Local Roads: La Mesa is crisscrossed by several significant streets that serve the local community, including Fletcher Parkway, La Mesa Boulevard, Spring Street, and University Avenue. These streets are vital for daily commuting, shopping, and service access.

Rail Lines
• San Diego Trolley: The San Diego Trolley's Orange and Green Lines serve La Mesa, providing efficient public transit to downtown San Diego and other destinations. Key stations in La Mesa include La Mesa Boulevard and Grossmont Center. This light rail service is integral for commuters and those seeking to avoid road traffic congestion.
• Amtrak and COASTER: While not directly serving La Mesa, nearby stations in San Diego provide access to regional and national rail services, connecting La Mesa residents to broader Southern California and beyond.

Airports
• San Diego International Airport (SAN): Located approximately 16 miles west of La Mesa, SAN is the nearest international airport, offering a wide range of domestic and international flights.
• Gillespie Field: A smaller airport in El Cajon, just northeast of La Mesa, Gillespie Field caters to private and charter flights and is a convenient option for general aviation.

La Mesa's robust transportation network provides residents and businesses with various local and long-distance travel options. Whether by road, rail, or air, the community is well-connected to the greater San Diego area and beyond, enhancing the city's appeal as a place to live, work, and visit.

Page 21 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
20 Evaluation of Physical Assets Protected
Figure 4. Physical Assets Protected Legend

Page 22 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
21 Figure 5: Physical Assets Protected Map

Page 23 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
22 Community Risk Profiles
The risk factors across the communities of Station 11, Station 12, and Station 13 reveal distinct challenges that each face. Differences in population density, median household income, housing dynamics, and demographic characteristics underscore each area's unique needs and vulnerabilities.

Station 11, with a population density of 7,880.3 people per square mile, stands out for its significant daily population shift, with a decrease of 7,054. This suggests a high degree of commuter movement that causes congestion on main thoroughfares and tertiary streets, straining the local infrastructure during peak times and potentially reducing community cohesion. The community's reliance on utility gas (46%) and a high percentage of houses built before 1980 (73%) further highlight risks related to energy dependence and older housing stock, requiring attention to maintenance and safety standards.

In contrast, Station 12, despite its higher median household income of $85,203 and a lower population density of 6,811.6, has the highest percentage of households below the poverty level (12%) among the three communities. This paradox points to income disparity and economically vulnerable populations within an ostensibly wealthier area.

Additionally, the community's high percentage of houses built before 1980 (82%) poses risks related to the aging infrastructure and the need for modernization.

Station 13 is notable for its dramatic daily population increase of 10,433, the only community among the three to experience a significant influx of people. This could indicate a robust economic activity or the presence of institutions (hospital) that draw non-residents, but it also introduces challenges in managing traffic, public services, and emergency response.

Each community presents a mix of socio-economic and infrastructural risk factors:
• Station 11 grapples with commuter dynamics and older housing. • Station 12 faces challenges related to income disparity and the most significant proportion of older buildings, indicating potential housing stability and safety issues.
• Station 13 deals with the complexities of a swelling daily population, stressing the need for effective community planning and safety measures.

Page 24 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
23 Together, these communities illustrate the importance of targeted risk mitigation strategies that consider both the physical infrastructure and the socio-economic fabric of the population, from enhancing public transportation and road safety in Station 11 to addressing income disparities in Station 12 and bolstering security measures in Station 13.

Page 25 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
24 Planning & Zoning Risk Areas
Station 11
Station 11 is characterized by its high population density and a significant daily population decrease. The community faces challenges with a high percentage of households with a disability and a considerable portion of housing units built before 1980, pointing towards potential infrastructure and accessibility issues. The negative daily population shift indicates many residents commuting outside the region, which could impact local businesses and community engagement during the day. • Population Density: 7,880.3 people per square mile, indicating a highly dense community
• Daily Population Shift: -7,054, the largest outflow among the sites • % Households with a Disability: 22%, highlighting potential needs for accessible services
• % Houses Built Before 1980: 73%, suggesting older infrastructure • Median Year Structure Built: 1971, indicating the need for updates and renovations

Page 26 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
25 Figure 6. Station 11's Community Profile

Page 27 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
26 Station 12
Station 12, while having a higher median household income, also has the highest percentage of households below the poverty level among the communities. This paradox suggests significant income disparities. The community also faces the challenge of an aging housing stock, with the highest percentage of houses built before 1980, raising concerns about the adequacy of housing conditions and energy efficiency.
• Median Household Income: $85,203, the highest among the sites • % Households Below Poverty Level: 12%, indicating economic disparities • % Houses Built Before 1980: 82%, the highest, pointing to potential risks related to older housing
• Daily Population Shift: -4,482, reflecting commuting patterns

Page 28 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
27 Figure 7. Station 12's Community Profile

Page 29 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
28 Station 13
Station 13 is unique for its dramatic increase in daily population, indicating a strong pull factor for non-residents. However, this influx of people stresses local infrastructure during the day. Additionally, the percentage of households with a disability is lower than that of Station 11, but the community still requires focused attention on inclusive services and infrastructure.
• Daily Population Increase: 10,433, suggesting significant daytime economic activity or attractions
• % Households with a Disability: 19%, relatively lower but still important • Population Density: 4,256.4 people per square mile, less dense than Station 11 • % Houses Built Before 1980: 64%, indicating somewhat newer infrastructure than the other sites.

Page 30 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
29 Figure 8. Station 13's Community Profile

Page 31 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
30 Community Land Use Regulations
La Mesa General Plan:

The City of La Mesa created its General Plan (GP), as per California Statute, in 2012 as a 20-year future vision document. The GP presented to the citizens of La Mesa the following ten areas for development and vision for the City of La Mesa:
• Population & Regional Growth
• Local and Regional Transportation
• Land Use, Historic Preservation, and Redevelopment
• Housing and Urban Design
• Public Services and Facilities
• Conservation of Natural Resources
• Noise and Public Safety
• Historic Preservation
• Sustainability
• Parks & Recreation
The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the city's Goals and Policies related to La Mesa's role in regional planning. It combines two significant sections of the General Plan: Land Use and Urban Design. At the Element's end, existing and proposed programs are presented to implement the established goals, policies, and objectives.

Page 32 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
31 Service Delivery & Performance
Within the City of La Mesa, HFR provides emergency services to the citizens and visitors. Leadership and elected officials work diligently to provide quality and timely services and thus understand the resources/services and how they relate to industry standards and best practices. This section evaluates the following components to facilitate this understanding:
• Service Demand
• Resource Distribution
• Resource Concentration
• Resource Reliability
• Response Performance
• Mutual and Automatic Aid
Service Demand Analysis
As with many other departments, HFR provides a variety of services, but ultimately, the department’s main reason for existence is to respond to calls for service (incidents) within the community. The industry term for this primary mission is service demand, and the following analyses will consider the various facets grouped into calendar years.

Incident Type Analysis
The first view of service demand is from the perspective of the types of incidents to which HFR responds within the City of La Mesa. While fire departments were originally organized to respond to fires, the types of incidents to which they respond in the modern day have vastly expanded.

The National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) was developed at the federal level to assist fire departments in quantifying and qualifying the nature of service demand within their community. Through this standard data collection approach, fire department leaders can equally compare their departments with others throughout the nation. Within NFIRS, each incident is assigned a 3-digit code (178 incident type codes), and these are then grouped into a series based on the first digit, as illustrated in the following figure.

Page 33 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
32 Figure 9. NFIRS Incident Series
Incident Series Incident Heading
100-Series Fires
200-Series Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheating (No Fire) 300-Series Rescue and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Incidents 400-Series Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
500-Series Service Call
600-Series Canceled, Good Intent
700-Series False Alarm, False Call
800-Series Severe Weather, Natural Disaster
900-Series Special Incident Type

Page 34 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
33 As illustrated in the following figure, there was an increase of 18% from 2019 to 2023 in the number of incidents occurring within the community. This overall increase was comprised of a decrease of 6% from 2019 to 2020, followed by an increase in the subsequent years of 12% (2020 to 2021), 5% (2021 to 2022), and 7% (2022 to 2023).

The decrease in 2020, followed by subsequent increases, is common throughout other fire departments and is associated with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 10. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by NFIRS Series, 2019–2023 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fire (100) 205 238 267 262 222
Hazardous Condition (200, 400) 369 285 260 342 387
Service Call (500) 375 391 444 426 508
Canceled, Good Intent (600) 36 34 26 35 43
Alarm (700) 3 0 1 11 5
Other (800, 900) 48 29 34 8 0
EMS (300) 7,190 6,793 7,635 8,005 8,531
Total 8,226 7,770 8,667 9,089 9,696
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0 100
200
300
400
500
600

Page 35 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
34 The year-to-year perspective illustrated in the preceding figure is but one view of service demand incident-type data. Another way to consider the same data is to determine how each NFIRS incident series compares to the overall service demand, expressed as a percentage. For HFR, the greatest demand for service is for emergency medical service incidents (88%). The other incident series and percentages are illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 11. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by NFIRS Series, 2019–2023 Future Service Demand
Analysis of current and historical service demand provides leadership and elected officials with an understanding of what is happening currently and in the immediate past. Understanding how service demand volume may change in the future may add additional value to the planning process. Two common methods for a theoretical projection of service demand include changes based on population or historical service demand changes.

Fire (100)

2.75%
Hazardous Condition (200, 400)

3.78%
Service Call (500)

4.93%
Canceled, Good Intent (600)

0.40%
Alarm (700)

0.05%
Other (800, 900)

0.27%

Page 36 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
35 Future Service Demand by Population
This method of projecting future service demand analyzes the number of incidents per 1,000 population within the community. Then, through analysis of the historical population changes within the community obtained from the United States Census Bureau, a projection of future population is extrapolated, the incidents/1,000 population is applied to achieve the total number of incidents each year, which is then distributed based on the incident frequency percentages. The following figure illustrates the projected HFR service demand within La Mesa based on population changes and provides a lower estimate.

Figure 12. HFR (La Mesa) Projected Service Demand by Population, 2025–2050 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Fire (100) 222 225 233 240 248 257 265
Hazardous Condition (200, 400) 387 392 405 419 433 448 463 Service Call (500) 508 515 532 550 568 588 607
Canceled, Good Intent (600) 43 44 45 47 48 50 51
Alarm (700) 5 5 5 5 6 6 6
EMS (300) 8,531 8,645 8,935 9,236 9,546 9,867 10,199
Total 9,696 9,825 10,155 10,497 10,850 11,215 11,592
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900

Page 37 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
36 Future Service Demand by Historical Change
This method of projecting future service demand analyzes the historical percentage of change during the study period to determine the average increase or decrease per year. This figure is then extrapolated over time to provide the total number of incidents each year, and it is distributed based on the incident frequency percentages.

The following figure illustrates the projected HFR service demand within La Mesa based on historical changes in service demand and provides the upper estimate.

Figure 13. HFR (La Mesa) Projected Service Demand by Historical Change, 2025–2050. 2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Fire (100) 222 262 308 364 429 505 595
Hazardous Condition (200, 400) 387 456 538 634 747 881 1,038 Service Call (500) 508 599 706 832 981 1,156 1,362
Canceled, Good Intent (600) 43 51 60 70 83 98 115
Alarm (700) 5 6 7 8 10 11 13
EMS (300) 8,531 10,056 11,852 13,970 16,467 19,410 22,878 Total 9,696 11,429 13,471 15,878 18,716 22,060 26,003
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400

Page 38 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
37 Temporal Analysis
The next view of service demand is from the perspective of when incidents occur. The ability for leadership to consider this perspective provides opportunities to ensure appropriate staffing during periods of high service demand as well as to schedule nonresponse activities during periods of lower service demand. These non-response activities may include the following:
• Pre-incident Planning
• Training
• Station Maintenance
• Apparatus Maintenance
• Fire Hose Testing
• Fire Hydrant Testing
• Public Education
From the temporal analysis perspective, the initial facet of when incidents occur is based on the month of the year. The following figure illustrates that the greatest service demand occurs in December, and the lowest occurs in April. Actual variance ranges from 7.6% (April) to 9.1% (December) and does not demonstrate significant shifts in service demand throughout the year.

Figure 14. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by Month, 2019–2023

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average

Page 39 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
38 The second facet of incidents occurring is based on the day of the week. The following figure illustrates that the greatest service demand occurs on Thursday/Friday, and the lowest is on Sunday. As with service demand by month, the service demand by day has minimal variance between 13.2% (Sunday) and 14.8% (Thursday/Friday).

Figure 15. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by Day, 2019–2023

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

11.0%

12.0%

13.0%

14.0%

15.0%
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average

Page 40 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
39 The final facet of when incidents occur is based on the hour of the day. For most communities, including La Mesa, this temporal nature is driven by the movement of the population throughout the day—arising in the morning, preparing for the day, moving to work or other daytime activities, moving to evening activities, and ultimately returning to rest and prepare for the next day. As illustrated in the following figure, this pattern is shown through the lowest service demand occurring at 4 AM, followed by a steady increase throughout the morning. Service demand reaches its peak at 11 AM and then remains steady throughout the day until a steady decrease begins at 5 PM.

Figure 16. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by Hour, 2019–2023 While the preceding figure illustrates that demand for service is at its lowest during the late night and early hours, leadership should ensure adequate staffing is still in place to respond and mitigate structure fire incidents quickly. Based on a national study recently published, from 2018 to 2020, the occurrence of residential structure fires with fatalities was highest between midnight and 1:00 AM. The 8-hour peak period (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) accounted for 45% of residential fatal fires1. 1 Fatal Fires in Residential Buildings (2018–2020), Topical Fire Report Series Volume 22, Issue 2 /June 2022, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average

Page 41 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
40 Geographic Analysis
The next view of service demand is from the perspective of where incidents occur. This is a key component in verifying that resources are appropriately located to provide the timeliest response to incidents within the community. With 88% of service demand falling within the emergency medical service incident series, it is logical that the location of service demand is associated with the location of people. In other words, it is likely that the greater incident density occurs in the same location as the greater population density.

As illustrated in the following figure, the areas of greater population density are spread throughout the community.

Figure 17. HFR (La Mesa) Population Density

Page 42 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
41 HFR provided incident data from the department’s records management system, including the NFIRS incident type and the location of the incident. Using geographical information system (GIS) software, these incident locations were mapped geographically and then analyzed to determine the mathematical density of incidents per ten acres.

The first facet of incident density considers the entirety of incident volume—in other words, all incidents, regardless of type. As shown in the following figure, areas of greater incident density are near the higher population density categories.

Figure 18. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Density (All Incidents), 2019–2023

Page 43 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
42 The next facet of incident density considers only those incidents with the NFIRS 300- series, emergency medical service incidents. While these incidents require fewer resources, they also comprise the largest percentage of responses. As illustrated in the following figure, these incidents follow a similar pattern.

Figure 19. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Density (NFIRS 300-Series), 2019–2023 HFR responds to medical calls to numerous care facilities within the city limits of La Mesa. From 2019 to 2023, HFR responded to almost 6,000 calls to the care facilities listed below.

Page 44 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
43 Table 1: Care Facilities Response Totals
Facility Name Address Response
2019-2023
Grossmont Post Acute 8787 Center Dr 936
Community Care Center 8665 La Mesa Blvd 813
Grossmont Gardens 5480 Marengo Ave 892
Grossmont Gardens Memory Care 4960 Mills St 443
Grossmont Gardens 5470 Marengo Ave 726
Arbor Hills Nursing 7800 Parkway Dr 588
Westmont 9000 Murray Dr 579
Montera 5740 Lake Murray Blvd 1255
Alvarado Parkway Institute 7050 Parkway Dr 447
Figure 20: Care Facilities Response

Page 45 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
44 The final facet of incident density considers only those incidents within the NFRIS-100 series, fire incidents. While these incidents only comprise 3% of service demand, they often require a much greater number of resources to respond. As illustrated in the following figure, these incidents also follow a similar pattern.

Figure 21. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Density (NFIRS 100-Series, 2019–2023

Page 46 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
45 Resource Distribution Analysis
HFR has stationed various resources within La Mesa to respond to calls for service. The preceding section provided a view of the location of the calls for service, which may be compared to resource locations. This section will now consider the resource locations and compare them to industry standards and best practices.

ISO Distribution
The Insurance Services Office (ISO) is a national insurance industry organization that evaluates fire protection for communities across the country. ISO assesses all areas of fire protection and breaks them down into four major categories: emergency communications, fire department, water supply, and community risk reduction.

Following an on-site evaluation, an ISO rating, or specifically, a Public Protection Classification (PPC®) number, is assigned to the community ranging from 1 (best protection) to 10 (no protection). The PPC® score is developed using the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), which outlines sub-categories of each of the major four, detailing the specific requirements for each area of evaluation.

A community’s ISO rating is a principal factor when considering fire station and apparatus concentration, distribution, and deployment due to its effect on the cost of fire insurance for the residents and businesses. To receive maximum credit for station and apparatus distribution, ISO evaluates the percentage of the community (contiguously built upon area) that is within specific distances of fire stations, central water supply access (fire hydrants), engine/pumper companies, and aerial/ladder apparatus.

La Mesa has an overall PPC rating score of Class 1 Fire Department.

Page 47 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
46 1.5-Mile Distribution
The first facet to consider as part of the ISO evaluation is to determine the number of structures within the community (percentage of service area) that are located within

1.5 road miles of a staffed fire engine. This measure is comparable to the 4-minute travel time that will be analyzed in a subsequent section. As illustrated in the following figure, 78% of the HFR (La Mesa) service area is within 1.5 road miles of a staffed fire engine.

Figure 22. HFR (La Mesa) Engine Distribution per ISO Criteria

Page 48 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
47 2.5-Mile Distribution
The second facet to consider is to determine the number of structures within the community that are located within 2.5 road miles of an aerial apparatus. In many jurisdictions, ladder companies are deployed only to certain types of incidents and are not necessarily considered the first due unit for all other incident types. Due to these occurrences, ISO uses a 2.5-road-mile travel distance for ladder companies to estimate an 8-minute travel time in urban and suburban areas by ladder companies to provide the balance of personnel and equipment needed for incidents such as working fires.

The use of aerial apparatus is more specifically needed in areas of the community where there are five or more buildings of three stories (or 32 feet) or more in height or with five or more buildings requiring a needed fire flow of greater than 3,500 gallons per minute, or five or more buildings meetings any combination of these requirements.

As illustrated in the following figure, 91% of the HFR (La Mesa) service area is within

2.5 road miles of a staffed aerial apparatus.

Page 49 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
48 Figure 23. HFR (La Mesa) Truck Distribution per ISO Criteria 5-Mile Distribution
The next facet to consider is to determine the number of structures within five road miles of a staffed fire station. Areas outside of five miles are subject to receiving a PPC® rating of 10 (no fire department protection available).

As illustrated in the following figure, 100% of the HFR (La Mesa) service area is located within a 5-road-mile travel distance of a fire station.

Page 50 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
49 Figure 24. HFR (La Mesa) Station Distribution per ISO Criteria

Page 51 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
50 Water Supply
The final facet to consider is to determine the community’s proximity to a sufficient water supply, which is critical for the extinguishment of fires. Included in this evaluation is the geographic location and distribution of fire hydrants. Structures outside a 1,000-foot radius of a fire hydrant are subject to a lower Public Protection Classification® rating than areas with adequate hydrant coverage, thus signifying limited fire protection. Exceptions are made when a fire department can show that either a dry hydrant or a suitable water tanker operation is possible to provide the needed volume of water for fire suppression activities for a specific period. As illustrated in the following figure, 100% of the HFR (La Mesa) service area is within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant.

Figure 25. HFR (La Mesa) Hydrant Coverage per ISO Criteria

Page 52 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
51 NFPA Distribution
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an industry trade association that develops and provides standards and codes for fire departments and emergency medical services for use by local governments. One of these standards, NFPA 1710:

Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, serves as a national consensus standard for career fire department performance, operations, and safety. Within this standard, a travel time of 240 seconds, or 4 minutes, is identified as the benchmark for career departments to reach emergency incidents within their jurisdiction with the first arriving unit. Additionally, the balance of the response (called the effective response force or ERF) is required to arrive at the incident within 480 seconds or 8 minutes.

The contemporary method used to evaluate fire stations is based on using the actual road network in a computer model using Geographical Information System (GIS) technology. This system uses time and distance to create a network that more closely represents how far firefighters can respond from a fire station using the adopted time standard.

Page 53 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
52 As illustrated in the following figure, 65% of the HFR (La Mesa) service area falls within the 4-minute travel time of a fire station and 100% falls within the 8-minute travel time of a fire station.

Figure 26. HFR (La Mesa) 4/8 Minute Travel Time Model per NFPA Criteria

Page 54 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
53 The preceding figure provides HFR leadership and elected officials with a view of travel time based on the assumption that all units are within their assigned stations at the time of dispatch. Actual travel time is also valuable, as it can potentially identify any gaps in service that may be addressed in the planning processes. For the evaluation of this measure, only those incidents where units responded in emergency mode (lights/sirens) are included in the analysis.

In 2023, HFR responded to 24% of incidents within La Mesa with a travel time of less than 4 minutes. To consider those responses with a travel time above the recommended standard, the remaining incidents were grouped into logical divisions.

As illustrated in the following figure, HFR responded to 52% of incidents within La Mesa with a travel time of 4 to 8 minutes.

Figure 27. HFR (La Mesa) Travel Time 4–8 Minutes, 2023

Page 55 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
54 During 2023, HFR responded to 16% of incidents within La Mesa with a travel time of 8 to 12 minutes, as illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 28. HFR (La Mesa) Travel Time 8–12 Minutes, 2023

Page 56 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
55 Finally, during 2023, HFR responded to 7% of incidents within La Mesa with a travel time of greater than 12 minutes, as illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 29. HFR (La Mesa) Travel Time Greater than 12 Minutes, 2023

Page 57 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
56 Resource Concentration Analysis
The ability to respond to incidents promptly is essential. However, the ability to have sufficient personnel and resources (effective response force or ERF) arrive in a timely manner is a significant factor in the successful mitigation of the emergency. Industry standards such as NFPA 1710 recommend that the effective response force arrive on the scene with a travel time of 8 minutes or less. When considering ERF, the level of resources and personnel varies based on the risk associated with the building occupancy, as illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 30. NFPA 1710 ERF Recommendations Based on Risk
Function/Task
Single-Family
Residence
(2,000 ft2)
Open Air Strip
Shopping Center
(13,000–196,000 ft2)
3-Story Garden
Apartment
(1,200 ft2)
Command 1 2 2
Apparatus Operator 1 2 2
Handlines (2 members each) 4 6 6
Support Members 2 3 3
Victim Search and Rescue team 2 4 4
Ground Ladders/Ventilation 2 4 4
Aerial Ladder Operator
(If ladder used) (1) (1) (1)
Initial Rapid Intervention Team 4 4 4
Initial Medical Care Component N/A 2 2
Total 16 (17) 27 (28) 27 (28)

Page 58 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
57 Using the daily minimum staffing of firefighter personnel at each station within La Mesa, ESCI determined the number of personnel that can arrive within an 8-minute travel time. The following figure illustrates the percentage of service area for each quantity of firefighters based on the overlap of the 8-minute travel time from each station and the number of personnel responding from that station. This excludes personnel and resources from other HFR stations outside of La Mesa.

Figure 31. HFR (La Mesa) Effective Response Force per NFPA Criteria

Page 59 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
58 Like the travel time model, this analysis of the Effective Response Force (ERF) assumes that all units are within their assigned station at the time of dispatch. Thus, considering travel time to actual incidents is valuable, which may provide HFR leadership with insight. As illustrated in the following figure, this travel time analysis includes only those incidents coded as a fire (NFIRS 100-series), the unit responded to an emergency, and three or more units arrived on the scene.

Figure 32. HFR (La Mesa) Structure Fire Order of Arrival, 2019–2023 Resource Reliability Analysis
Providing a timely response to calls for service is impacted by the geographic location of the incident, resource location, travel conditions, and other key components identified in this report. Another consideration of resource location is whether the resource will be available within its assigned zone or if units will have to respond from a more distant location. The reliability of resources may be impacted by increased workload or incident concurrency.

Workload
The most current method of measuring workload (how busy a unit/resource is) is to compare the amount of time the unit is assigned to incidents with the amount of time the unit is in service, expressed as a percentage. However, it should be noted that this method does not capture non-incident activity such as training, pre-incident planning, fire hose testing, fire hydrant testing, apparatus maintenance, station maintenance, etc. Thus, units may be busier than those shown in the measure.

While there are limited formal performance measures to use as a target measure, in May 2016, Henrico County (VA) Division of Fire published an article after studying their 1st Unit 2nd Unit 3rd Unit 4th Unit 5th Unit All
90th Percentile 06:56 07:36 09:18 08:48 09:50 13:20
00:00
05:00
10:00
15:00

Page 60 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
59 department’s EMS workload.2 As a result of the study, Henrico County Division of Fire developed a general commitment factor scale for their department. The following figure summarizes the findings as they relate to commitment factors and may be utilized by HFR leadership to develop internal workload measures.

Figure 33.Commitment Factors as Developed by Henrico County (VA) Division, 2016 Factor Indication Description
16%-24% Ideal Commitment
Range
Personnel can maintain training requirements
and physical fitness and can consistently achieve
response time benchmarks. Units are available to
the community more than 75% of the day.
25% System Stress Community availability and unit sustainability are not questioned. First-due units respond to their
assigned community 75% of the time, and
response benchmarks are rarely missed.
26%-29% Evaluation Range The community served will experience delayed incident responses. Just under 30% of the day,
first-due ambulances are unavailable; thus,
neighboring responders will likely exceed goals.
30% “Line in the Sand” Not Sustainable: Commitment Threshold—the community has less than a 70% chance of timely
emergency service, and immediate relief is vital.

Personnel assigned to units at or exceeding 0.3
may show signs of fatigue and burnout and may
be at increased risk of errors. Required training
and physical fitness sessions are not consistently
completed.

Personnel are assigned to a single unit for all but one station and only respond with that apparatus. At Station 13, on-duty personnel may respond in either E13 or OE406, so these two units have been combined into a single unit for analysis. As illustrated in the following figure, none of the HFR units within La Mesa are at a concerning workload level.
2 How Busy Is Busy?; Retrieved from https://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-169/issue5/departments/fireems/how-busy-is-busy.html

Page 61 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
60 Figure 34. HFR (La Mesa) Unit Hour Utilization, 2019–2023 Unit 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Change Over
Study Period
B3 0.94% 0.88% 1.00% 0.94% 0.94% 0.01%
E11 10.60% 9.79% 11.35% 11.20% 11.55% 0.95%
RE12 3.24% 3.29% 4.43% 3.08% 3.43% 0.19%
E12 (Reserve) 0.84% 0.97% 0.18% 1.51% 0.67% -0.17%
E13 5.82% 4.70% 6.15% 6.11% 5.81% 0.00%
OE406 0.00% 0.82% 0.32% 0.29% 0.65% 0.65%
T11 2.43% 1.77% 2.16% 2.34% 2.23% -0.20%
E211 (Reserve) 0.36% 1.14% 0.31% 1.25% 0.70% 0.34%
Incident Concurrency
Incident concurrency is an industry term that refers to when more than one incident occurs within the service area simultaneously. As illustrated in the following figure, nearly 95% of incidents occur either as a single or second incident, and available resources should be able to respond. However, this evaluation of sufficient resources is based on a single-unit response to each incident. There are times when multiple units respond to one incident, thus decreasing availability to respond units to additional calls for service.

Page 62 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
61 Figure 35. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Concurrency, 2019–2023 Concurrent Incidents 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Change Over Study Period
Single Incident 60.00% 62.11% 60.73% 68.97% 70.62% 10.62% Two Incidents 29.96% 29.01% 29.14% 24.76% 24.16% -5.80% Three Incidents 8.20% 7.40% 8.19% 5.39% 4.50% -3.70%
Four Incidents 1.51% 1.27% 1.68% 0.74% 0.62% -0.89%
Five Incidents 0.26% 0.19% 0.24% 0.11% 0.10% -0.15%
More than Five Incidents 0.09% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.00% -0.09% Response Performance Analysis
When the residents and visitors of La Mesa consider the value of the fire department, they are most likely to consider the time it takes for a unit to arrive after a person calls 911. Most people often refer to this time measure as response time, but the correct term is total response time—part of the response time continuum, which is comprised of the following measures.
• Alarm Handling Time is the amount of time between when a call is answered by the 911 Primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) or dispatch center and when resources are dispatched.
• Turnout Time is the interval between when response units are notified of the incident and when the apparatus begins to respond.
• Travel Time: The time the responding unit spends on the road traveling to the incident until arrival at the scene. This is a function of speed and distance. • Response Time: The time from initial alerting of an incident until arrival on the scene. Response Time equals the sum of “Turnout Time” and “Travel Time.” • Total Response Time: This is the time from when the emergency call is placed until units arrive on the scene, and it is the most apparent time to the caller requesting emergency services.

Page 63 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
62 Figure 36. Response Time Continuum
In analyzing response performance, ESCI generates percentile measurements of response time performance. The use of percentile measurement using the components of response time follows the recommendations of industry best practices. The best practices are derived from the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) Standard of Cover document and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments.

The “average” measure is a commonly used descriptive statistic, also called the mean of a data set. The most important reason not to use the average for performance standards is that it may not accurately reflect the performance for the entire data set and may be skewed by outliers, especially in small data sets. One extremely good or bad value can skew the average for the entire data set.

The “median” measure is another acceptable method of analyzing performance. This method identifies the value at the middle of a data set and thus tends not to be as strongly influenced by data outliers.

Percentile measurements are a better measure of performance because they show that most of the data set has achieved a particular level of performance. The 90th percentile means that 10% of the values are greater than the value stated, and all other data are at or below this level. This can be compared to the desired performance objective to determine the degree of success in achieving the goal.

As this report progresses through the performance analysis, it is important to remember that each component of response performance is not cumulative. Each is analyzed as an individual component, and the point at which the percentile is calculated exists in a set of data unto itself. Each of the following analyses only

Page 64 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
63 included those incidents where the response was coded as an “emergency” priority.

Each of the following analyses was conducted using the response data provided by HFR.

Industry standards and best practices recommend that fire department leadership regularly track these response performance measures. This approach allows HFR leadership to identify any impediments to expected performance and implement processes for improvement.

Alarm Handling Time
The time between answering a 911 call and dispatching resources is referred to as alarm handling time. One standard applies to this measure, as illustrated in the following figure.

Standard Recommended Performance
NFPA 1225: Standard for Emergency
Services Communications (2022 Edition)
60 seconds at the 90th percentile
As illustrated in the following figure, alarm handling time performance for incidents within La Mesa is 1 minute and 31 seconds. When evaluated by the NFIRS incident series, performance ranges from 1 minute and 20 seconds for canceled/good intent incidents to 1 minute and 44 seconds for fire incidents.

Figure 37. HFR (La Mesa) Alarm Handling Time Performance, 2019–2023 01:20
01:26
01:42
01:38
01:30
01:44
01:31
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
00:00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00
Canceled, Good Intent
Hazardous Condition
Service Call
Alarm
EMS
Fire
All Calls
Benchmark 90th Percentile

Page 65 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
64 Turnout Time
The time between dispatching resources and the apparatus beginning forward motion to the incident is referred to as turnout time. There is one applicable standard for this measure, as illustrated in the following figure.

Standard Recommended Performance
NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization
and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the
Public by Career Fire Departments
recommends
Fire and Special Operations Incidents
80 seconds at the 90th percentile
All Other Incidents
60 seconds at the 90th percentile
As illustrated in the following figure, turnout time performance for incidents within La Mesa is 1 minute and 57 seconds. When evaluated by the NFIRS incident series, performance ranges from 35 seconds for alarm incidents to 2 minutes and 40 seconds for service call incidents. HFR has adopted a turnout time of 120 seconds as a benchmark. This is becoming a standard for more departments nationwide due to the adaptation of new safety standards, station design and layout, and additional PPE required to be done before leaving the station.

Figure 38. HFR Turnout Time Performance, 2019–2023
01:41
02:18
02:40
00:35
00:00
01:54
02:07
01:57
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:20
01:00
00:00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02:30 03:00
Canceled, Good Intent
Hazardous Condition
Service Call
Alarm
MVC
EMS
Fire
All Calls
Benchmark 90th Percentile

Page 66 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
65 Travel Time
The measure of time between beginning forward motion to the incident and arrival at the scene is referred to as travel time. For this measure, there is one applicable standard, as illustrated in the following figure.

Standard Recommended Performance
NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization
and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the
Public by Career Fire Departments
4 minutes at the 90th percentile
As illustrated in the following figure, travel time performance for incidents within La Mesa is 10 minutes and 21 seconds. When evaluated by the NFIRS incident series, performance ranges from 8 minutes and 38 seconds for hazardous condition incidents to 10 minutes and 27 seconds for emergency medical service call incidents.

Figure 39. HFR Travel Time Performance, 2019–2023
09:42
08:38
09:46
08:23
10:27
08:51
10:21
04:00
04:00
04:00
04:00
04:00
04:00
04:00
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00
Canceled, Good Intent
Hazardous Condition
Service Call
Alarm
EMS
Fire
All Calls
Benchmark 90th Percentile

Page 67 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
66 Response Time
The time between dispatch of resources and arrival at the scene is called response time. While there is not a specific applicable standard, one may be achieved by combining the individual component standards, as illustrated in the following figure.

Standard Recommended Performance
Turnout Time Fire and Special Operations Incidents
80 seconds at the 90th percentile
All Other Incidents
60 seconds at the 90th percentile
Travel Time 4 minutes at the 90th percentile
Combined Fire and Special Operations Incidents
5 minutes, 20 seconds at the 90th
percentile
All Other Incidents
5 minutes at the 90th percentile

Page 68 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
67 As illustrated in the following figure, response time performance for incidents within La Mesa is 9 minutes and 4 seconds. When evaluated by the NFIRS incident series, performance ranges from 5 minutes and 36 seconds for alarm incidents to 11 minutes and 12 seconds for service call incidents.

Figure 40. HFR Response Time Performance, 2019–2023
07:32
09:13
11:12
05:36
08:58
09:11
09:04
05:00
05:00
05:00
05:00
05:00
05:20
05:00
02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00
Canceled, Good Intent
Hazardous Condition
Service Call
Alarm
EMS
Fire
All Calls
Benchmark 90th Percentile

Page 69 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
68 Total Response Time
The measure of time between the 911 call being answered and the arrival of units at the scene is referred to as total response time. While there is not a specific applicable standard, one may be achieved by combining the individual component standards, as illustrated in the following figure.

Standard Recommended Performance
Alarm Handling Time 60 seconds at the 90th percentile
Turnout Time Fire and Special Operations Incidents
80 seconds at the 90th percentile
All Other Incidents
60 seconds at the 90th percentile
Travel Time 4 minutes at the 90th percentile
Combined Fire and Special Operations Incidents
6 minutes, 20 seconds at the 90th
percentile
All Other Incidents
6 minutes at the 90th percentile

Page 70 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
69 As illustrated in the following figure, the total response time performance for incidents within La Mesa is 10 minutes and 56 seconds. When evaluated by the NFIRS incident series, performance ranges from 7 minutes and 37 seconds for alarm incidents to 12 minutes and 22 seconds for service call incidents.

Figure 41. HFR (La Mesa) Total Response Time Performance, 2019–2023 Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid
HFR, along with other agencies throughout the nation, realizes the value of sharing resources where applicable. The method in which these resources are shared generally falls within two categories—automatic aid agreements and mutual aid agreements.

When agencies operate under an automatic aid agreement, there is a predetermined dispatch matrix whereby units from all involved departments are dispatched as part of the normal assignment of units. In contrast, when agencies operate under a mutual aid agreement, additional resources from outside the jurisdiction are not dispatched until requested by the primary responding agency. The following figure illustrates the organizations with which HFR has aid agreements and specifies the type(s) of agreement with each agency.
09:01
10:34
12:22
07:37
10:54
10:30
10:56
06:00
06:00
06:00
06:00
06:00
06:20
06:00
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00
Canceled, Good Intent
Hazardous Condition
Service Call
Alarm
EMS
Fire
All Calls
Benchmark 90th Percentile

Page 71 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
70 Figure 42. HFR (La Mesa) Aid Agreements
Agency Agreement Type
Alpine Auto
Barona Auto
Bonita Auto
Campo Reservation Mutual
El Cajon Auto
Flinn Springs Mutual
Harbison Canyon Auto/Mutual
Jacumba Mutual
Lakeside Auto
Lemon Grove Auto
National City Auto
Pine Valley Auto/Mutual
Ramona Auto/Mutual
Rancho Santa Fe Auto
San Diego Fire Auto/Mutual
San Diego Unit (San Diego Ranger, Cal Fire, MVU) Auto/Mutual San Miguel Auto
Santee Auto
Sycuan Auto
Viejas Auto

Page 72 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
71 As part of the documentation of response to incidents, HFR personnel include the assorted options within the aid-given/received field. As illustrated in the following figures, there is a robust sharing of resources, both given and received.

Figure 43. HFR (La Mesa) Aid Received, 2019–2023
Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
Alpine Fire 0 1 1 0 1 3
Bonita Fire 0 1 1 0 0 2
El Cajon Fire 178 206 214 242 245 1,085
Lakeside Fire 4 2 1 4 1 12
Lemon Grove Fire 300 347 363 443 443 1,896
Out of Area 475 609 732 777 804 3,397
San Miguel Fire 123 175 156 203 181 838
Santee Fire 11 5 6 7 17 46
Sycuan Fire 2 0 0 0 0 2
Viejas Fire 2 0 1 1 0 4
Total Aid Received 1095 1346 1475 1677 1692 7281
Figure 44. HFR (La Mesa) Aid Given, 2019–2023
Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
Alpine 1 0 0 0 0 1
Barona 0 0 0 1 0 1
Bonita 2 1 1 2 6
El Cajon 277 219 265 222 245 1,228
Lakeside 4 4 12 13 6 39
Lemon Grove 101 98 125 129 135 588
Out of Area 2 6 3 3 4 18
San Diego 504 564 572 498 476 2,614
San Diego County 6 2 4 2 14
San Miguel Fpd 355 343 381 485 396 1,960
Santee 19 26 54 34 24 157
Viejas 3 0 0 1 0 4
Total Aid Given 1266 1268 1415 1391 1290 6630

Page 73 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
72 Facilities
Heartland Fire and Rescue supports three fire stations within the city limits of La Mesa.

These stations operate on a 24-hour, 365-day basis. The stations were assessed on the overall condition of the structure. Areas of health and safety, functionality, and efficiency for personnel to live in for 24 hours at a time. (The grading chart and score sheets can be found in the Appendices).

Station 11: 8034 Allison Ave, La Mesa (Good Condition)
Station 11 was constructed in 2006 and comprises four bays - three drive-through bays and one single bay for back-in. It can house up to twenty personnel per shift. In addition to being a fire station, it also accommodates the administrative offices for Heartland Fire Rescue for the City of La Mesa and functions as an Emergency Operations Center for the city.

Station 12: 8844 Dallas St, La Mesa (Good Condition)
Station 12 was
constructed in
1996. Prior to
the COVID-19
pandemic, the
station featured
an optional
community
room. It has two
drive-through bays and can accommodate up to twelve personnel per shift. The station's distinctive design promotes community integration in the vicinity. Station 12 is equipped with a pumper engine and a Rescue Engine.

Page 74 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
73 Station 13: 9110 Grossmont Blvd, La Mesa (Good Condition) Station 13, the oldest
fire station in the area,
was constructed in
1961. Although the
station underwent a
remodel in 2008, it
remains a one-and-ahalf-bay station
consisting of one drivethrough bay and one
back-in bay. The station can house up to eight personnel per shift. However, the expansion of the station is limited due to its location. The site is surrounded by an interstate to the rear and flanked on both the front and right with secondary roadways and Interstate access ramps.

Apparatus
Heartland Fire and Rescue maintains a cache of apparatus within the city limits of La Mesa. These apparatuses are utilized for emergency and non-emergency responses to serve the citizens of La Mesa and the surrounding jurisdictions. Each unit is staffed and prepared for the various calls of service that occur throughout the city and the San Diego Central Zone area. Each apparatus was evaluated based on a 1-5 scale for Service (amount of maintenance performed), overall Condition, and Reliability.

Apparatus & Vehicles
Apparatus Station Year Mileage Service Score Total
Engine 11 11 2021 12,000 5
Truck 11 11 2009 76,000 5
Engine 12 12 2023 2,000 3
US&R 12 12 2013 71,000 7
Engine 13 13 2016 74,000 7
Engine 654 (Reserve) 11 2006 108452 11

Page 75 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
74 Apparatus Reviews
The La Mesa Apparatus Fleet is currently in good condition despite some of the vehicles having high mileage. The overall service scores of these apparatuses are still within the acceptable and recommendable operational "In-Service" range. However, it is recommended that the organization begin looking at replacing apparatuses with service scores ranging between 15 and 25 in the near future. If the service scores are above 25, it is recommended that the replacement process be initiated immediately.

La Mesa has a reasonable plan in place to replace its apparatus and intends to continue with this process. However, due to the increasing cost and extended delays for engines and aerial apparatus, it is recommended that the city consider a Capital Improvement Plan dedicated to apparatus purchasing. This will help to ensure that adequate resources are available for the timely replacement of equipment.

Page 76 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
75 Recommendations
Recommendation # 1
ESCI recommends researching options for EMT (B/A) level positions. Due to the nationwide recruitment issues for public safety, adopting a variation of the standard model may allow for potentially higher application numbers.

Recommendation # 2
ESCI recommends conducting an internal assessment of staffing and workload for the Fire Administration and the Fire Marshal’s Office administrative positions. HFR has lost several administrative positions over the years for various reasons, and duties have been delegated to the remaining staffed positions. The growth of all three cities has further burdened the workload of non-emergency personnel.

Recommendation # 3
ESCI recommends that additional inspector positions be considered for the Fire Marshal’s Office. Due to the community's growth, the number of inspections is beyond the normal best practices amount per inspector. The optimum number of annual inspections is between 750 and 1,000 per inspector.

Recommendation # 4
ESCI recommends consideration of a squad implementation for La Mesa in the next five years. This allows for the relief of utilizing large apparatus for low-acuity level calls.

This concept can also be a phased transition for implementing non-paramedic level personnel.

Recommendation # 5
ESCI recommends expanding the HOME Program. With the additional two workers, expanding the number of available hours should be considered. Concerns and recommendations from field personnel believe the HOME program is good, but there is limited availability. Twenty-four-hour availability would be a goal.

Page 77 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
76 Recommendation # 6
ESCI recommends that the city create a formal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). A CIP allows for short—and long-term planning and budgeting even during fiscally tight years. Due to the extended construction and delivery times (3 to 4 years) for all manufacturers, the current fiscal year budgeting will most likely not cover the full cost once apparatus and equipment are delivered.

Recommendation # 7
ESCI recommends that La Mesa continue exploring the possibility of adopting and joining the Nurse Navigator Program, which is utilized in El Cajon.

Recommendation # 8
ESCI recommends that, in the absence of a formal Joint Power of Authority, the three cities explore an expanded relationship of cost sharing and pay parity for salaries, benefits, and personnel. While soft goods are already shared and expensed accordingly, moving to a cost share of personnel salaries and benefits can enhance recruitment and retention across all three cities.

Recommendation # 9
ESCI recommends creating an expanded MOU among the cities and various unions to allow for combined testing and cross-organizational promotion. Under the current MOU, personnel are already allowed to work in any of the three cities.

Recommendation # 10
ESCI recommends research and analysis for more efficient and effective means of facilities and apparatus repair with the Public Works Department, including communications on completed work orders.

Recommendation # 11
ESCI recommends continuing to work with the dispatch communication to review and dispatch per EMD (Emergency Medical Dispatch) criteria.

Page 78 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
77 Table of Figures
Figure 1. La Mesa Community Profile..........................................................................10 Figure 2: La Mesa Fire Stations ...................................................................................15 Figure 3: HFR Organizational Chart ............................................................................16 Figure 4. Physical Assets Protected Legend ................................................................20 Figure 5: Physical Assets Protected Map .....................................................................21 Figure 6. Station 11's Community Profile....................................................................25 Figure 7. Station 12's Community Profile....................................................................27 Figure 8. Station 13's Community Profile....................................................................29 Figure 9. NFIRS Incident Series ...................................................................................32 Figure 10. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by NFIRS Series, 2019–2023 ......................33 Figure 11. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by NFIRS Series, 2019–2023 ......................34 Figure 12. HFR (La Mesa) Projected Service Demand by Population, 2025–2050..........35 Figure 13. HFR (La Mesa) Projected Service Demand by Historical Change, 2025–2050. ..................................................................................................................................36 Figure 14. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by Month, 2019–2023 ...............................37 Figure 15. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by Day, 2019–2023 ...................................38 Figure 16. HFR (La Mesa) Service Demand by Hour, 2019–2023..................................39 Figure 17. HFR (La Mesa) Population Density ..............................................................40 Figure 18. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Density (All Incidents), 2019–2023.........................41 Figure 19. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Density (NFIRS 300-Series), 2019–2023.................42 Figure 20: Care Facilities Response ............................................................................43 Figure 21. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Density (NFIRS 100-Series, 2019–2023..................44 Figure 22. HFR (La Mesa) Engine Distribution per ISO Criteria .....................................46 Figure 23. HFR (La Mesa) Truck Distribution per ISO Criteria.......................................48 Figure 24. HFR (La Mesa) Station Distribution per ISO Criteria.....................................49 Figure 25. HFR (La Mesa) Hydrant Coverage per ISO Criteria .......................................50 Figure 26. HFR (La Mesa) 4/8 Minute Travel Time Model per NFPA Criteria .................52 Figure 27. HFR (La Mesa) Travel Time 4–8 Minutes, 2023 ...........................................53 Figure 28. HFR (La Mesa) Travel Time 8–12 Minutes, 2023 .........................................54 Figure 29. HFR (La Mesa) Travel Time Greater than 12 Minutes, 2023.........................55 Figure 30. NFPA 1710 ERF Recommendations Based on Risk ......................................56 Figure 31. HFR (La Mesa) Effective Response Force per NFPA Criteria..........................57 Figure 32. HFR (La Mesa) Structure Fire Order of Arrival, 2019–2023..........................58 Figure 33.Commitment Factors as Developed by Henrico County (VA) Division, 2016.59

Page 79 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
78 Figure 34. HFR (La Mesa) Unit Hour Utilization, 2019–2023........................................60 Figure 35. HFR (La Mesa) Incident Concurrency, 2019–2023.......................................61 Figure 36. Response Time Continuum........................................................................62 Figure 37. HFR (La Mesa) Alarm Handling Time Performance, 2019–2023...................63 Figure 38. HFR Turnout Time Performance, 2019–2023 .............................................64 Figure 39. HFR Travel Time Performance, 2019–2023 ................................................65 Figure 40. HFR Response Time Performance, 2019–2023 ...........................................67 Figure 41. HFR (La Mesa) Total Response Time Performance, 2019–2023...................69 Figure 42. HFR (La Mesa) Aid Agreements ..................................................................70 Figure 43. HFR (La Mesa) Aid Received, 2019–2023....................................................71 Figure 44. HFR (La Mesa) Aid Given, 2019–2023.........................................................71

Page 80 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
79 Appendix

Page 81 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
80

Page 82 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
81

Page 83 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
82

Page 84 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
83

Page 85 of 479 ends

City of La Mesa 2024
84

Page 86 of 479 ends

2024
Heartland Fire & Rescue - City of La Mesa

STANDARD OF COVER
Critical Tasking, Benchmarks Statements & Performance Gaps for Levels of Risk The Heartland Fire & Rescue publishes a standard of response cover to outline the contract for services with the community. The document outlines varying levels of risk for emergency medical services, fire suppression, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and swift water. The document identifies the critical tasks with each benchmark statement for each community risk reduction program, the resources needed, the output of a three-axis risk scoring methodology, and the response time goals and performance gaps.
1-800-757-3724
[email protected] www.esci.us
www.esci.us

Page 87 of 479 ends

2 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................3 RISK SCORE METHODOLOGY & DEFINITIONS .................................................................4 Risk Score Summary.....................................................................................................6 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ...................................................................................7 Emergency Medical Services 1 – Low Risk..................................................................7 Emergency Medical Services 2 / 3 – Moderate/High Risk ...........................................9 Emergency Medical Services 4 High Risk .................................................................11 FIRE SUPPRESSION ......................................................................................................13 Fire Suppression 1 – Low Risk .................................................................................14 Fire Suppression 2 – Moderate Risk.........................................................................16 Fire Suppression 3 High Risk...................................................................................18 Fire Suppression 4 – Extremely High-Risk ...............................................................20 Technical Rescue........................................................................................................21 Technical Rescue 1 – Low-Risk................................................................................21 Technical Rescue 2 – High Risk ...............................................................................23 Wild Land Fires...........................................................................................................25 Wildland 1/2– Low/Moderate Risk...........................................................................25 Wildland 3 – High-Risk............................................................................................27 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................................28 Hazardous Materials 1 – Low-Risk ..........................................................................29 Hazardous Materials 2 – Moderate/High-Risk .........................................................30 WATER & SWIFT WATER RESCUE..................................................................................33 Water Rescue 1 – Low-Risk .....................................................................................33 Water Rescue 2 – High-Risk ....................................................................................35

Page 88 of 479 ends

3 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Introduction
The La Mesa Standard of Cover is a document that outlines the service levels and response times that the Heartland Fire & Rescue (HFR) aims to achieve for various types of emergencies, such as medical services, fire suppression, hazardous materials, technical rescue, and water rescue. The document serves as a contract with the community, detailing the resources needed, the critical tasks to be performed, and the performance benchmarks for each community risk reduction program. The document also identifies the risks, the current deployment model, and the performance gaps for each level of risk, using a three-axis risk scoring methodology based on the incidents' probability, consequence, and impact. The document provides recommendations and action plans to improve service delivery and continuously address performance gaps.

The document is based on the analysis of the data from the last five years, the national standards and best practices, and the input from the stakeholders and the public.

It is a plan that helps ensure that emergency services are provided efficiently and effectively, with clear goals and performance measures to protect the community. The document identifies the risks, the necessary resources, and the expected response times, helping the department continuously improve its services and address any performance gaps.

The 3-axis risk score is a tool that HFR uses to assess the level of risk for each type of emergency incident in La Mesa. The tool considers three dimensions of risk: the probability of occurrence, the community's consequence, and the department's impact.

Each dimension is scored on a scale from 1 to 10, and the scores are multiplied to obtain the final risk score, which ranges from 1 (lowest) to 100 (highest). The higher the risk score, the more resources and time are needed to mitigate the incident.

Page 89 of 479 ends

4 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

RISK SCORE METHODOLOGY & DEFINITIONS
Probability of Occurrence & Consequence to the Community:

The Heartland Fire & Rescue uses the last five years of response data to determine the likelihood of occurrence. The three-axis model uses a numeric score based on the definitions below. Additionally, the department subjectively assigns a consequence score based on the definitions outlined below.

Probability/Frequency of Occurrence
500 Years 1
100 Years 2
10 Years 3
2-10 Years 4
Quarterly - Up to 1 Year 5
Every two months 6
Monthly 7
Weekly 8
Daily 9
Multiple times a day 10
Consequence to Community
No Person (Cigarette in Bark dust) 1
One Person 2
One Household 3
Single Business Interruption - One-Day 4
Single Business Interruption - 2-7 Days 5
Multiple Businesses or Households Impacted 6
Neighborhood Block Impacted 7
City-wide Impact 8
Regionwide Impact 9
Statewide Impact 10

Page 90 of 479 ends

5 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Impact on the Heartland Fire & Rescue:

The department calculates the impact score by dividing the staff resources assigned by the department's minimum staffing and multiplying by 10. This method provides a result on a ten-point scale and aligns with the practices of the other two axes. (Staff Assigned to Incident / Minimum Staffing) x 10 = Impact Score

Three-Axis Risk Scoring Model
The Heartland Fire & Rescue uses the three-axis scoring methodology. This method uses the square root of each risk element value to determine the "surface area." The surface area value then becomes the risk's numeric value.

Square Root of ((Prob2 x Cons2/2) + (Cons2 x Imp2/2) + (Prob2 x Imp2/2)) = Risk Score The scores derived from this method indicate the level of risk associated with certain types of incident responses. The scores are sorted into four risk classifications: Low, Moderate, High, & Extremely High risk. The figure below shows the score ranges for each type.

Low Risk
0 - 24.99
Moderate Risk
25 – 49.99
High Risk
50 – 74.99
Extremely High
75 - 100

Page 91 of 479 ends

6 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Risk Score Summary
28%
36%
29%
77%
23%
88%
100%
83%
57%
59%
69%
83%
94%
29%
67%
69%
28%
73%
EMS 1
EMS 2
EMS 3
EMS 4
FIRE 1
FIRE 2
FIRE 3
FIRE 4
TECH RQ 1
TECH RQ 2
W-LAND 1
W-LAND 2
W-LAND 3
HAZ MAT 1
HAZ MAT 2
HAZ MAT 3
WATER RESCUE 1
WATER RESCUE 2

Page 92 of 479 ends

7 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Heartland Fire and Rescue and the City of La Mesa utilize a third-party private ambulance service for emergency medical transportation. AMR is the contracted company that serves HFR and many surrounding jurisdictions.

Emergency Medical Services 1 – Low Risk
Low-risk EMS is medical calls for service that the emergency medical dispatch process determines are non-emergency. Examples of low-risk EMS incidents may include ground-level falls without injury, general illness, low-acuity abdominal pain, and those incidents classified by ProQA as Alpha and Omega. HFR handles low-acuity calls with a single-engine company (3 personnel) or AMR (2 personnel).

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
Patient Care 1 1
Patient Care 2 1
Effective Response Force: 2

RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT MINIMUM STAFFING
HFR Engine or 3rd Party Transport 3
Total Personnel: 3
HFR Personnel: 3

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 10 National Recommendation 2
Consequence to Community 2 HFR Deployment 3
Impact on Fire Department 2
SCORE: 20 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 150%

Page 93 of 479 ends

8 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of low-risk emergency medical responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least two emergency medical technicians, shall be 10 minutes.

The first arriving unit for low-risk emergency medical responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Administering emergency medical patient care
• Deploying automatic external defibrillation (AED)
• Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
• Providing patient transport to the closest appropriate facility The response model achieves the effective response force with the first arriving unit.

Page 94 of 479 ends

9 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Emergency Medical Services 2 / 3 – Moderate/High Risk
Moderate-risk EMS are those medical calls for service that the emergency medical dispatch process determines are emergent. Examples of moderate-risk EMS incidents may include chest pain, difficulty breathing, stroke, and those incidents classified by ProQA as Charlie, Delta, and Echo Level calls. HFR handles both moderate(L2) and high (L3) risk with the same response of engines and AMR ambulance response.

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
(L2) Command/Patient Lead 1
(L2) Patient Care 2
(L2) Patient Support/Documentation 1
(L3) BLS Rotation 2
Effective Response Force: 6

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
ALS Transport Ambulance 2
HFR Suppression Apparatus 3
Total Personnel: 5
HFR Personnel: 3

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE (L2/L3 BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON (L2/L3) Probability of Occurrence 10/8 National Recommendation 4/6 Consequence to Community 2/2 HFR Deployment 5/5
Impact on Fire Department 3/3
SCORE (Level 2/3): 16/21 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 125/65%

Page 95 of 479 ends

10 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of moderate-risk emergency medical responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least two emergency medical technicians, shall be 6 minutes.

The first arriving unit for moderate-risk emergency medical responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Obtaining vitals and patient medical history
• Administering advanced life support patient care
• Deploying automatic external defibrillation (AED)
• Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
For 90% of moderate-risk emergency medical responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the arrival of all fire and other EMS units and personnel necessary to complete the first-alarm assignment, otherwise referred to as the Effective Response Force (ERF), shall be 8 minutes.

The effective response force for moderate-risk emergency medical response shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Obtaining vitals and patient medical history
• Administering advanced life support patient care
• Deploying automatic external defibrillation (AED)
• Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
• Assisting transport personnel with packaging the patient • Providing advanced life support
• Providing patient transport to the closest appropriate facility

Page 96 of 479 ends

11 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Emergency Medical Services 4 High Risk
High-risk EMS are those medical calls for service that the emergency medical dispatch process determines are life-threatening. Examples of high-risk EMS incidents may include cardiac arrest, shootings, stabbings, and those incidents classified by multiunit responses.

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
Command 1
Patient Care 6
Extrication 6
Suppression Line 2
Pump Operator 1
Effective Response Force: 16

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Battalion Chief 1
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Truck 4
ALS Transport Ambulance 2
Total Personnel: 13
HFR Personnel: 11

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 7 National Recommendation 16
Consequence to Community 4 HFR Deployment 13
Impact on Fire Department 9
SCORE: 55 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 81%

Page 97 of 479 ends

12 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of high-risk emergency medical responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least two emergency medical technicians, one of which is an advanced life support-level EMT, shall be 6 minutes.

The first arriving unit for high-risk emergency medical responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Obtaining vitals and patient medical history
• Administering advanced life support patient care
• Deploying automatic external defibrillation (AED)
• Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
For 90% of high-risk emergency medical responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the arrival of all fire and other EMS units and personnel necessary to complete the first-alarm assignment, otherwise referred to as the Effective Response Force (ERF), shall be 8 minutes.

The effective response force for high-risk emergency medical response shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Obtaining vitals and patient medical history
• Administering advanced life support patient care
• Deploying automatic external defibrillation (AED)
• Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
• Assisting transport personnel with packaging the patient • Providing patient transport to the closest appropriate facility

Page 98 of 479 ends

13 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

FIRE SUPPRESSION
The Heartland Fire & Rescue operates out of three strategically located fire stations throughout La Mesa. There are three engines, one ladder truck, one battalion, one private ambulance, and one State Type I OES pumper. La Mesa has a daily staffing of fourteen personnel.

The department follows the National Incident Management System for incident command and uses a commercial command product. Company officers are initial incident commanders, and command is passed to the arriving chief officer.

Resource Location Type Staff Pump Tank Aerial
Length
Station 11 Sta. 11 Engine/Pumper 3 1500 500
Station 11 Sta. 11 AMR Ambulance* 2* N/A N/A
Station 11 Sta. 11 Ladder Truck 4 N/A N/A 100’
Station 11 Sta. 11 Command 1 N/A N/A
Station 12 Sta. 12 Rescue Engine 3 1500 500
Station 13 Sta. 13 Engine/Pumper 3 1500 500
Station 13 Sta. 13 Engine/Pumper CS** 1500
Heartland Fire Staff 14
AMR Ambulance Staff 2
Total Daily Staffing 16
*AMR is a private party ambulance service. These units and personnel are not part of the HFR staff but can be counted towards service delivery needs. **CS – Crossed-staffed. Personnel will move from one unit to another.

Page 99 of 479 ends

14 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Fire Suppression 1 – Low Risk
Low-risk fire incidents are emergent calls for service that are unlikely to cause injury or significant property damage. Examples may include vehicles, trash, brush, and other non-structural fires.

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
Command 1
Pump Operators 1
Suppression Line 2
Backup Line 2
RIC 2
Effective Response Force: 8

AGENCY RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT MINIMUM STAFFING
HFR Engine Company 3
Total Personnel: 3

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 8 National Recommendation 8
Consequence to Community 2 HFR Deployment 3
Impact on Fire Department 2
SCORE: 16 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 38%

Page 100 of 479 ends

15 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of low-risk fire responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be 6 minutes and 20 seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for low-risk fire responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for and requesting additional resources as needed • Providing 1,500 GPM water pumping capacity
• Advancing a charged fire suppression attack hose line for fire control or rescue

Page 101 of 479 ends

16 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Fire Suppression 2 – Moderate Risk
Moderate-risk fire incidents are those calls for service that are unlikely to cause injury or significant property damage. Examples of moderate-risk fire incidents may include single-family homes, utility facilities, commercial & business occupancies, and storage facilities.

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
Command 1
Safety 1
Pump Operator 2
Suppression Line 2
Backup Line 2
Rapid Intervention Crew 1
Hydrant 1
Ladder/Ventilation 3
Search and Rescue 2
Effective Response Force: 17

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Battalion 1
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Truck 4
Transport Ambulance 2
Total Personnel: 19

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 8 National Recommendation 17
Consequence to Community 3 HFR Deployment 19
Impact on Fire Department 10
SCORE: 63 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 119%

Page 102 of 479 ends

17 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of moderate-risk fire responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be 6 minutes and 20 seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for moderate-risk fire responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for and requesting additional resources as needed • Providing 1,500 GPM water pumping capacity
• Advancing a charged fire suppression attack hose line for fire control or rescue For 90% of all moderate-risk structure fire responses within the area of responsibility, the total response time for the arrival on scene of all fire units and personnel necessary to complete an entire first-alarm assignment, otherwise referred to as the Effective Response Force (ERF) shall be 10 minutes, 20 seconds (10:20).

The effective response force for moderate-risk fire responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Establishing an incident command system
• Providing an uninterrupted water supply
• Advancing a charged fire suppression attack hose line and a backup line for fire control
• Complying with the OSHA requirements of two-in and two-out • Completing the forcible entry
• Searching and rescuing at-risk victims
• Ventilating the structure
• Controlling utilities
• Placing elevated master streams into service from aerial apparatus

Page 103 of 479 ends

18 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Fire Suppression 3 High Risk
High-risk fire incidents are those calls for service that are likely to cause injury or significant property damage. Examples of high-risk fire incidents may include multifamily occupancies, places of assembly, high-rise buildings, academic, athletic, and health buildings, industrial buildings, mixed-use, and railway emergencies.

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
Incident Command 1
Attack Hose line Deployment 4
On-Deck Crew & Rapid Intervention Crew 2
Search & Rescue 4
Water Supply 2
Engine Operations 2
Aerial Operations 2
Support Functions – Ventilation – Utility Control – Forced Entry 2 Medical Assistance & Rehab 2
Effective Response Force: 21

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Battalion 1
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Truck 4
Transport Ambulance 2
Total Personnel: 19

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 7 National Recommendation 28
Consequence to Community 6 HFR Deployment 19
Impact on Fire Department 10
SCORE: 72 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 68%

Page 104 of 479 ends

19 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of high-risk fire responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be 6 minutes and 20 seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for high-risk fire responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for and requesting additional resources as needed • Providing 1,500 GPM water pumping capacity
• Advancing a charged fire suppression attack hose line for fire control or rescue • Initiating other fire ground operations by department policies and procedures For 90% of all high-risk structure fire responses within the area of responsibility, the total response time for the arrival on the scene of all fire units and personnel necessary to complete an entire first-alarm assignment, otherwise referred to as the Effective Response Force (ERF) shall be 10 minutes and 20 seconds (10:20).

The effective response force for high-risk fire responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Establishing an incident command system
• Providing an uninterrupted water supply
• Advancing a charged fire suppression attack hose line and a backup line for fire control
• Complying with the OSHA requirements of two-in and two-out • Completing the forcible entry
• Searching and rescuing at-risk victims
• Ventilating the structure
• Controlling utilities
• Placing elevated master streams into service from aerial apparatus

Page 105 of 479 ends

20 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Fire Suppression 4 – Extremely High-Risk
Level 4 fires are rare but pose the highest level of risk. These incidents will surpass any agency’s capabilities and resources, and the risk of injury and death to responders and the community is at the highest potential. These incidents are often multiple.

Day-long events require ongoing response, rehabilitation time, and deployment of logistical, planning, and operational divisions. Examples of catastrophic fires include oil refinery or chemical plant explosions, terrorist attacks with bomb detonations in highly occupied areas, or natural disasters that result in significant multi-fires across a community.

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
Command 1
Safety 2
Pump Operator 4
Suppression Line 9
Backup Line 6
Rapid Intervention Crew 5
Hydrant 2
Ladder/Ventilation 4
Search and Rescue 5
Aerial 2
Lobby Control 1
Interior Staging Manager 1
Elevator Ops Manager 1
Effective Response Force: 43

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Battalion 1
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Truck 4
Transport Ambulance 2

Page 106 of 479 ends

21 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Total Personnel: 19

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 5 National Recommendation 43
Consequence to Community 6 HFR Deployment 19
Impact on Fire Department 10 Mutual Aid Deployment 20
SCORE: 59 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 91%
Technical Rescue
Technical Rescue Incidents require specialized training, tools and equipment, strategies, and tactical approaches. While these incidents are typically less frequent, mitigating and achieving positive outcomes requires constant training and equipment ready for deployment. Examples of Technical Rescue Incidents would include low and high rope rescue, confined space, and Multiple Vehicle Accidents (MVAs) with significant extrication involvement.

Technical Rescue 1 – Low-Risk
Level Technical Rescue would include incidents such as a person trapped down a well, a vehicle accident involving a commercial vehicle, or a worker trapped inside a piece of equipment.

CRITICAL TASK (National Recommendation) REQUIRED STAFF
Command 1
Safety 1
Entry Team 2
Attendant Team 4
Patient Care 2
Rope Tenders 2
Effective Response Force: 12

Page 107 of 479 ends

22 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Battalion 1
HFR Engine 3
HFR Truck 4
HFR Rescue 3
Transport Ambulance 2
Total Personnel: 13

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 6 National Recommendation 12
Consequence to Community 2 HFR Deployment 13
Impact on Fire Department 9
SCORE: 20 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 108%

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of low-risk technical rescue responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be six minutes and twenty seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for low-risk technical rescue responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas For 90% of all low-risk technical rescue responses within the area of responsibility, the total response time for the arrival on the scene of all fire units and personnel necessary to complete an entire first-alarm assignment, otherwise referred to as the Effective Response Force (ERF) shall be 10 minutes, 20 seconds (10:20).

The effective response force for low-risk technical rescue responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene

Page 108 of 479 ends

23 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas • Rescuing and transporting victims to an appropriate medical facility Technical Rescue 2 – High Risk
High-risk incidents are those calls that can be mitigated by utilizing expertise and resources. Specialized gear, tools, equipment, or knowledge will be required beyond the scope of a First Responder. Examples of high-risk technical rescue responses include rope rescue, structural collapse, trenches, vehicle extrication with multiple patients or needing multiple extrication points involving numerous vehicles, and confined space rescues.

CRITICAL TASK REQUIRED STAFF
Incident Command 1
Safety Officer 1
Technical Rescue Group Lead 1
Extrication Team #1 2
Extrication Team #1 2
Equipment Operator 3
Apparatus Operator 3
Medical Support & Rehab 2
Effective Response Force: 15

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Battalion 1
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Truck 4
ALS Transport Ambulance (AMR) 2
USAR Team 8
HFR Personnel: 17
Mutual Aid Personnel: 10
Total Incident Personnel: 27

Page 109 of 479 ends

24 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 5 National Recommendation 24
Consequence to Community 3 HFR Deployment 27
Impact on Fire Department 10
SCORE: 43 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 113%

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of high-risk technical rescue responses, in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be six minutes and twenty seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for high-risk technical rescue responses shall be capable of the following:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas For 90% of all high-risk technical rescue responses within the area of responsibility, the total response time for the arrival on scene of all fire units and personnel necessary to complete an entire first-alarm assignment, otherwise referred to as the Effective Response Force (ERF) shall be 10 minutes, 20 seconds (10:20).

The effective response force for high-risk technical rescue responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas • Rescuing and transporting victims to an appropriate medical facility

Page 110 of 479 ends

25 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Wild Land Fires
Incidents involving Wild Land Fires are dispatched based on weather conditions and the number of reports, using a hybrid Low/Medium/High-Risk threat system. Units are dispatched based on AVL (Auto Vehicle Location). The initial response includes apparatus based on a Low/Medium/High predetermined response matrix. The first arriving unit assesses the severity of the incident and upgrades to a high-level response if necessary. Additional resources are then ordered as needed to mitigate the incident. HFR commits resources based on the incident's location and the severity of the threat.

Wildland 1/2– Low/Moderate Risk
This mode indicates a non-critical weather situation for the zone. The current weather conditions suggest low fire danger. An automated weather station in the central zone takes weather conditions every two hours between 0800 and 2000. Due to the response of both low and moderate, the risk scores do not vary significantly in terms of impact on department resources.

CRITICAL TASK Low Medium
Command 1 1
Safety/Lookout 1 1
Pump Operators 1 2
Suppression Line 2 4
Backup Line 1 4
Handline Crew 4
Effective Response Force: 6 16

RESOURCE Low Medium
Command 1 1
HFR Engine 3 3
HFR Engine 3 3
HFR Engine 3 3
Brush* 3
Brush* 3
Tender 1
Type 6 Engine 4
Total Personnel: 10 21

Page 111 of 479 ends

26 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE L/M BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON L/M Probability of Occurrence 6/5 National Recommendation 7/16 Consequence to Community 6/6 HFR Deployment 10/21
Impact on Fire Department 7/10
SCORE: 49/59 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 167/131%

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of low-risk wildland responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be 6 minutes and 20 seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for low-risk wildland responses shall be capable of the following:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Developing an initial incident action plan
• Providing either mobile attack or progressive hose lays • Extinguishing fire
For 90% of all moderate-risk wildland fires, the total response time for the arrival of the Effective Response Force, staffed with 16 firefighters, shall be 10 minutes and 20 seconds (10:20). The Effective Response Force must be capable of the following:
• Establishing command
• Sizing up the incident
• Developing an initial incident action plan
• Extending appropriate hose lines
• Providing either mobile attack or progressive hose lays • Extinguishing fire

Page 112 of 479 ends

27 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Wildland 3 – High-Risk
This model is based on the dispatch threat model or when the National Weather Service declares a "red flag" condition indicating extremely high fire danger. • Weather Criteria (as set by the National Weather Service):
• Relative Humidity: 15% or less
• Sustained Winds: 25 MPH or greater
• Wind Gusts: Exceeding 35 MPH for 6 hours or more

CRITICAL TASK REQUIRED STAFF
Incident Command, Size up, Initial Safety Officer, Develop IAP 1 Initial Confinement/Extinguishment Actions 2
Continued Confinement & Extinguishment with Mobile Attack 6 Water Supply or Tender Operations 3
Incident Command, Accountability, & IAP Refinement 1
Medical Rehab & Support 2
Effective Response Force: 15

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Battalion 1
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
HFR Engine 3
Engine* 3
Brush Truck* 2
Brush Truck* 2
Brush Truck* 2
Type 6 Engine* 4
Tender* 1
Hot Shot Crew* 20
Total HFR Personnel: 10
Mutual Aid* 34
Total Response 44
*Mutual Aid personnel do not impact HFR's daily departmental staffing.

Page 113 of 479 ends

28 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 4 National Recommendation 42
Consequence to Community 8 HFR Deployment 44
Impact on Fire Department 10
SCORE: 67 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 105%

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
San Diego Fire Rescue (SDFR) provides Level 1 Hazmat Response for San Diego County.

All agencies within San Diego County pay an annual service fee to SDFR that funds the HazMat resources. Heartland Fire & Rescue will provide an initial response with a Hazmat Incident Response Team (HIRT). The HIRT is comprised of Hazardous Materials Specialists (HMS) from the County of San Diego (COSD), the Department of Environmental Health and Quality (DEHQ), and San Diego Fire Rescue. HFR only performs up to the Operations Level for scene stabilization and defensive tactics. Low-risk calls such as minimal fuel spills (<50 gallons) are handled by a complement of (2) engine companies, (1) Battalion Chief, and (1) ALS Ambulance. HFR provides scene size-up, initiation, and perimeter control for larger, high-risk incidents until SDFR arrives. SDFR is notified of all-level risk incidents and determines the need for a complete SDFR Hazmat Response.

Note: Typically, the risk factor increases with the severity of the incident. In the hazmat response for Heartland Fire & Rescue, the opposite result was noted. This is due to the contractual agreement and automatic aid with San Diego Fire Rescue (SDFR). Depending on the incident response or investigation, HFR will send an allotment of apparatus and personnel. The impact on the department's operations is almost identical—low-risk hazmat response results in a higher risk factor due to the frequency of calls versus significant incidents.

Page 114 of 479 ends

29 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Hazardous Materials 1 – Low-Risk
Low-risk hazardous materials incidents are calls for service less likely to cause injury or significant property damage. Examples may include spills of 10-50 gallons of automotive fluid. HIRT will typically handle these incidents, and on the scene, the Battalion Chief will communicate with SDFR before full HIRT deployment.

CRITICAL TASK REQUIRED STAFF
Incident Command & Safety Officer 1
Leak & Spill Control 2
Effective Response Force: 3

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
HFR Engine 3
Total HFR Personnel: 3

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 8 National Recommendation 7
Consequence to Community 3 HFR Deployment 3
Impact on Fire Department 2
SCORE: 21 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 43%

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of low-risk hazardous materials responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be six minutes and twenty seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for low-risk hazardous materials responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Evacuating immediate and adjacent areas
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas The response model achieves the effective response force with the first arriving unit.

Page 115 of 479 ends

30 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Hazardous Materials 2 – Moderate/High-Risk
Moderate-risk hazardous materials incidents are calls for service that are unlikely to cause injury or significant property damage. Examples of high-risk hazardous materials incidents may include spills that are more significant than 50 gallons of automotive fluid and other hazardous material responses not defined in Hazardous Materials—Low-Risk.

The Heartland Fire & Rescue is contracted with San Diego County to receive hazardous materials mitigation services. Under contract, the county must offer emergency response services for actual or potential hazardous material releases within the Heartland response area. These hazardous materials include substances deemed hazardous under Federal or California law or those threatening life, property, or the environment.

Responses must adhere to the San Diego County Unified Hazardous Materials Incident Contingency Plan and the ICS system. The county will supply all required personnel, equipment, and materials, including administrative and supervisory staff available 24/7. The county is also encouraged to collaborate swiftly with external hazmat response agencies to handle significant or challenging incidents. Within the service area, the county must ensure that 90% of hazmat calls receive a response within 60 minutes.1
San Diego Fire Rescue is deployed from San Diego Fire Rescue Station 45, located at 9366 Friars Road in San Diego. This station is approximately 12 miles from La Mesa and has a 15-minute response time.

Regarding high-risk hazardous materials incidents, HFR responds with an initial collection of resources to provide “HazMat FRO” service until county resources arrive.

Heartland Fire provides defensive tactics to contain the release from a safe distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent exposure without trying to stop it. They do this by prioritizing safety, isolating, denying entry, establishing command, and notifying appropriate resources.
1 Emergency Response Services To Hazardous Materials Incidents, San Diego County, November 2012

Page 116 of 479 ends

31 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Suppression Apparatus 3
Suppression Apparatus 3
Battalion Chief 1
ALS Ambulance 2
Total HFR Personnel: 10

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 5 National Recommendation 16
Consequence to Community 7 HFR Deployment 7
Impact on Fire Department 2
SCORE: 28 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 44%

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of moderate-risk hazardous materials responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be six minutes and twenty seconds (6:20).

The first arriving unit for moderate-risk hazardous materials responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Evacuating immediate and adjacent areas
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas For 90% of all moderate-risk hazardous materials responses within the area of responsibility, the total response time for the arrival on scene of all fire units and

CRITICAL TASK REQUIRED STAFF
Incident Command 1
Operations-Level Isolation & Evacuation 3
Operations-Level Containment & Exposure Protection 4
Patient Care & Transport 2
Effective Response Force: 10

Page 117 of 479 ends

32 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
personnel necessary to complete an entire first-alarm assignment, otherwise referred to as the Effective Response Force (ERF) shall be 10 minutes, 20 seconds (10:20).

The effective response force for moderate-risk hazardous materials responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Evacuating immediate and adjacent areas
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas • Establishing and conducting emergency decontamination procedures as necessary
• Identifying and assessing hazardous materials involved and their potential for harm
• Develop a plan of strategies and tactics to mitigate the incident effectively

Page 118 of 479 ends

33 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

WATER & SWIFT WATER RESCUE
Heartland Fire & Rescue provides initial water and swift water rescue response. In the City of La Mesa, the concern for water-related incidents stems from a storm drainage canal traversing the city's center. On normal days, unhoused occupants often utilize this canal as a place of refuge. When storms or severe weather occur, the drainage canal becomes overfilled, and the unhoused often cannot evacuate in time. This represents 100% of the City of La Mesa's water rescue incidents.

Water Rescue 1 – Low-Risk
Low-risk water rescue incidents are those calls for service that are less likely to cause injury or significant property damage. Examples of low-risk technical rescue may include vehicle accidents with entrapment.

CRITICAL TASK REQUIRED STAFF
Incident Command 1
Safety Officer 1
Extrication Team 2
Equipment Operator 2
Apparatus Operator 1
Primary Patient Care & Incident Command 1
Vehicle Operations 1
Effective Response Force: 9

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Suppression Apparatus 3
Aerial Apparatus 3
Transport Ambulance 2
Supervisor 1
Total Personnel: 9

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 4 National Recommendation 9
Consequence to Community 2 HFR Deployment 9
Impact on Fire Department 6
SCORE: 20 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 100%

Page 119 of 479 ends

34 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

The effective response force for low-risk technical rescue responses shall be capable of:
• Conducting a rapid size-up of the emergency scene
• Initiating an incident command system
• Assessing the need for additional resources
• Isolating and controlling access to high-hazard areas • Rescuing and transporting victims to an appropriate medical facility

Page 120 of 479 ends

35 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024
Water Rescue 2 – High-Risk
High-risk water incidents are those calls that can be mitigated by utilizing expertise and resources. Specialized gear, tools, equipment, or knowledge will be required beyond the scope of a First Responder. Examples of high-risk technical rescue responses include rope rescue, structural collapse, trenches, vehicle extrication with multiple patients or needing multiple extrication points involving numerous vehicles, and confined space rescues.

CRITICAL TASK REQUIRED STAFF
Command 1
Safety 1
Triage/Survey Team 4
Rescue Team 4
Backup Team 2
Patient Care 2
Evacuation Team 2
Logistics Officer 1
Effective Response Force: 17

RESOURCE MINIMUM STAFFING
Suppression Apparatus 3
Suppression Apparatus 3
Suppression Apparatus 3
Aerial Apparatus 3
Aerial Apparatus 3
Transport Ambulance 4
Supervisor 1
Total Personnel: 20

THREE-AXIS RISK SCORE BENCHMARK RESOURCE COMPARISON
Probability of Occurrence 2 National Recommendation 17
Consequence to Community 7 HFR Deployment 20
Impact on Fire Department 10
SCORE: 52 Benchmark Over/Under Percentage 118%

Page 121 of 479 ends

36 Heartland Fire & Rescue – La Mesa | Rev. 8/30/2024

BENCHMARK STATEMENTS
For 90% of high-risk technical rescue responses in the area of responsibility, the total response time for the first arriving fire unit, staffed with at least three firefighters, shall be six minutes and twenty seconds (6:20).

Page 122 of 479 ends

DATE: September 10, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE

MOBILITY COMMISSION
On August 13th, the City Council interviewed an applicant who was interested in being appointed to fill a vacancy on the City’s Mobility Commission. At the Council meeting on September 10th, the Mayor will make the appointment with the approval of the Council.

Attached is a brief description of the requirements, the number of openings, and the name of the applicant seeking to be appointed.

Staff recommends the Mayor make the appointment to fill the vacancy, with the approval of the Council, and adopt the attached resolution confirming the appointment.

Attachments

Page 123 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

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

A MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE MOBILITY COMMISSION
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, positions on the City of La Mesa Mobility Commission have been vacated; and WHEREAS, the person below has been recommended to the City Council for appointment to said City of La Mesa Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the following is hereby appointed as a member of the City of La Mesa Mobility Commission, with their term to commence after the oath or affirmation of allegiance for public officers or employees is executed as required by Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of California, and to expire on the dates stated below, or until their successor is appointed and qualified:

Mobility Commission: 1 appointment
(Name) is reappointed to fill the vacated seat with term ending June 30, 2028.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10
th day of September 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)

Page 124 of 479 ends

ATTACHMENT A
Mobility Commission: 1 position – four-year terms
Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.

First Appointed Terms
Alex Mueller – incumbent 07/28/2020 1

Page 125 of 479 ends

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

Page 126 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FY 2024-25

COMPENSATION PLAN TO REFLECT SALARY RANGE

ADJUSTMENTS TO SAFETY VOLUNTEER

COORDINATOR, CLINICAL HOMELESS OUTREACH

SPECIALIST, AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT
ASSISTANT CLASSIFICATIONS.

ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Human Resources
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Compensation Plan for FY 2024 to reflect salary range adjustments for the Safety Volunteer Coordinator, Clinical Homeless Outreach Specialist, and Professional Standards Unit Assistant classifications?
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the salary range adjustments in the FY 2024-25 Compensation Plan for the Safety Volunteer Coordinator, Clinical Homeless Outreach Specialist, and Professional Standards Unit Assistant classifications.

Fiscal Impact:

The maximum annual fiscal impact for the proposed changes to the Professional Standards Unit Assistant classification changes is a savings of $17,452. The maximum annual fiscal impact for the proposed changes to the Safety Volunteer Coordinator classification is $14,000. The maximum annual fiscal impact for the proposed changes to the Clinical Homeless Outreach Specialist is $11,190. The overall net fiscal impact for all proposed changes is $7,738.

Page 127 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
City’s Strategic Goals:
 Ensure a strong financial outlook through careful planning, sustainable service levels, and fiscal sustainability.
 Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.

DISCUSSION:

On June 11, 2024, the City Council approved the addition of two new classifications in the Police Department, Professional Standards Unit Assistant and Safety Volunteer Coordinator, as a result of recommendations from a police staffing study.

Professional Standards Unit Assistant Classification:

This new classification was approved in the FY 2024-25 Compensation Plan at the annual salary range of $59,717 - $75,130 and will manage the body worn camera program, compliance reporting, and assist the sergeant in the Professional Standards Unit. The position has not been filled yet. On August 13, 2024, staff recommended the adjustment of the salary range to $73,050 - $95,576 to more closely align the position to its job duties and qualifications required. Upon further review, the classification that needed the salary range adjustment was the Safety Volunteer Coordinator, not the Professional Standards Unit Assistant. Staff recommends adjusting the Professional Standards Unit Assistant back to its original salary range $59,717 - $78,124 (the maximum annual range increased with the new G Step effective 7/5/24).

Safety Volunteer Coordinator:

This new classification will facilitate the recruitment and retention of volunteers in the Police Department. In addition, the classification will facilitate the training and grant opportunities regarding safety volunteers. Because this classification supervises and evaluates part time and volunteer positions, it is recommended to adjust the salary range from the annual range of $64,834 – $81,567 to $73,050 - $95,576 to more closely align the position to its job duties and qualifications required. This position has not been filled yet.

Clinical Homeless Outreach Specialist:

This position supports the Police Department’s Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) program through high intensity case management and coordination of individualized and comprehensive support through the transition from street to housing.

This position requires current registration with the California Board of Behavioral Sciences with the prerequisite of a Master’s degree in Social Work.

The City currently has one vacancy in this classification and after a recent recruitment in which the City did not receive an adequate number of qualified applicants, Human

Page 128 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
Resources staff reviewed the compensation range for the position and recommend increasing the annual range from $73,050 - $95,576 to $81,619 - $106,766 to match other positions that require advanced level of education and supervision of employees. The City currently has one incumbent in the position.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Gretchen Spaniol
City Manager Director of Human Resources
Attachments:

A. Resolution approving the FY 2024-25 Compensation Plan to reflect salary range adjustments to Safety Volunteer Coordinator, Clinical Homeless Outreach Specialist, and Professional Standards Unit Assistant classifications.

Page 129 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 COMPENSATION PLAN TO

REFLECT SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SAFETY VOLUNTEER

COORDINATOR, CLINICAL HOMELESS OUTREACH SPECIALIST, AND

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT ASSISTANT CLASSIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa is a general law city which derives its power from state law and uses State Governmental Code to enumerate the City’s powers and form of government.

The City of La Mesa employs a Council-Manager form of government. In this arrangement, the City Council is responsible for determining policy, and the City Manager ensures that such policy is implemented; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 20636 and California Code of Regulations Section 570.5 require California Public Employee Retirement System member agencies to maintain and publicly post publicly available pay schedules.

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

1. On June 25, 2024, the City Council of the City of La Mesa approved the Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-25, to reflect the salary ranges and pay steps per the terms of the 2024-2027 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of La Mesa and the La Mesa Police Officers’ Association, salary adjustments for Police Management (sworn), salary adjustments previously approved in Memoranda of Understanding for La Mesa City Employees Association and Heartland Firefighters of La Mesa Local #4759, as well as approved compensation plans for unrepresented (non-sworn) employees.

2. On June 11, 2023, the City Council of the City of La Mesa approved the addition of two new classifications in the Police Department, the Volunteer Safety Coordinator and the Professional Standards Unit Assistant.

3. On August 13, 2024, the City Council of the City of La Mesa approved the adjustment of the annual salary range of the Professional Standards Unit Assistant from $59,717 - $75,130 to $73,050 - $95,576 to more closely align the position to its job duties and qualifications required. Upon further review, the classification that needed the salary range adjustment was the Safety Volunteer Coordinator, not the Professional Standards Unit Assistant.

4. This resolution adopts the annual salary range adjustment of the Professional Standards Unit Assistant back to its original salary range of $59,717 - $78,124 (maximum annual range increased with the new step G effective 7/5/24).

5. This resolution also adopts the annual salary adjustment of the Volunteer Safety Coordinator from its annual range of $64,848 - $81,567 to $73,050 - $95,576 to more closely align with the supervisory job duties and qualifications required.

6. This resolution also adopts the annual salary adjustment of the Clinical Homeless Outreach Specialist from its range of $73,050 - $95,576 to $81,619 - $106,766 to more closely align with supervisory job duties and advanced level of education required.

Page 130 of 479 ends

7. The salary adjustments reflected in this resolution will be effective the first full pay period September 2024;

8. The compensation for all City of La Mesa employees as set forth and prescribed in the City of La Mesa Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-25, listing classifications, salary ranges/bands, and pay steps is hereby approved and accepted. A copy of said compensation plan is attached hereto and made part of hereof by reference, as though the same were set forth in full herein.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the position listings, salary ranges/bands, and pay steps as set forth in the City of La Mesa Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-25 shall be in full force and effect.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10
th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 131 of 479 ends

Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Accountant I 5,531 31.91 5,808 33.51 6,098 35.18 6,403 36.94 6,723 38.79 7,059 40.73 7,235 41.74 LMCEA 1000 8810 35 Accountant II 6,088 35.12 6,392 36.88 6,712 38.72 7,048 40.66 7,400 42.69 7,770 44.83 7,964 45.95 LMCEA 1003 8810 46Accounting Assistant I 3,535 20.39 3,712 21.42 3,898 22.49 4,093 23.61 4,298 24.80 4,513 26.04 4,626 26.69 LMCEA 1006 8810 3Accounting Assistant II 3,883 22.40 4,077 23.52 4,281 24.70 4,495 25.93 4,720 27.23 4,956 28.59 5,080 29.31 LMCEA 1009 8810 6Accounting Technician 5,246 30.27 5,508 31.78 5,783 33.36 6,072 35.03 6,376 36.78 6,695 38.63 6,862 39.59 LMCEA 1012 8810 33Administrative Aide 4,611 26.60 4,842 27.93 5,084 29.33 5,338 30.80 5,605 32.34 5,885 33.95 6,032 34.80 LMCEA 1015 8810 21Administrative Analyst I 5,531 31.91 5,808 33.51 6,098 35.18 6,403 36.94 6,723 38.79 7,059 40.73 7,235 41.74 LMCEA 1018 8810 35Administrative Analyst II 6,088 35.12 6,392 36.88 6,712 38.72 7,048 40.66 7,400 42.69 7,770 44.83 7,964 45.95 LMCEA 1021 8810 46Administrative Coordinator 4,906 28.30 5,151 29.72 5,409 31.21 5,679 32.76 5,963 34.40 6,261 36.12 6,418 37.03 LMCEA 1024 8810 25Administrative Office Assistant 3,782 21.82 3,971 22.91 4,170 24.06 4,379 25.26 4,598 26.53 4,828 27.85 4,949 28.55 LMCEA 1027 8810 5Assistant Center Manager 4,285 24.72 4,499 25.96 4,724 27.25 4,960 28.62 5,208 30.05 5,468 31.55 5,605 32.34 LMCEA 1033 8810 15Assistant Engineer 6,961 40.16 7,309 42.17 7,674 44.27 8,058 46.49 8,461 48.81 8,884 51.25 9,106 52.53 LMCEA 1039 9410 54Assistant Planner 6,125 35.34 6,431 37.10 6,753 38.96 7,091 40.91 7,446 42.96 7,818 45.10 8,013 46.23 LMCEA 1042 9410 48Associate Engineer 8,022 46.28 8,423 48.59 8,844 51.02 9,286 53.57 9,750 56.25 10,238 59.07 10,494 60.54 LMCEA 1045 9410 56Associate Planner 6,738 38.87 7,075 40.82 7,429 42.86 7,800 45.00 8,190 47.25 8,600 49.62 8,815 50.86 LMCEA 1048 9410 53Building Inspector I 5,566 32.11 5,844 33.72 6,136 35.40 6,443 37.17 6,765 39.03 7,103 40.98 7,281 42.01 LMCEA 1051 9410 36Building Inspector II 6,123 35.33 6,429 37.09 6,750 38.94 7,088 40.89 7,442 42.93 7,814 45.08 8,009 46.21 LMCEA 1054 9410 49Building Maintenance Lead Worker 5,173 29.84 5,432 31.34 5,704 32.91 5,989 34.55 6,288 36.28 6,602 38.09 6,767 39.04 LMCEA 1057 9420 31Building Maintenance Supervisor 6,116 35.28 6,422 37.05 6,743 38.90 7,080 40.85 7,434 42.89 7,806 45.03 8,001 46.16 LMCEA 1060 9420 47Building Maintenance Worker I 4,276 24.67 4,490 25.90 4,715 27.20 4,951 28.56 5,199 29.99 5,459 31.49 5,595 32.28 LMCEA 1063 9420 13Building Maintenance Worker II 4,705 27.14 4,940 28.50 5,187 29.93 5,446 31.42 5,718 32.99 6,004 34.64 6,154 35.50 LMCEA 1066 9420 23Business License Officer 4,274 24.66 4,488 25.89 4,712 27.18 4,948 28.55 5,195 29.97 5,455 31.47 5,591 32.26 LMCEA 1072 9410 14Clerical Assistant I 3,117 17.98 3,273 18.88 3,437 19.83 3,609 20.82 3,789 21.86 3,978 22.95 4,077 23.52 LMCEA 1093 8810 1Clerical Assistant II 3,364 19.41 3,532 20.38 3,709 21.40 3,894 22.47 4,089 23.59 4,293 24.77 4,400 25.38 LMCEA 1096 8810 2Clinical Homeless Outreach Specialist 6,802 39.24 7,142 41.20 7,499 43.26 7,874 45.43 8,268 47.70 8,681 50.08 8,898 51.33 LMCEA 1097 9420 61Code Compliance Officer I 5,093 29.38 5,348 30.85 5,615 32.39 5,896 34.02 6,191 35.72 6,501 37.51 6,664 38.45 LMCEA 1099 9410 28Code Compliance Officer II 5,607 32.35 5,887 33.96 6,181 35.66 6,490 37.44 6,815 39.32 7,156 41.28 7,335 42.32 LMCEA 1102 9410 39Comm Develop Program Coordinator 6,999 40.38 7,349 42.40 7,716 44.52 8,102 46.74 8,507 49.08 8,932 51.53 9,155 52.82 LMCEA 1105 9410 55Community Resource Supervisor 6,802 39.24 7,142 41.20 7,499 43.26 7,874 45.43 8,268 47.70 8,681 50.08 8,898 51.33 LMCEA 1103 9410 61Crime Analyst 6,009 34.67 6,309 36.40 6,624 38.22 6,955 40.13 7,303 42.13 7,668 44.24 7,860 45.35 LMCEA 1111 8810 45Crime Prevention Specialist I 4,351 25.10 4,569 26.36 4,797 27.68 5,037 29.06 5,289 30.51 5,553 32.04 5,692 32.84 LMCEA 1114 9410 16Crime Prevention Specialist II 5,093 29.38 5,348 30.85 5,615 32.39 5,896 34.02 6,191 35.72 6,501 37.51 6,664 38.45 LMCEA 1117 9410 28Custodian 3,364 19.41 3,532 20.38 3,709 21.40 3,894 22.47 4,089 23.59 4,293 24.77 4,400 25.38 LMCEA 1120 9420 2Customer Service / Finance Assistant 3,962 22.86 4,160 24.00 4,368 25.20 4,586 26.46 4,815 27.78 5,056 29.17 5,182 29.90 LMCEA 1123 8810 7Customer Service Specialist I 4,162 24.01 4,370 25.21 4,589 26.48 4,818 27.80 5,059 29.19 5,312 30.65 5,445 31.41 LMCEA 1126 8810 11Customer Service Specialist II 4,490 25.90 4,715 27.20 4,951 28.56 5,199 29.99 5,459 31.49 5,732 33.07 5,875 33.89 LMCEA 1129 8810 17Deputy City Clerk 5,370 30.98 5,639 32.53 5,921 34.16 6,217 35.87 6,528 37.66 6,854 39.54 7,025 40.53 LMCEA 1132 8810 34Deputy Fire Marshal 7,105 40.99 7,460 43.04 7,833 45.19 8,225 47.45 8,636 49.82 9,068 52.32 9,295 53.63 LMCEA 1135 9410 64Development Services Technician I 4,524 26.10 4,750 27.40 4,988 28.78 5,237 30.21 5,499 31.73 5,774 33.31 5,918 34.14 LMCEA 1148 9410 19Development Services Technician II 4,968 28.66 5,216 30.09 5,477 31.60 5,751 33.18 6,039 34.84 6,341 36.58 6,500 37.50 LMCEA 1149 9410 57Downtown Operations Assistant 4,107 23.69 4,312 24.88 4,528 26.12 4,754 27.43 4,992 28.80 5,242 30.24 5,373 31.00 LMCEA 1147 9410 9Emergency Preparedness Coordinator 6,999 40.38 7,349 42.40 7,716 44.52 8,102 46.74 8,507 49.08 8,932 51.53 9,155 52.82 LMCEA 1184 9410 62Engineering Aide 4,524 26.10 4,750 27.40 4,988 28.78 5,237 30.21 5,499 31.73 5,774 33.31 5,918 34.14 LMCEA 1150 9410 19Engineering Technician I 5,106 29.46 5,361 30.93 5,629 32.48 5,910 34.10 6,206 35.80 6,516 37.59 6,679 38.53 LMCEA 1156 9410 29Engineering Technician II 5,612 32.38 5,893 34.00 6,188 35.70 6,497 37.48 6,822 39.36 7,163 41.33 7,342 42.36 LMCEA 1159 9410 40Environmental Program Manager 7,754 44.73 8,142 46.97 8,549 49.32 8,976 51.78 9,425 54.38 9,896 57.09 10,143 58.52 LMCEA 1160 9420 58Environmental Specialist 6,143 35.44 6,450 37.21 6,773 39.08 7,112 41.03 7,468 43.08 7,841 45.24 8,037 46.37 LMCEA 1355 9420 50Equipment Operator 4,756 27.44 4,994 28.81 5,244 30.25 5,506 31.77 5,781 33.35 6,070 35.02 6,222 35.90 LMCEA 1162 9420 24Equipment Service Worker 3,730 21.52 3,917 22.60 4,113 23.73 4,319 24.92 4,535 26.16 4,762 27.47 4,881 28.16 LMCEA 1165 9420 4Executive Secretary to the Police Chief 4,906 28.30 5,151 29.72 5,409 31.21 5,679 32.76 5,963 34.40 6,261 36.12 6,418 37.03 LMCEA 1023 8810 25Facilities Manager 5,730 33.06 6,017 34.71 6,318 36.45 6,634 38.27 6,966 40.19 7,314 42.20 7,497 43.25 LMCEA 1168 9410 41 Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F
City of La Mesa
Compensation Plan - LMCEA FY 2024-2025
EFFECTIVE: 7/5/24, AS AMENDED & APPROVED on 9/10/2024
Class
Code WC Code Range #
Step G
Class Title Payroll Group
Step A

Page 132 of 479 ends

Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F
Class
Code WC Code Range #
Step G
Class Title Payroll Group
Step A
Facilities Specialist 4,906 28.30 5,151 29.72 5,409 31.21 5,679 32.76 5,963 34.40 6,261 36.12 6,418 37.03 LMCEA 1169 8810 25Fire Inspector I 5,566 32.11 5,844 33.72 6,136 35.40 6,443 37.17 6,765 39.03 7,103 40.98 7,281 42.01 LMCEA 1052 9410 36Fire Inspector II 6,123 35.33 6,429 37.09 6,750 38.94 7,088 40.89 7,442 42.93 7,814 45.08 8,009 46.21 LMCEA 1053 9410 49Fleet Maintenance Supervisor 6,116 35.28 6,422 37.05 6,743 38.90 7,080 40.85 7,434 42.89 7,806 45.03 8,001 46.16 LMCEA 1226 9420 47Heavy Equipment Operator 4,991 28.79 5,241 30.24 5,503 31.75 5,778 33.33 6,067 35.00 6,370 36.75 6,529 37.67 LMCEA 1195 9420 27Homeless Outreach Technician 5,531 31.91 5,808 33.51 6,098 35.18 6,403 36.94 6,723 38.79 7,059 40.73 7,235 41.74 LMCEA 1196 9420 35Human Services Manager 6,999 40.38 7,349 42.40 7,716 44.52 8,102 46.74 8,507 49.08 8,932 51.53 9,155 52.82 LMCEA 1204 9410 55Information Technology Analyst 6,961 40.16 7,309 42.17 7,674 44.27 8,058 46.49 8,461 48.81 8,884 51.25 9,106 52.53 LMCEA 1208 9410 54Information Technology Specialist I 5,805 33.49 6,095 35.16 6,400 36.92 6,720 38.77 7,056 40.71 7,409 42.74 7,594 43.81 LMCEA 1210 9410 44InformationTechnology Specialist II 6,384 36.83 6,703 38.67 7,038 40.60 7,390 42.63 7,760 44.77 8,148 47.01 8,352 48.18 LMCEA 1213 9410 52Irrigation Technician 4,536 26.17 4,763 27.48 5,001 28.85 5,251 30.29 5,514 31.81 5,790 33.40 5,935 34.24 LMCEA 1222 9420 20Lead Mechanic 5,764 33.25 6,052 34.92 6,355 36.66 6,673 38.50 7,007 40.43 7,357 42.44 7,541 43.51 LMCEA 1225 9420 43Mechanic I 4,700 27.12 4,935 28.47 5,182 29.90 5,441 31.39 5,713 32.96 5,999 34.61 6,149 35.48 LMCEA 1237 9420 22Mechanic II 5,169 29.82 5,427 31.31 5,698 32.87 5,983 34.52 6,282 36.24 6,596 38.05 6,761 39.01 LMCEA 1240 9420 30Park Maintenance Lead Worker 5,228 30.16 5,489 31.67 5,763 33.25 6,051 34.91 6,354 36.66 6,672 38.49 6,839 39.46 LMCEA 1243 9420 32Park Maintenance Supervisor 6,116 35.28 6,422 37.05 6,743 38.90 7,080 40.85 7,434 42.89 7,806 45.03 8,001 46.16 LMCEA 1246 9420 47Park Maintenance Worker I 3,730 21.52 3,917 22.60 4,113 23.73 4,319 24.92 4,535 26.16 4,762 27.47 4,881 28.16 LMCEA 1249 9420 4Park Maintenance Worker II 4,126 23.80 4,332 24.99 4,549 26.24 4,776 27.55 5,015 28.93 5,266 30.38 5,398 31.14 LMCEA 1252 9420 10Park Maintenance Worker III 4,536 26.17 4,763 27.48 5,001 28.85 5,251 30.29 5,514 31.81 5,790 33.40 5,935 34.24 LMCEA 1255 9420 20Permit Technician 4,044 23.33 4,246 24.50 4,458 25.72 4,681 27.01 4,915 28.36 5,161 29.78 5,290 30.52 LMCEA 1258 8810 8Planning Technician 4,968 28.66 5,216 30.09 5,477 31.60 5,751 33.18 6,039 34.84 6,341 36.58 6,500 37.50 LMCEA 1261 9410 57Police Assistant 4,180 24.12 4,389 25.32 4,608 26.58 4,838 27.91 5,080 29.31 5,334 30.77 5,467 31.54 LMCEA 1264 8810 12Professional Standards Unit Assistant 4,977 28.71 5,226 30.15 5,487 31.66 5,761 33.24 6,049 34.90 6,351 36.64 6,510 37.56 LMCEA 1262 8810 66Public Works Crew Leader 5,764 33.25 6,052 34.92 6,355 36.66 6,673 38.50 7,007 40.43 7,357 42.44 7,541 43.51 LMCEA 1301 9420 60Public Works Inspector I 5,581 32.20 5,860 33.81 6,153 35.50 6,461 37.28 6,784 39.14 7,123 41.09 7,301 42.12 LMCEA 1294 9420 37Public Works Inspector II 6,146 35.46 6,453 37.23 6,776 39.09 7,115 41.05 7,471 43.10 7,845 45.26 8,041 46.39 LMCEA 1297 9420 51Public Works Maint Lead Worker 5,228 30.16 5,489 31.67 5,763 33.25 6,051 34.91 6,354 36.66 6,672 38.49 6,839 39.46 LMCEA 1300 9420 32Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 6,116 35.28 6,422 37.05 6,743 38.90 7,080 40.85 7,434 42.89 7,806 45.03 8,001 46.16 LMCEA 1303 9420 47Public Works Maintenance Worker I 3,730 21.52 3,917 22.60 4,113 23.73 4,319 24.92 4,535 26.16 4,762 27.47 4,881 28.16 LMCEA 1306 9420 4Public Works Maintenance Worker II 4,126 23.80 4,332 24.99 4,549 26.24 4,776 27.55 5,015 28.93 5,266 30.38 5,398 31.14 LMCEA 1309 9420 10Public Works Maintenance Worker III 4,536 26.17 4,763 27.48 5,001 28.85 5,251 30.29 5,514 31.81 5,790 33.40 5,935 34.24 LMCEA 1312 9420 20Records Technician 4,623 26.67 4,854 28.00 5,097 29.41 5,352 30.88 5,620 32.42 5,901 34.04 6,049 34.90 LMCEA 1317 8810 65Recreation Supervisor 5,739 33.11 6,026 34.77 6,327 36.50 6,643 38.33 6,975 40.24 7,324 42.25 7,507 43.31 LMCEA 1330 9410 42Safety Volunteer Coordinator 6,088 35.12 6,392 36.88 6,712 38.72 7,048 40.66 7,400 42.69 7,770 44.83 7,964 45.95 LMCEA 1336 9410 38Senior Accounting Technician 5,770 33.29 6,059 34.96 6,362 36.70 6,680 38.54 7,014 40.47 7,365 42.49 7,549 43.55 LMCEA 1014 9420 63Senior Building Inspector 6,738 38.87 7,075 40.82 7,429 42.86 7,800 45.00 8,190 47.25 8,600 49.62 8,815 50.86 LMCEA 1345 9410 53Senior Tree Trimmer 4,968 28.66 5,216 30.09 5,477 31.60 5,751 33.18 6,039 34.84 6,341 36.58 6,500 37.50 LMCEA 1354 9420 26Stormwater Program Manager 7,754 44.73 8,142 46.97 8,549 49.32 8,976 51.78 9,425 54.38 9,896 57.09 10,143 58.52 LMCEA 1356 9420 58Transportation Specialist 4,357 25.14 4,575 26.39 4,804 27.72 5,044 29.10 5,296 30.55 5,561 32.08 5,700 32.88 LMCEA 1328 8810 59Tree Trimmer 4,514 26.04 4,740 27.35 4,977 28.71 5,226 30.15 5,487 31.66 5,761 33.24 5,905 34.07 LMCEA 1360 9420 18Wastewater Maintenance Worker I 3,730 21.52 3,917 22.60 4,113 23.73 4,319 24.92 4,535 26.16 4,762 27.47 4,881 28.16 LMCEA 1307 9420 4Wastewater Maintenance Worker II 4,126 23.80 4,332 24.99 4,549 26.24 4,776 27.55 5,015 28.93 5,266 30.38 5,398 31.14 LMCEA 1310 9420 10Wastewater Maintenance Worker III 4,536 26.17 4,763 27.48 5,001 28.85 5,251 30.29 5,514 31.81 5,790 33.40 5,935 34.24 LMCEA 1313 9420 20

Page 133 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A TASK ORDER TO COMPASS

ROSE GIS TO PROVIDE AS-NEEDED MAPPING AND

GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2025
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council authorize a resolution approving a task order to Compass Rose GIS to provide as-needed mapping and geographical information system services for Fiscal Year 2025 in the amount of $150,000?
Recommendation:

The City Council should authorize a resolution approving a task order to Compass Rose GIS for as-needed mapping and geographical information system services for Fiscal Year 2025 in the amount of $150,000.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds for the task order are available in the following accounts for specialized services.

TASK ORDER TO COMPASS ROSE GIS FOR FY25 GIS SERVICES
Fund Source Account
Amount
Requested
Amount
Available
Wastewater Engineering 207-64300-401 $ 110,000 $ 343,851 Engineering 101-64300-302 $ 20,000 $ 112,420
Public Works Administration 101-64300-311 $ 10,000 $ 18,000 Wastewater Operations 207-64300-402 $ 10,000 $ 132,500
TOTAL: $150,000 $ 606,771

Page 134 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

BACKGROUND:

The City has transitioned from paper maps to electronic Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping for improved record keeping and access. The GIS system combines graphical and database information, providing fast and efficient service to external and internal customers.

The City does not have in-house resources or staff with adequate expertise to efficiently perform this work so most of it is outsourced to specialized consultants. By outsourcing, the City has been able to retain expert support in a rapidly evolving industry on an as-needed basis, while being fiscally responsible.

The City has benefitted significantly from the use of this GIS data by providing infrastructure records for both capital and private development projects. Maintenance activities have been streamlined through integration with Cartegraph, which is an infrastructure asset maintenance and software tool. This data is also used for capital improvement and maintenance budgeting as well as performance measurements.

In August 2024, the City Manager executed a Master Agreement with Compass Rose GIS to provide GIS and Mapping Services. The terms of the Master Agreement allow for the issuance of task orders in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy. The Purchasing Policy required the City Council approve contracts exceeding $50,000.

DISCUSSION:

With advancing technology and the dynamic nature of the City’s infrastructure, there is a need to constantly update and upgrade the City’s infrastructure maps. In the coming fiscal year, the City, using Compass Rose GIS services, will be performing the following:
 As-needed infrastructure map updates
 Continuing digitization of parks and building into smart maps  Digitization of traffic signal inventories and implementation of maintenance tracking on Cartegraph
 Assistance with the implementation of See-Click-Fox software  Integration of GIS mapping with the Laserfiche system  Preparation of special study and presentation maps
 Operation, maintenance, and asset management software (Cartegraph) updates  Administration of on-line GIS maps and could server
 Maintenance and administration of GraniteNet Software (CCTV software for videoing the sewer infrastructure) with GIS maps on the cloud server

Page 135 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the resolution approving a task order to Compass Rose GIS for as-needed mapping and geographical information services for Fiscal Year 2025 in the amount of $150,000.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Carly Cubberley, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. FY25 Proposal

Page 136 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

APPROVING TASK ORDERS TO COMPASS ROSE GIS FOR AS-NEEDED

MAPPING AND GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
WHEREAS, this project will advance the City’s goal of continuing to improve high quality municipal services;
WHEREAS, the City has converted all its paper maps to electronic maps; and the City’s changing infrastructure requires frequent updating of the maps; WHEREAS, the City has implemented an infrastructure asset maintenance and management software; and it is essential to keep the system up-to-date and running efficiently; WHEREAS, the City has made the maps available online and maintains a cloud server and the online system needs to remain in operation by updating the server and the maps; WHEREAS, in May 2024, a formal request for qualifications, RFQ 25-01 was advertised and Compass Rose GIS was selected to provide as-needed Geographical Information System Services; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the City executed a Master Agreement with Compass Rose GIS in accordance with RFQ 25-01 for five fiscal year periods with a three fiscal year base period and two one-year renewal options upon satisfactory performance of work.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized and instructed to execute a task order between the City of La Mesa and Compass Rose GIS, for as-needed mapping and geographical information system services for Fiscal Year 2025 in the amount of $150,000. Said contract is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon satisfactory of performance of the work by Compass Rose GIS as determined by the Director of Public Works, the Mayor is hereby authorized and instructed to execute a task order between the City of La Mesa and Compass Rose GIS, for as-needed mapping and geographical information system services for Fiscal Year 2025 up to the approved budget for GIS Services.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 137 of 479 ends

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

Page 138 of 479 ends

4140 Oceanside Blvd. #159-152, Oceanside, Ca 92056 • Telephone: 619.884.8608 • www.compassrosegis.com City of La Mesa
GIS Proposal FY 24-25
August 15, 2024

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of La Mesa’s Public Works Department continues to improve their GIS program and serve a wider audience with data and web mapping applications. Compass Rose GIS has been supporting these efforts by providing overall GIS program management and technical services.

Details for on-going and future projects are included in the Scope of Work below. The GIS project team will work closely with the City’s project manager to continue to prioritize projects.

SCOPE OF WORK
The section below highlights three project categories. The GIS team will track and report monthly on progress and estimate to complete.

1. GIS Database Management
• Monthly red-lines
• Scanning & processing of drawings
• Documentation & training associated with GIS data updates • Enterprise database management
• Map service publishing & maintenance

2. Online Mapping
• Management of the City’s ArcGIS Online account
o Licensing
o Users & roles
o Map application design & maintenance
o Training
• Requirements gathering for online map requests
o Development
o Testing
o Publication

Page 139 of 479 ends

4140 Oceanside Blvd. #159-152, Oceanside, Ca 92056 • Telephone: 619.884.8608 • www.compassrosegis.com

3. Enterprise GIS
• Support administration of City’s AWS account
• Cartegraph OMS
• Granite NET
• Technical and end user support
• Documentation & training associated with enterprise systems listed above

PROJECT LIST
• ArcGIS Online
o Continue to improve & enhance existing applications
 Internal & external map galleries
o Configure data collection apps as needed for City asset inventory o Train staff to edit and manage subject matter data sets o Share data with partner agencies and public via Open Data Portal • Database management
o Continue to maintain City assets in enterprise geodatabase o Project priorities
 Sewer
 Storm Water
o Documentation & metadata preparation and maintenance
• Cartegraph
o Synchronize assets as needed
o Expand functionality using container components
 Traffic Signals
 Parks
 Facilities
o Data export and mapping
o Technical support – end user experience
o Customizations and automation as needed
• Granite Net
o Support City staff as needed
 Engineering users
 Truck data updates
 Troubleshooting
o Create new users and demo application for Engineering contractors o Edit or upload project inspection files

SCHEDULE
The GIS project team will work with the City’s project manager to define individual project needs and schedule to complete.

Page 140 of 479 ends

4140 Oceanside Blvd. #159-152, Oceanside, Ca 92056 • Telephone: 619.884.8608 • www.compassrosegis.com FEES SCHEDULE FY 24-25
The positions in bold are the traditional roles we have been providing. A complete list of our team offerings has been included for future needs, changes or additions. o GIS Project Manager $140
o Solutions Architect $125
o GIS Technician $80
The fee for the GIS Services described in this scope of work is not to exceed $150,000. Estimated breakdown per category is as follows:

Task Description Budget
1 GIS Database Management $ 70,000.00
2 Online Mapping $ 40,000.00
3 Enterprise GIS $ 40,000.00
Totals $ 150,000.00

Page 141 of 479 ends

Page 142 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID 25-03 PIPE

REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AWARDING A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO INSITUFORM TECH, INC.

ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council accept Bid 25-03, Pipe Rehabilitation Project and award a construction contract to Insituform Tech, Inc. in the amount of $288,679? Recommendation:

Adopt the attached resolution accepting Bid 25-03, Pipe Rehabilitation Project and awarding a construction contract to Insituform Tech, Inc. in the amount of $288,679.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds for the project are available in the following Sewer Improvements CIP Accounts:

ACCOUNT REQUESTED AVAILABLE
301-1180SF 8,283.05 8,283.05
301-1190SF 4,618.49 4,618.49
301-1200SF 2,343.50 2,343.50
301-1210SF 1,825.88 1,825.88
301-1220SF 188,255.17 188,255.17
301-1230SF 83,352.91 400,000.00
TOTAL 288,679.00 605,326.09
City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Page 143 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 2
BACKGROUND:

Three segments of wastewater and stormwater pipes were identified to be maintained this fiscal year: 430 linear feet of wastewater pipe in Keeney Canyon, 170 feet of stormwater pipe near Golondrina Drive, and 30 feet of stormwater pipe on Lee Avenue.

The project will maintain the pipe segments using cured in place pipe (CIPP) lining. CIPP lining is a trenchless technology used to extend the life of wastewater and stormwater conveyance pipes up to sixty years.

DISCUSSION:

On July 11, 2024, the City posted a notice inviting bids and documents were distributed to 30 registered plan holders on the Planet Bids portal. On August 1, 2024, the City received two bids electronically. The lowest responsible bidder was Insituform Tech, Inc. with a bid amount of $288,679. A summary of bid results is shown in Attachment B.

Contract time for completion of the project is 60 working days. The work is tentatively scheduled to begin in September 2024 and be completed this fall. The City will notify the affected properties of the planned work and additional notices will be provided prior to the start of the construction.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Bid 25-03, Pipe Rehabilitation Project, and awarding a construction contract to Insituform Tech, Inc. in the amount of $288,679.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ _ ___________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Carly Cubberley, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A - Resolution
B - Bid Summary

Page 144 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ACCEPTING BID 25-03, 2024 PIPE REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO INSITUFORM TECH, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the City wishes to maintain wastewater and stormwater conveyance pipes; WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, a notice inviting bids was advertised and documents were distributed to 30 plan holders; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2024, the City received two bids on the bid opening date and Insituform Tech, Inc. was the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder with a total bid amount of $288,679.

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

Insituform Tech, Inc. bid in the amount of $288,679 for Bid No. 25-03, 2024 Pipe Rehabilitation Project, was determined to be the lowest, responsive, responsible bid. Said bid is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to accept and execute a construction contract with Insituform Tech, Inc. to perform items of work in the base bid at the prices set forth in said bid for a total amount of $288,679.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve the substitution of subcontractors.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10
th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 145 of 479 ends

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 said date and by the vote therein recited.

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

Page 146 of 479 ends

BID 25-03: 2024 Pipe Rehabilitation Project
Bidders Base Bid Total
1 Insituform Tech, Inc $288,679.00 $288,679.00
2 Downstream Services, Inc. $332,461.00 $332,461.00
Engineer's Estimate $300,000.00
Bid Tabulation
All bids will be compared on the basis of the TOTAL BASE BID RECEIVED.

Page 147 of 479 ends

Page 148 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TASK ORDER FOR ON

CALL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTION
SERVICES TO ARDURRA GROUP, INC.

ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issue:

Should the City of La Mesa authorize a Task Order for as-needed encroachment permit inspection services to Ardurra Group, Inc., in the amount of $199,500? Recommendation:

Adopt the attached resolution authorizing a Task Order for as-needed encroachment permit inspection services to Ardurra Group, Inc, in the amount of $199,500.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds for the task order are available in Account 101-61010-302. Private development inspection services are recovered via applicant fees.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2024, the City advertised a request for qualifications (RFQ 25-01) and held a formal selection process to select highly qualified firms that could provide various services. Ardurra Group Inc. was selected to provide construction management and inspection services and in August 2024, a master agreement was executed. The terms

Page 149 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 2
of the master agreement allow for the issuance of task orders to authorize specific items of work on an as-needed basis to the selected consultants.

DISCUSSION:

Due to current staff vacancies, the City needs encroachment permit inspection services for private development projects. Ardurra Group, Inc. developed an estimated fee based on input from City staff to establish the anticipated level of effort needed for Fiscal Year

25. The task order will augment staff with encroachment permit inspection services, including construction management and field observation/inspection services. In addition, the scope of services will include submittal, shop drawing, requests-for-information review, construction monitoring, and stormwater pollution prevention plan inspection.

The inspection services provided by Ardurra Group, Inc., will be supported by salary savings from staff vacancies and fees collected for engineering contract inspection.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing a Task Order for as-needed encroachment permit inspection services to Ardurra Group, Inc., in the amount of $199,500.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Michael Kinnard
Michael Kinnard, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments:A. Resolution
B. Task Order Proposal

Page 150 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING A TASK ORDER FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
INSPECTION SERVICES TO ARDURRA GROUP, INC.

WHEREAS, In May 2024, the City advertised a request for qualifications for as-needed engineering services;
WHEREAS, Ardurra Group, Inc., was selected as a qualified firm to provide as-needed construction management and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a need for as-needed encroachment permit inspection services for private development projects.

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, a task order for as-needed encroachment permit inspection services between the City of La Mesa and Ardurra Group, Inc., for an amount of $199,500.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 151 of 479 ends

August 20, 2024
Mr. Michael Throne
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of La Mesa
8031 Allison Ave
La Mesa, CA 91941
Reference: Proposal for FY 24/25 On-Call Encroachment Permit Inspection Services Dear Mr. Throne:

In accordance with your request, Ardurra Group, Inc. (Ardurra) is pleased to provide this proposal for Development Inspection services for the City of La Mesa (City) for On-Call Encroachment Permit Inspection Services. Ardurra has reviewed the documents provided and prepared a proposed scope of work and an estimated fee to complete the proposed scope.

SCOPE OF SERVICES:

Construction Management Services
Ardurra will provide as-needed Construction Management services during the course of the project. Services anticipated to be provided include:
• Project Meetings: Coordinate and attend a pre-construction meeting, as well as attend periodic progress meetings with the Developer staff and contractors.
• Respond to RFIs: Ardurra will respond to City directed Requests for Information (RFI)s during the project.

Ardurra will prepare written responses and distribute to the Developer and the City. • Submittal/Shop Drawing Review: Ardurra will review Contractor submittals/shop drawings for public improvement construction on the project. These will include all City maintained improvements for the project. All submittals will be reviewed for compliance with the contract documents and returned with written comments to the Contractor.

Field Observation/Inspections
Ardurra will provide as-needed field observation of the construction activities. Ardurra will serve as the primary point of contact on-site, and will provide coordination among the Developer, Contractors, and City engineering staff. This task will entail the following major subtasks:
• Construction Monitoring: Monitor daily construction activities, prepare field records, and log digital photographic records. Verify work is in compliance with approved plans, specifications, and approved shop drawings.
• SWPPP Inspection: Provide site inspections to verify that proper BMPs are being utilized on the project site and prepare written reports as the required frequency for filing with the City’s stormwater compliance program.

Page 152 of 479 ends

Mr. Michael Throne
City of La Mesa
August 20, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

• Construction Quality Assurance: Monitor grading and improvement construction and verify that all necessary quality control observation and testing is being performed.

FEE:

Ardurra understands that services provided as part of this agreement will be billed on a Time and Materials basis as they are requested by the City of La Mesa. Calling on our experience with providing these services to the City in the previous fiscal year we’ve based our estimate on 95 hours a month for twelve months. Ardurra requests a total not to exceed fee of $199,500.00 (One Hundred and Ninety-nine Thousand, five hundred Dollars). This fee is all inclusive of vehicle, mileage, computer, testing equipment and all other necessary equipment and materials to perform the required tasks. We’ve included staff type and applicable billing rates for the types of services we anticipate the City will be requesting as part of this agreement. • Construction Management Services
Construction Manager @ $210.00/hr
• Field Observation/Inspection
Senior Construction Observer @ $175.00/hr
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide this proposal and assist the City with this project. Please contact me at (858) 243-4977 should you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,
Scott Adamson, PE, QSD/P
Construction Management – Group Leader

Page 153 of 479 ends

Page 154 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE

AGREEMENT WITH BEAM GLOBAL FOR SOLAR

POWERED ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING

STATIONS
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize a purchase agreement with Beam Global for solar powered electric vehicle charging stations? Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize a purchase agreement with Beam Global for solar powered electric vehicle charging stations.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost for the purchase agreement is $82,516 of which $72,226 will be reimbursed by grant funds awarded to the La Mesa Park & Recreation Foundation by the San Diego Community Power Clean Energy Grant Program to revenue account 208-48990-301. The purchase agreement of $82,516 does not include tax, Remote Monitoring and Management System (RMMS) and manufacturer warranties, which will be charged to the Environmental Services account 208- 65840-301 in the amount of $16,817.21.

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

Page 155 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 4
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

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

BACKGROUND:

In March 2018, City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which charts a course to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and provides a roadmap by which La Mesa can reduce GHG emissions through the implementation of measures and key actions in energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and green infrastructure. The CAP is currently being updated as committed to in the 2018 CAP.

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

Additionally, it is expected that there will be a large increase in zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on California roads due to the Governor of California issuing Executive Orders (EO) to achieve the following goals relating to EVs and EV charging: EO B-16-2012: At least 1.5 million ZEVs on California roadways by 2025, with easy access to ZEV infrastructure, or EV charging stations; EO B-48-2018: At least 5 million ZEVs on California roadways by 2030 and 250,000 ZEV chargers by 2025; and EO N-79-20: Instate sales of passenger cars and trucks will be 100 percent ZEVs by 2035.

DISCUSSION:

In April 2024, City Council approved Resolution 2024-035 authorizing the application and acceptance of funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block (EECBG) grant to fund and purchase Beam Global solar-powered EV charging stations. The Beam Global EV ARC 2020 systems (EV ARCs) are large portable electric vehicle charging stations powered by embedded solar panels. These EV ARCs would be made available to the public, encouraging the increased adoption of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy. Providing EV ARCs to La Mesa residents would allow residents to

Page 156 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 3 of 4
charge their electric vehicles for free. Beam Global, founded in 2006, is a San Diegobased company that has provided their services and products to over 100 other U.S. jurisdictions. EV ARCs are capable of generating and storing enough clean, solar electricity to charge up to 265 electric miles in a single day. These mobile chargers offer versatility with battery storage, and use BeamTrak, which follows the sun throughout the day, providing the system the ability to charge electric vehicles during the day, night, and on cloudy days. This means the solar array will move to maintain the best incidence angle with the sun.

Additionally, the solar charging and battery system are an asset in the case of a power grid failure, providing energy resiliency. Due to the mobile nature of EV ARCs, they do not need to undergo permitting, construction, or electrical work. Therefore, the purchase of the EV ARCs will help accelerate La Mesa’s switch to renewable fuel alternatives. An EV ARC includes two electric vehicle charging station ports and can fit in a single standard size parking space. The EV ARCs will be placed in City-managed parking lots and will be available for use by City fleet EVs and for public use.

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

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

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

In June 2024, two EV ARCs were purchased and the assembly of the units is in production. The purchase agreement with Beam Global includes the purchase of a third EV ARC and the Remote Monitoring and Management System (RMMS) for an additional 9 years (for a total of 10 years) and Manufacturer Warranties for an additional 4 years (for a total of 5 years) for all three EV ARCs. The third EV ARC will be purchased by the City and $72,226 will be reimbursed by grant funds received by the La Mesa Park & Recreation Foundation from the San Diego Community Power Clean Energy Grant Program award. The remaining balance of $16,817.21 for tax, RMMS, and manufacturer warranties will be charged to Environmental Services account 208-65840-301.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize a purchase agreement with Beam Global for solar powered electric vehicle charging stations.

Page 157 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 4 of 4
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Hilary Ego
Environmental Sustainability Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. EV ARC Pricing

Page 158 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH BEAM GLOBAL FOR SOLAR

POWERED ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
WHEREAS, in March 2018, City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which charts a course to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; WHEREAS, as part of the CAP, the City is committed to reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which is the largest emitter of the community-wide GHG emissions; WHEREAS, in April 2024, City Council approved Resolution 2024-035 authorizing the application an acceptance of funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block (EECBG) grant to fund and purchase Beam Global solar-powered EV charging stations (EV ARCs); WHEREAS, in June 2024, two EV ARCs were purchased and the assembly of the units are in production;
WHEREAS, in August 2024, the La Mesa Park & Recreation Foundation was awarded funds by the San Diego Community Power Clean Energy Grant Program to purchase one Beam Global solar-powered EV charging station;
WHEREAS, the EV ARCs would be made available to the public, encouraging the increased adoption of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy; WHEREAS, the purchase agreement with Beam Global will include the purchase of the third EV ARC and the Remote Monitoring and Management System (RMMS) for an additional 9 years (for a total of 10 years) and Manufacturer Warranties for additional 4 years (for a total of 5 years) for all three EV ARCs;
WHEREAS, the cost for the purchase agreement is $82,516, in which $72,226 will be reimbursed by grant funds awarded to the La Mesa Park & Recreation Foundation by the San Diego Community Power Clean Energy Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the purchase agreement of $82,516 does not include tax, and the tax, RMMS and manufacturer warranties will be charged to the Environmental Services account in the amount of $16,817.21.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that that the City Council authorizes a purchase agreement with Beam Global for solar powered electric vehicle charging stations.

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

Page 159 of 479 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 160 of 479 ends

BeamForAll.com
[email protected]
+1 858-799-4583
Beam Global
5660 Eastgate Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
Your EV ARC™ is an American-made product and will be
fabricated in our San Diego, California facility.

EV ARC™ systems are capable of generating and storing enough clean, solar electricity to charge up to 265 e-miles in a single day.

Thanks to its battery storage, it can charge electric vehicles day or night, or even during periods of cloudiness, and is also an excellent source of emergency/alternative power. The electricity produced is clean and renewable, reducing 100% of greenhouse gas emissions from ICE vehicles and electric vehicles powered from the utility grid.

The EV ARC™ is deployed in minutes without any construction or electrical work and does not require civil or electrical engineering, foundations, trenching, electrical connections or upgrades. It will produce energy reliably and consistently but will not generate a utility bill or fail to operate because of a black out or other utility grid failure.

It’s no wonder that Google, the City of New York, the State of California and many others across the U.S. and internationally trust the EV ARC™ product line to charge their electric vehicles.

The patented EV ARC™ charging system is the world’s first and only fully autonomous, transportable, solar-powered electric vehicle charging system. Designed, engineered and manufactured in the U.S., the EV ARC™ measures 7.5' X 18' at the base and fits inside a standard parking space without reducing available parking while being ADA compliant.

EV ARC™ Product Description
Phone (858) 790-8140
Email [email protected]
Prepared By Andy Ike
Address TBD
La Mesa, CA
Ship To
Ship To Name City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Bill To
Bill To Name City of La Mesa
Phone (619) 667-1326
Email [email protected]
Title Environmental Program Manager
Contact Name Hilary Ego
Customer Name City of La Mesa
Created Date 8/12/2024
Quote Number 00001563
Beam EV ARC™ Proposal via CA DGS Contract #1-22-61-16
Customer Details
Billing and Shipping
Your Clean Mobility Expert

Page 161 of 479 ends

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

Page 162 of 479 ends

BeamForAll.com
[email protected]
+1 858-799-4583
Beam Global
5660 Eastgate Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
Shipping and $0.00
Handling
Shipping & Handling is FOB Destination and includes Beam Team Total Price $82,516.00 performing un-load / un-stow of equipment. Customer may need a EV ARC™ Pricing
Product Product Code Product Description Quantity List Price Total Price Beam EV
ARC™ with
ChargePoint™
dual plug
charger
ARC2020-CP4023
EV ARC™ 2020, 4.3kW solar array, 22kWh expandable storage, BeamTrak™, Chargepoint CT4023 dual-plug networked charger, dual J1772 connectors. 12 months ChargePoint Network Operating System (NOS) included.

CLIN #1101, includes 2% CA DGS Contract discount.

1.00 $70,300.30 $70,300.30
Emergency
Power Panel EPP
Off-grid, 100% solar-powered Emergency Power Panel for energy resiliency and disaster preparednes. 6kW 120/240V solar generator with 2 x 120V NEMA 5-20 duplex outlets (GFCI protected), 2 x 120V NEMA L5-20 outlets (twist lock, GFCI protected), 1 x 240V NEMA L14-30 outlet (not GFCI protected) , lockable polycarbonate cover plate.

CLIN #1202, includes 2% CA DGS Contract discount.

1.00 $1,925.70 $1,925.70
Remote
Monitoring
and
Management
System
(RMMS)
RMMS-1
Annual plan for Remote Monitoring and Management System (RMMS) provides login access to view data and status of the EV ARC system. 4G LTE and WiFi connections enable remote
monitoring of solar energy production, battery status, energy output, energy use session data. Remote performance assessment and troubleshooting can prevent service calls. Service is included for the 1st twelve (12) months with purchase of an EV ARC™ system; Annual renewal thereafter.

CLIN #1300, includes 2% CA DGS Contract discount.

1.00 $388.08 $0.00
Vendor
Catalog Item -
Warranty (1
Year)
Manufacturer Warranty - First year included
Segment ID: A, includes 2% CA DGS Contract discount. Non-core item.

1.00 $0.00 $0.00
Vendor
Catalog Item -
Extended
Services
Value Pricing
RMMS-10-WNTY-05
Additional 4 years of Manufacturer Warranty (for a total of 5 years) and 9 years of RMMS (Remote Monitoring and Management
Service) coverage (for a total of 10 years) per EV ARC™ system.

Available bundled with new EV ARC™ system purchases made on or after July 24, 2024 only. Additional 4 years of Manufacturer Warranty applies to EV ARC Base Model, and excludes EV
charger; EV charger brand Manufacturer Warranty sold separately.

Includes 2% DGS Contract discount.

1.00 $3,430.00 $3,430.00
Vendor
Catalog Item -
Extended
Services
Value Pricing
RMMS-10-WNTY-05
Additional 4 years of Manufacturer Warranty (for a total of 5 years) and 9 years of RMMS (Remote Monitoring and Management
Service) coverage (for a total of 10 years) per EV ARC™ system.

Includes 2% DGS Contract discount.

2.00 $3,430.00 $6,860.00
Totals

Page 163 of 479 ends

BeamForAll.com
[email protected]
+1 858-799-4583
Beam Global
5660 Eastgate Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
https://caleprocure.ca.gov/PSRelay/ZZ_PO.ZZ_CTR_SUP_CMP.GBL?Page=ZZ_CTR_SUP_PG&Action=U&SETID=STATE&CNTRCT_ID=1-22-61-16 Applicable sales tax will be billed upon invoicing
Payment Terms: Net 30 days
ONE-PAY LEASE OPTION: This proposal includes an option to lease the quoted EV ARC™ Equipment, which includes the EV ARC™ Base Model, EV charger, and the add-ons of battery storage upgrades, Emergency Power Panel, AC/USB outlets, Grid Connect and RMMS connectivity, for a five-year term at a cost of 60% of the Total Equipment Price. Total Equipment Price excludes Shipping & Handling, Sales Tax, Beam Stow Kit, ARC Mobility™ Trailer, which will be invoiced at the amounts presented in this proposal. The lease option includes a 5-year warranty on the EV ARC™ Base Model and add-ons, and a 1-year warranty on the EV charger. The One-Pay Lease amount of 60% of the Total Equipment Price will be invoiced upon Equipment delivery on payment terms of net 30 days. Beam Global will retain title to the Equipment, and the Customer is responsible for insuring the Equipment during the term of the lease. The lease will expire five years from the date of Equipment delivery. At that time, the Customer will have the option to either renew the lease for another 5 years at 60% of the Total Equipment Price; or purchase the Equipment at 65% of the Total Equipment Price; or have Beam Global pick up and remove the Equipment for a recycling fee of 10% of the Total Equipment Price. The One-Pay Lease program is offered through March 31, 2025. Customer agrees and acknowledges that the terms set forth above are only a summary of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, and any lease of EV ARC™ Equipment will not be effective until Customer and Beam Global have entered into a definitive lease agreement for the quoted EV ARC™ Equipment. To get started with the One-Pay Lease, contact your Clean Mobility Expert on this proposal. - Final quote line item (Quantity two (2) Extended
Services Value Pricing) to cover two (2) EV ARC
systems purchased via City of La Mesa PO
242432 to cover five (5) years of warranty
coverage and ten (10) years of RMMS coverage.

Notes
Expiration Date 9/30/2024
12K capacity forklift onsite upon delivery; to be determined when Grand Total $82,516.00 delivery date is scheduled.

California DGS Contract Link

Page 164 of 479 ends

Page 165 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: A. Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Installment Sale Agreement (No. 8723-110) with the State of California for a State Revolving Fund Loan;
B. Resolution Accepting the Funds from the State Revolving Fund Loan (No. 8723-110) and Appropriating the Expenditure in a Capital Improvement Program Project Account.

ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issue:

Should the City of La Mesa:

A. Authorize execution of an installment sale agreement (No. 8723-110) with the State of California for a State Revolving Fund Loan; and B. Accept the funds from the State Revolving Fund Loan (No. 8723- 110) and appropriate the expenditure in a Capital Improvement Program Project Account?
Recommendation:

Adopt the attached resolutions:

A. Authorizing the execution of an installment sale agreement (No. 8723-110) with the State of California for a State Revolving Fund Loan; and

Page 166 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 5
B. Accepting the funds from the State Revolving Fund Loan (No. 8723- 110) and appropriate the expenditure in a Capital Improvement Program Project Account.

Fiscal Impact:

The loan amount is up to $7,000,000, but only the amount necessary for the design and construction will be charged to the project. The repayment of the loan will start one calendar year after the construction completion and acceptance of the construction by the City and will be for 20 years at 1.45% interest.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy
 This item indirectly supports the implementation of CAP measure W-3, Pure Water Program, by reducing the inflow and infiltration to the sewer system requiring treatment.

BACKGROUND:

In December 2010, during a very heavy rain event, the sewer system across the City was inundated by stormwater inflow and infiltration resulting in sanitary sewer overflows.

In March 2011, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Investigative Order R9- 2011-0040 directing the City to show the circumstances involved in the spills, and to provide technical reports.

In December 2012, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Administrative Civil Liability (ACL) R9-2012-0014 for $948,816 based on the findings following the Investigative Order. The City was able to settle the ACL for $413,856 and was also required to complete a Supplemental Environmental Project.

As a response, the City prioritized sewer capital projects both included in the Wastewater Master Plan, and those designed to protect the environment.

The City of La Mesa’s wastewater CIP goals are to:
 Avoid sanitary sewer overflows
 Reduce financial burdens

Page 167 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 3 of 5
 Enhance the environment
 Eliminate liabilities
 Reduce the required maintenance efforts
In 2022, the City hired environmental and engineering design consultants to prepare environmental documents and design replacement and rehabilitation of sewer in the College Streets/Eucalyptus Hills neighborhood of La Mesa. The project is called: Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Sewer Project Phase 7. The scope of work included determining the optimum alignment, system improvements, and applying for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) low interest loan.

In November 2022, the City Council approved resolution 2022-132, authorizing submitting an initial application to the State for the SRF loan. The City also updated this resolution April 23, 2024 with resolution 2024-045.

In December 2022, the City submitted the loan application to the State Board. The State Board notified the City of eligibility and placement on the funding list in 2023. The final agreement was drafted and issued in August 2024.

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 to their poor condition or restricted capacity.

Additionally, concrete sewer has limited lifespan due to sewer gas corrosion. Eliminating areas of concrete sewer pipe from the system is a priority.

Sewer and manholes will be replaced/rehabilitated within roadway and easements in portions of:
 Harbinson Avenue
 Vassar Avenue
 Cornell Avenue
 Princeton Avenue
 West Point Avenue
 Stanford Avenue
 Yale Avenue
 Harvard Avenue
 Annapolis Avenue
 Pomona Avenue
The scope of the project includes replacement and rehabilitation of 10,200 feet of sewer pipe and 52 manholes. The project tentative project start date is late 2025.

Page 168 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 4 of 5
In order to be able to complete a project of this magnitude, the City requires the SRF funding to augment its CIP budget. The SRF loan is a low interest 1.45% loan available to local agencies and districts from the State Water Resources Control Board to fund sewer and water projects. The loan is repaid over a fixed period of 20 years. The loan provides a means to construct projects that otherwise would not be completed due to the agencies’ available funding restrictions. The City has previously taken advantage of the low interest loan program and has upgraded other portions of the sewer system over the past 20 years. This program allows the City to structure low interest debt repayment over a fixed period and incorporate the payments into the City’s sewer rate structure.

The City of La Mesa has previously received six State Revolving Fund loans for Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation and trunk line projects beginning in 2004. Please see Attachment C for the SRF loans and their status.

Upon approval of the resolutions to execute the loan agreement and appropriate funds, the City will set up a Capital Improvement Program project account to proceed with the execution of the construction and construction management contracts.

DISCUSSION:

In November 2022, the City Council approved resolution 2020-132 authorizing submitting an initial application to the State for an SRF loan to fund a sewer replacement project titles Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Sewer Project Phase 7.

The approval of this resolution would authorize the Mayor to sign the loan agreement, and continue the process of obtaining the loan funds for construction of the Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Sewer Project Phase 7.

The cost of the project is estimated at $7,000,000. A separate bid award will require approval by the La Mesa City Council following the advertisement period.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions:

A. Authorizing execution of an installment sale agreement (No. 8723- 110) with the State of California for a State Revolving Fund loan; B. Accepting the funds from the State Revolving Fund loan (No. 8723- 110) and appropriating its expenditure in a Capital Improvement Project.

Page 169 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 5 of 5
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A- Resolution- SRF Agreement
Appendix A to Resolution A- SRF Agreement
B- Resolution – Appropriation of Funds
C- Project Map
D- SRF Payment Sheet

Page 170 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENT (NO. 8723-110) WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR A STATE REVOLVING

FUND LOAN
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024-045 to apply for a State Revolving fund installment sale agreement for the Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Project Phase 7;
WHEREAS, the State Revolving Fund installment sale agreement has been approved by the State of California Water Resources Control Board; and WHEREAS, a copy of the installment sale agreement is attached to this Resolution as Appendix A.

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

The Mayor is authorized to execute the installment sale agreement on behalf of the City of La Mesa.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor (“Authorized Representative”), or Director of Public Works as the Mayor’s authorized designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto. The Mayor (“Authorized Representative”), or Director of Public Works as the Mayor’s authorized designee, is designated to represent the City of La Mesa 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 10
th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 171 of 479 ends

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

Page 172 of 479 ends

Page 173 of 479 ends

Page 174 of 479 ends

Page 175 of 479 ends

Page 176 of 479 ends

Page 177 of 479 ends

Page 178 of 479 ends

Page 179 of 479 ends

Page 180 of 479 ends

Page 181 of 479 ends

Page 182 of 479 ends

Page 183 of 479 ends

Page 184 of 479 ends

Page 185 of 479 ends

Page 186 of 479 ends

Page 187 of 479 ends

Page 188 of 479 ends

Page 189 of 479 ends

Page 190 of 479 ends

Page 191 of 479 ends

Page 192 of 479 ends

Page 193 of 479 ends

Page 194 of 479 ends

Page 195 of 479 ends

Page 196 of 479 ends

Page 197 of 479 ends

Page 198 of 479 ends

Page 199 of 479 ends

Page 200 of 479 ends

Page 201 of 479 ends

Page 202 of 479 ends

Page 203 of 479 ends

Page 204 of 479 ends

Page 205 of 479 ends

Page 206 of 479 ends

Page 207 of 479 ends

Page 208 of 479 ends

Page 209 of 479 ends

Page 210 of 479 ends

Page 211 of 479 ends

Page 212 of 479 ends

Page 213 of 479 ends

Page 214 of 479 ends

Page 215 of 479 ends

Page 216 of 479 ends

Page 217 of 479 ends

Page 218 of 479 ends

Page 219 of 479 ends

Page 220 of 479 ends

Page 221 of 479 ends

Page 222 of 479 ends

Page 223 of 479 ends

Page 224 of 479 ends

Page 225 of 479 ends

Page 226 of 479 ends

Page 227 of 479 ends

Page 228 of 479 ends

Page 229 of 479 ends

Page 230 of 479 ends

Page 231 of 479 ends

Page 232 of 479 ends

Page 233 of 479 ends

Page 234 of 479 ends

Page 235 of 479 ends

Page 236 of 479 ends

Page 237 of 479 ends

Page 238 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ACCEPTING THE FUNDS FROM THE STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN (NO. 8723-110) AND APPROPRIATING THE EXPENDITURE IN THE CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the Mayor to execute a loan agreement with the State of California Water Resources Control Board;
WHEREAS, the amount of the loan is $7,000,000 and the expenditure for Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Project Phase 7 is approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, only the amount necessary for the design and construction will be charged to the project.

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

The City accepts the loan and appropriates the expenditure for Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Project Phase 7 Project in a capital improvement program project account however, that if the actual revenue received from the source specified should be more or less than the amount set forth herein, that the appropriations shall be adjusted to the amount actually received.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10
th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 239 of 479 ends

.!
.! .!
.!
.! .!
.!
.! .!
.!
.!
.! .!
.! .!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.! .!
.! .! .!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.!
.! .!
.! .!
.!
.!
.! .!
"
"
"
" "
"
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

EXISTING SEWER PIPE MATERIALS
0 200 FT
Legend
" Ex. Cleanout!. Ex. Manhole
Ex. 6" ConcreteEx. 6" Concrete w/ Liner
Ex. 6" VCPEx. 8" PVC
Ex. 8" VCPPhase 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
5 SCALE
1 inch = 200 feet

Page 240 of 479 ends

Project Name Agreement Number 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 Final Payment I&I Mitigation Phase 1 C-06-4729-110 $304,569 $304,569 $304,569 $304,569 2/1/28 I&I Mitigation Phase 2 C-06-4729-120 $189,473 $189,473 $189,473 $189,473 7/31/28 I&I Mitigation Phase 3 C-06-4729-130 $178,076 $178,076 $178,076 $178,076 7/15/29 I&I Mitigation Phase 4 C-06-4729-140 $184,991 $184,991 $184,991 $184,991 1/21/30 Alvarado Trunk Sewer Improvements Phase 2 C-06-7824-110 $213,494 $213,494 $213,494 $213,494 5/31/37 Parkway Drive and Alvarado Rd Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Upgrade C-06-8394-110 $398,555 $398,555 $398,555 $398,555 7/30/41 Inflow and Infiltration Phase 6* C-06-8608-110 N/A N/A $245,547 $418,557 Total $1,469,158 $1,469,158 $1,714,705 $1,887,715
* Project In Bid Phase November 2024
State Revolving Fund- Current Agreements and Financing Schedule

Page 241 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM
DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BID NO. 24-16, TO
SC VALLEY ENGINEERING, INC.

ISSUING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City of La Mesa authorize Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $98,481.24 for the Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project, Bid No. 24-16 to SC Valley Engineering?
Recommendation:

Authorize Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $98,481.24 for the Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project, Bid No. 24-16 to SC Valley Engineering.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds for this change order will be provided from Storm Drain CIP Account 304- 4241TR.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Page 242 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 3
BACKGROUND:

On April 9, 2024, the City Council approved a resolution awarding a construction contract to SC Valley Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $6,400,470.95 for the Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project, Bid No. 24-16.

The Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project is currently under construction.

Improvements include the construction of a double 8-foot by 5-foot poured-in-place, reinforced concrete box and associated improvements. The project includes considerable wet and dry utility relocation in La Mesa and San Diego.

During construction, field conditions related to the lowering of Helix Water infrastructure have led to additional work that was unforeseen during design. Additionally, extremely long lead times for water line materials, such as an unexpected 30-week lead time for special valves required by Helix, have changed the order of construction, leading to additional costs.

DISCUSSION:

To address the unforeseen materials issues and field conditions, the Contractor worked on time and materials with oversight by the City contract inspector. Change Order No. 2 with the contractor is in the amount of $98,481.24 with the following changes to the scope of the contract:

Field conditions of Helix Water mains and the complicated sequence of water shutdowns needed to perform the cut and cap of 18”, 16”, and 12” water mains.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing Contract Change Order No. 2 to SC Valley Engineering in the amount of $98,481.24 including 7 additional working days to the contract duration for the Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project, Bid No. 24-16.

Page 243 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 3 of 3
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________
Joe Kuhn
Storm Water Program Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Contract Change Order Form

Page 244 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BID NO. 24-16, TO SC VALLEY ENGINEERING, INC.

WHEREAS, a contract was awarded to SC Valley Engineering Inc. to provide construction services for the Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project; WHEREAS, the Contractor is required to perform out of scope work in order to manage Helix Water mains located within prior rights easements within the project area; WHEREAS, the original design and intent of handling the Helix Water mains was changed due to field conditions and an inability to obtain materials required by Helix Water District; 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 for additional construction services between the City of La Mesa and SC Valley Engineering, Inc., for an amount of $98,481.24 for the Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement Project. Said contract change order is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10
th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 245 of 479 ends

RE Contract: Date:

P.O. No.:

The time provided for the contract is
Therefore, the revised contract time is working days, and the revised completion date is
3%
.

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 7 working days.
138
NEW CONTRACT AMOUNT (C + B + A)
ATTESTED BY:
$ 197,876.01 % Change 3%
$ 6,598,346.96 % Change
11/11/2024
2%
Megan Wiegelman
City Clerk
$ 99,394.77 % Change 2%
$ 98,481.24 % Change
TOTAL CCO's (+ or -)
CCO's PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (+ or -)
NET CHANGE THIS CCO (+ or -)
Michael Throne
Director of Public Works
Mark Arapostathis
Mayor
1 Waterline Shutdown Capping Work and Sequence $ 98,481.24 Total Change 98,481.24 $
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 6,400,470.95
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
09/10/2024
242396
Detailed Description of Changes & Quantities or Scope of Work Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement
Project
Bid No.: 24-16
TO: SC Valley Engineering 2024- Reso. No.:

CITY OF LA MESA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2

ATTACHMENT B

Page 246 of 479 ends

RE Contract: Date:

P.O. No.:
09/10/2024
242396
Boulevard Drive Storm Drain Improvement
Project
Bid No.: 24-16
TO: SC Valley Engineering 2024- Reso. No.:

CITY OF LA MESA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
SC Valley Engineering, INC.

Samuel Wathen, President
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.

Page 247 of 479 ends

Page 248 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: RE-ADOPTION OF CITY OF LA MESA TREE POLICY
MANUAL
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council re-adopt the 2013 City of La Mesa Tree Policy Manual? Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council re-adopt the 2013 City of La Mesa Tree Policy Manual.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

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

Environmental Review:

Adoption of a policy is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Page 249 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 2
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 GI-1 Urban Forest Master Plan – Support natural carbon sequestration opportunities through continued development and maintenance of a healthy, vibrant urban forest.

BACKGROUND:

In November, 1979, the City Council adopted a policy for the removal, replacement and trimming of trees and landscaping within the public right-of-way including private vegetation that encroached into the right-of-way. In November, 1997, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a process to develop and maintain a Tree Policy Manual and designated the Development Advisory Board (DAB) as the City Tree Board (Municipal Code Section 24.02.037).

In March, 2021, the City Council amended Section 24.02.037 by dissolving the DAB and delegating to the Public Works Department the DAB function of City Tree Board.

DISCUSSION:

The current edition of the tree policy manual requires updating to reflect the change approved by the City Council in 2021 related to the delegation of the City Tree Board function to the Public Works Department. Staff will make the appropriate edits to the Manual and republish-it on the City’s website.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council re-adopt the 2013 City of La Mesa tree policy manual and direct the Public Works Department to revise it to reflect the 2021 ordinance changes.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. The 2013 City of La Mesa Tree Policy Manual can be accessed at https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/6614/City-TreePolicy-Manual?bidId=

Page 250 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA READOPTING THE 2013 CITY OF LA MESA TREE POLICY MANUAL WHEREAS, the City Council on November 14, 1979 directed staff to develop and maintain a tree policy manual to provide policies and guidelines for the planting, care, preservation, maintenance and removal of trees within the public right-of-way and those private property trees encroaching on the public right-of-way;
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1997, the City Council adopted Municipal Code Section

24.02.037 Tree Policy Manual, assigning the Development Advisory Board to serve as the City Tree Board;
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, pursuant to Ordinance 2021-2886, the City Council amended Municipal Code Section 24.02.037, dissolving the Development Advisory Board and delegating its function as City Tree Board to the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, it is necessary revise the current edition of the City of La Mesa tree policy manual to reflect the amended ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council re-adopts the 2013 City of La Mesa tree policy manual and directs the Public Works Department to revise it to reflect the 2021 ordinance changes.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 251 of 479 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: 2024-0794 (HARBIN) - CONSIDERATION OF A

REQUEST TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 9353 LEMON AVENUE, APN 495-175-04-00 AS A

HISTORIC LANDMARK AND ESTABLISH A PROPERTY

PRESERVATION (MILLS ACT) AGREEMENT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:

Issue:

Does the property at 9353 Lemon Avenue qualify for designation as a historic landmark, and should the City enter into a property preservation (Mills Act) agreement with the owner?
Recommendation:

The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions to 1) designate the property known as the Palmer "Darrell” Diamond Residence located at 9353 Lemon Avenue as a historic landmark based on eligibility criterion C for embodying distinctive characteristics of the Custom Ranch style and criterion D for being representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, the Diamond Construction Company (Attachment A) and 2) enter into a Mills Act Property Preservation Agreement with the property owner (Attachment B).

Fiscal Impact:

The amount of property tax to the City would be reduced by approximately $450 annually. In exchange for discounted property taxes, the City receives guaranteed property maintenance and improvements to ensure the ongoing preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration as stipulated in a property preservation agreement.

Page 252 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 2 of 6
Well maintained historic landmarks can increase property values in the neighborhood.

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

Environmental Review:

This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15331.

BACKGROUND:

The Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan provides a framework for the City’s Historic Preservation program, of which a Register of Historic Landmarks is a key component. Chapter 25.03 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance provides for the designation of historic landmarks by the City Council. A cultural resource may be designated a historic landmark if it meets one or more of eight criteria listed below.

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
D. It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect;
E. It is identified with a person or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City;
F. It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail materials, or craftsmanship;
G. It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or
H. It is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective

Page 253 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 3 of 6
value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement.

Properties with landmark designation are eligible for a reduced property tax assessment through the Mills Act. California Government Code Section 50280 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into property preservation agreements with owners of qualified historical properties to ensure and support ongoing preservation, maintenance and restoration efforts. The program, known as the Mills Act, is implemented through a 10-year preservation agreement. Each year, on the anniversary of the effective date of the Agreement, a year is automatically added to the initial term of the agreement unless either party files a notice of non-renewal.

The owner of 9353 Lemon Avenue has nominated the property for local historic landmark designation. On June 4, 2024, the Historic Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing and adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council approve historical landmark designation and enter into a Mills Act Preservation Agreement with the owner (Attachments C and D).

DISCUSSION:

Sited on a 0.38-acre site, located on the south side of Lemon Avenue between Marguerita Lane and Treasure Drive, the residence sits slightly back from and above the street. The surrounding neighborhood of suburban single-family homes was developed primarily between the 1940s and the 1970s. The
City’s municipal boundary extends
along the north property line. A vicinity
map is shown below, and the Assessor
Parcel map is provided as Attachment
E.

The house is a one-story dwelling with
an attached two-car garage constructed
in 1956 in the Contemporary Custom
Ranch architectural style by the
Diamond Construction Company as the
family residence of Palmer “Darrell”
Diamond.

As described in the landmark
nomination report prepared by Urbana
Preservation & Planning (Attachment
F), the original owner Palmer “Darrell”

Page 254 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 4 of 6
Diamond and his brother, Norval, assumed control of their family’s Los Angeles-based construction company in 1930 and relocated to San Diego. By the mid-1930s, the Diamond Construction Company had gained recognition for their affordable yet highquality style homes, at a time when both the construction industry and homeowners were impacted by the Great Depression. Their one-story vernacular cottages in neighborhoods such as Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach, and Mission Beach were among the earliest to be purchased using FHA loans. Diamond Construction continued to develop modest tract homes through the 1950s, and in 1952, the Diamond Tract in La Mesa was featured as part of National Home Week. The company also designed and built a handful of custom homes, including Palmer “Darrell” Diamond’s family residence at 9353 Lemon Avenue.

Mr. and Mrs. Diamond resided at 9353 Lemon Avenue until Mr. Diamond’s death in 1993, and the property remained in the Diamond family until 2019.

Characteristic Custom Ranch features present on the house include slab-on-grade construction, an irregular floorplan, long horizontal massing, an asymmetrical façade, lowpitched roof with deep eave overhangs, vertical board-and-batten siding, locally-sourced custom cut stone, frameless windows, absence of applied decoration, and strong interior and exterior connections. Original contributing site features also present include custom cut stone and block walls.

Within the company’s portfolio of projects, consisting mostly of modest tract homes, the Diamond’s residence exhibits a high level of individualization not commonly visible in other Custom Ranch style properties associated with the company. The original architecture integrity of the resource remains with only minor alterations under the Diamond family’s ownership. Alterations include the removal of a rectangular frameless window and louvered window on the west elevation, the addition of a vinyl unit on the east elevation, the removal of a louvered window and original front door on the main (north) elevation, and replacement of the original roofing over the covered patio on the southeast corner of the dwelling. Overall the resource retains integrity of location, materials, setting, and design.

The Historic Preservation Commission concluded that the resource qualifies for landmark designation under Criterion C, for embodying distinctive characteristics of the Custom Ranch architectural style. The house is one of only two identified Custom Ranch properties attributed to the Diamond Construction Company in La Mesa. The Commission further concluded that the resource also qualifies for designation under Criterion D, representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect, as representing the notable work of the Diamond Construction Company in the Custom Ranch style.

Page 255 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 5 of 6
Mills Act Agreement
In addition to landmark designation, the property owner is seeking to enter into a property preservation agreement with the City under the Mills Act concurrently with the landmark nomination. Although the property is currently in good condition, the owner has prepared a detailed rehabilitation plan that addresses ongoing maintenance of windows, siding, stucco, masonry, roofing, hardware, etc. and identifies rehabilitation needs where alterations have occurred. Improvements would be funded with the Mills Act tax savings and are proposed for inclusion in the Mills Act agreement. The applicant has outlined a ten-year plan to complete the rehabilitation, including the following:
 Install period appropriate fixed ribbed glass glazing on the north (front) elevation where jalousie windows were once located (2026).
 Rehabilitate fixed wood windows at the west and north elevations (2027).  Maintenance and rehabilitation of hardscape site features (2028).  Remove non-historic basketball hoop located above garage door (2030).  Replace non-historic vinyl windows at the kitchen and on the south elevation of the dark room with period-appropriate aluminum casement units (2033).

Public Notice of Project
Notification of the September 10, 2024, public hearing to consider the historic landmark application and the Mills Act agreement was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and published in the Daily Transcript on August 29, 2024. No comments have been received.

Environmental Review:

The historic landmark nomination request is exempt from environmental review pursuant to categorical exemption Class 1, Existing Facilities and categorical exemption Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, as provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15331, respectively.

Section 15301 exempts activities involving negligible or no expansion of use of an existing facility. Section 15331 exempts the preservation and conservation of historical resources when carried out in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Exterior alterations to historic landmarks are subject to development approval by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to ensure that cultural resources are being maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The project serves to protect the resource by ensuring that

Page 256 of 479 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: September 10, 2024
Page: 6 of 6
future alterations are subject to the standards described in Section 15331. None of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply.

CONCLUSION:

The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions designating the property known as the Palmer "Darrell” Diamond Residence located at 9353 Lemon Avenue as a historic landmark under Criterion C for embodying distinctive characteristics of the Custom Ranch style and under criterion D for being representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, the Diamond Construction Company (Attachment A), and authorizing a Mills Act Preservation Agreement (Attachment B).

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____Lynnette Santos___________
Greg Humora Lynnette Santos
City Manager Director of Community Development
Attachments:

A. Draft Council Resolution for Historic Landmark Designation B. Draft Council Resolution for Mills Act Agreement
C. Resolution HPC 2024-01 Recommending Landmark Designation D. Resolution HPC 2024-02 Recommending a Mills Act Agreement E. Assessor Parcel Map Sheet
F. Historic Landmark Nomination Report

Page 257 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
DESIGNATING THE PALMER “DARRELL” DIAMOND RESIDENCE AT 9353 LEMON AVENUE, APN 495-175-04-00 AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Angelique Harbin, owner of the property located at 9353 Lemon Avenue, APN 495-175-04-00 in the R1S-P (Suburban Residential/Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, has submitted a request to designate the property as a local historic landmark of the City of La Mesa; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of La Mesa held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2024, and accepted public testimony in considering the request; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission did adopt Resolution HPC 2024-01 on June 4, 2024, recommending to the City Council designation of the Palmer “Darrell” Diamond Residence at 9353 Lemon Avenue, as a Historic Landmark, based on eligibility criterion C for embodying distinctive characteristics of the Custom Ranch style and criterion D for being representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, the Diamond Construction Company; WHEREAS, the City Council received and considered a staff report on the Historic Preservation Commission’s determination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did hold a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 2024, and accepted public testimony in considering Project 2024-0794, a request to designate the Palmer “Darrell” Diamond Residence at 9353 Lemon Avenue as a historic landmark in the City of La Mesa.

THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the project is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15331. Section 15301 exempts activities involving negligible or no expansion of use of an existing facility.

Section 15331 exempts the preservation and conservation of historical resources when carried out in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The project serves to protect the resource by ensuring that future alterations are subject to the standards described in Section 15331. The project meets the criteria for the exemptions and none of the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 apply.

2. Project 2024-0794 complies with Section 25.03.010 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Landmark and Historic District Designation Criteria, finding that Criteria C and D of the Section apply to the historical and cultural significance of the property.

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

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

2. The City Council designates the Palmer “Darrell” Diamond Residence, located at

Page 258 of 479 ends

9353 Lemon Avenue and further described in “Exhibit A”, attached thereto and made a part thereof, as a Historic Landmark.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be 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)

Page 259 of 479 ends

Exhibit A
Legal Description

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LA MESA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALL THAT PORTION OF LOTS 10, 11, 12, 13 AND "C" OF MT. HELIX SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1516, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON JANUARY 13, 1913, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MT. HELIX

SUBDIVISION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF LEMON AVENUE AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 2111 OF AVOCADO VILLAS, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 30

SECONDS EAST ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD (KNOWN AS LEMON AVENUE) A DISTANCE OF 279.72 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 94.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 44 MINUTES EAST PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MT. HELIX SUBDIVISION A DISTANCE OF 195.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE CENTER LINE OF SAID LEMON AVENUE, 94.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 44 MINUTES WEST 195.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 495-175-04-00

Page 260 of 479 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK PROPERTY

PRESERVATION AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC
LANDMARK KNOWN AS THE PALMER “DARRELL” DIAMOND RESIDENCE AT 9353 LEMON AVENUE, APN 495-175-04-00
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Angelique Harbin, owner of the property located at 9353 Lemon Avenue, APN 495-175-04-00 in the R1S-P (Suburban Residential/Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, wishes to protect and preserve the characteristics of historical significance of their historic property by entering into an Historic Landmark Property Preservation Agreement authorized under the Mills Act with the City;
WHEREAS, properties listed on the City of La Mesa Historic Landmarks Registry are eligible, by Historic Landmark Property Preservation Agreement, for an assessment of valuation pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 3, part 2, of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, also known as the Mills Act;
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council of the City of La Mesa adopted Resolution No. 2024-XXX designating the Palmer “Darrell” Diamond Residence at 9353 Lemon Avenue as a historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did hold a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 2024, considered a staff report, and accepted public testimony in considering the request for a Historic Landmark Property Preservation agreement.

THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

2. That the project complies with California Government Code Sections 50280 et seq. as set forth in the Historic Landmark Property Preservation Agreement.

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

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

2. The Mayor is hereby authorized and instructed to execute for and on behalf of said City that certain Historic Landmark Property Preservation Agreement with Angelique

Page 261 of 479 ends

Harbin, owner of the property located at 9353 Lemon Avenue, to be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk, subject to the schedule of improvements described in “Exhibit A,” attached.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 10th day of September 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 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)

Page 262 of 479 ends

Exhibit A
Schedule of Improvements

Page 263 of 479 ends

Page 264 of 479 ends

Page 265 of 479 ends

Page 266 of 479 ends

Page 267 of 479 ends

Page 268 of 479 ends

Page 269 of 479 ends

Page 270 of 479 ends

E:\CP\Handouts\Applications\Historic Lndmrk Nom 041416.doc

HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION FORM

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT / PLANNING DIVISION
8130 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: 619.667.1177 • Fax: 619.667.1380

1. NAME
Historic:
and/or Common:

2. LOCATION
Address:

City: State: Zip:

3. CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE
 District  Public  Occupied  Agricultural  Museum
 Building(s)  Private  Unoccupied  Commercial  Park  Structure  Both  Work in progress  Educational  Private residence  Site  Entertainment  Religious
 Object PUBLIC AQUISITION  Government  Scientific
 In progress  Industrial  Transportation
 Being Considered  Military  Other

4. OWNER OF PROPERTY
Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

5. LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Courthouse, Registry of Deeds, etc.:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Palmer "Darrell” Diamond Residence Palmer "Darrell” Diamond Residence 9353 Lemon Avenue Diamond Residence La Mesa CA 91941 La Mesa Angelique C. Harbin 9353 Lemon Avenue CA 91941 County Administration Center 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 103 San Diego CA 92101

Page 271 of 479 ends

E:\CP\Handouts\Applications\Historic Lndmrk Nom 041416.doc 2

6. REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS
Title:

Date:

Depository for Survey Records:

City: State: Zip:

7. DESCRIPTION

CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE
 Excellent  Deteriorated  Unaltered  Original site
 Good  Ruins  Altered  Moved
 Fair  Unexposed Date:

Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance:

N/A
Constructed in 1956, the Diamond Residence is a one-story dwelling with an attached garage constructed in the Contemporary Custom Ranch architectural style by the Diamond Construction Company, Building Contractors. The single-family residence is sited on a rectangular shaped parcel, approximately 0.38-acres, on the south side of Lemon Avenue on a slightly raised lot within the La Mesa city limits. The surrounding area is defined by a high density single-family residential neighborhood constructed primarily between the 1940s and the 1970s. The dwelling has an irregular floorplan atop a concrete slab foundation, is low-to-the-ground, and is sited in an east-to-west orientation. The dwelling has a long horizontal massing, an asymmetrical facade, vertical board-and-batten siding, stucco, and concrete masonry unit wall painted olive green in color and features locally sourced custom cut stone on the dwelling, front elevation planter, and adjoining walls. The low-pitched side gabled roof has a deep eave overhang with exposed rafters and boxed eaves. The fenestration throughout the dwelling consists mostly of aluminum sliding sash and casement windows, fixed frameless windows, and sliding glass doors and flush wood-framed doors. Identifying characteristics of a Custom Ranch property include: an asymmetrical facade, horizontal massing, board-and-batten façade, custom cut stone, low-pitched roof, frameless windows, absence of applied decoration, a shallow pitched roof with a deep eave overhang, large landscaped property and associated hardscape, and strong interior and exterior connections.

Minor alterations made to the property at an unidentified date include the removal and replacement of the original main entryway door with a white hollow paneled door and later with the current period appropriate, diamond lite mid-century style doors; the removal of louvered windows located on the north elevation, left of the main entryway; and removal and replacement of two original window on the east elevation with vinyl window units. In 2010, a solar panel addition was added to the property (Permit No.

B10-357). No further alterations were identified.

Page 272 of 479 ends

E:\CP\Handouts\Applications\Historic Lndmrk Nom 041416.doc 3

8. SIGNIFICANCE
PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE – CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW
 Prehistoric  Archeology-Prehistoric  Conservation  Landscape Architecture  Religion  1400-1499  Archeology-Historic  Economics  Law  Science  1500-1599  Agricultural  Education  Literature  Sculpture  1600-1699  Architecture  Engineering  Military  Social /  1700-1799  Art  Exploration/Settlement  Music  Humanitarian  1800-1899  Commerce  Industry  Philosophy  Theater  1900-  Communications  Invention  Politics/Government  Transportation  Community Planning  Other (specify)
SPECIFIC DATES: BUILDER/ARCHITECT:

Statement Of Significance:
1956 Diamond Construction Company
The Diamond Residence is one of two identified Custom Ranch properties constructed in the City of La Mesa attributed to the Diamond Construction Company. Founded in 1927 by Palmer “Delos” Diamond of Chicago, the company was known for their quality standardized and custom designs. Under the leadership of Diamond’s two sons, Norval, a licensed architect, and Darrell, a licensed engineer, the company designed and constructed several single-family and multi-family properties throughout the San Diego region between the late 1920s and 1970s. At least 200 properties located in the Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach, Mission Beach, La Jolla, Point Loma, Bay Park, City Heights, Barrio Logan, Coronado, Lemon Grove, Encanto, Spring Valley, Little Italy, Talmadge, North Park, Escondido, and La Mesa neighborhoods of San Diego, are attributed to the family-owned business. Homes produced by the Diamond Construction Company were built in the Spanish Revival, Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, Colonial Revival, Spanish Eclectic, Minimal Traditional, and Ranch architectural styles.

Throughout the company’s history, the Diamonds offered buyers affordable yet aesthetically pleasing residential properties, many of which were funded by the FHA and featured in housing festivals.

The Diamond Residence, located at 9353 Lemon Avenue, is a significant cultural resource that appears to qualify for designation as a landmark under the City of La Mesa Historic Preservation Ordinance. The property embodies distinctive characteristics of the Custom Ranch style and is significant for its architecture. The building is a notable work of an acclaimed builder, the Diamond Construction Company, and is representative of a significant builder in La Mesa and San Diego. The house has experienced minimal changes and is regarded as a finite resource type in the La Mesa region. It is one of two identified dwellings constructed in the Custom Ranch style attributed to the company in the City of La Mesa.

The property qualifies for designation under the following City of La Mesa Register of Historic Landmark criteria.
• Criterion C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of the Custom Ranch architectural style. • Criterion D for representing the notable work of the Diamond Construction Company in the Custom Ranch style. The period of significance under this context and criterion is 1956 representing the original construction date.

Page 273 of 479 ends

E:\CP\Handouts\Applications\Historic Lndmrk Nom 041416.doc 4

9. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS

10. SOURCES

11. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA

12. FORM PREPARED BY:

13. APPLICATION PREPARED BY:
2024- Reinstall "The Diamonds Live Here" wood sign at driveway entrance. 2025-Inspect aluminum windows and sliding doors for deterioration, damage, and oxidation.

Clean glass and frames using non-corrosive products. Replace damaged parts / components in-kind if repair is not possible.
2026- Install period appropriate fixed vertical ribbed glazing at the north elevation focal window sited left / east of the entry doors. The lower panels originally featured jalousie slats that were removed for security purposes. Vertical ribbed glass is original to the design and is installed at windows immediately right of the entry doors and left of the focal window, at the west carport wall. Match the new glazing at the focal window lower panels to the existing vertical ribbed glazing.
2027-Inspect and rehabilitate original, fixed wood windows at the west and north elevations.

Clean glazing, repair wood as needed including patch, sand, paint / seal, and caulk.

Replace in-kind if damaged beyond repair. See Rehabilitation Plan for complete list.

1. “1953 Historic Aerial of La Mesa,” Website: HistoricAerials.com

2. "American System Built Homes,” Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. (n.d.), Website: https:// franklloydwright.org/site/american-system-built-homes/. Accessed 2023

3. Ancestry.com. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.

4. Ancestry.com. U.S., Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA:

Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.

5. Ancestry.com. U.S., Find a Grave® Index, 1600s-Current [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.

6. Ancestry.com. Cook County, Illinois, U.S., Marriages Index, 1871-1920 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA:

Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.

7. “Builders Contest Peps Up San Diego,” American Builder and Building Age 1937, Vol. 59, Issue. 6 (US:

Simmons Boardman Publication Corporation, 1937); https://archive.org/details/sim_americanbuilder_1937-06_59_6/page/74/mode/2up?q=Bay+Park. Accessed 2023

8. “Business Search,” California Secretary of State, Website: https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business , Accessed Nov 2023.

9. California Department of Public Health, courtesy of www.vitalsearch-worldwide.com.

10. California State Library; Sacramento, California; Great Register of Voters, 1900-1968.

11. “Chicago Housing Association,” Los Angeles Times, January 4, 1920.

12. “Chicago’s Housing Project,” The Windsor Star, Sep 1, 1920.

13. “Chicago Housing Project Magnet for Wide World,” The Englewood Economist, August 4, 1920.

14. “Chicago Housing Project Magnet for Wide World,” Suburbanite Economist, August 10, 1920.

15. “Chicago Realizes Housing Project,” Tacoma Daily Ledger, Jun 27, 1920.

16. Coronado Eagle and Journal, 1956.

17. Diamond Tract, Map No. 02885. See report for complete list of sources.

APN#495-175-04; UTM: Zone 11; 500375.59 m E ; 3625557.43 m N Alexia Landa, Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC Alexia Landa, Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC

Page 274 of 479 ends

Page 275 of 479 ends

Historic Site Designation Report
Diamond Residence | 9353 Lemon Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91941 APN: 495-175-04-00

PREPARED FOR
Angelique C. Harbin
9353 Lemon Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941

PREPARED BY
Alexia Landa, BA, Historian
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
www.urbanapreservation.com
(844) – URBANA3

SUBMITTED TO
City of La Mesa
Planning & Zoning Division
Historic Preservation Commission
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
JANUARY 2024

Page 276 of 479 ends

Historic Site Designation Report
Diamond Residence | 9353 Lemon Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91941 APN: 495-175-04-00
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
January 2024 | Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 4 II. HISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................... 5 La Mesa Background......................................................................................................................... 5 Architectural Context – Custom Ranch Style................................................................................ 10 Diamond Construction Company, 1927-1974 .............................................................................. 12 Diamond Residence | 9353 Lemon Avenue................................................................................ 24 III. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ELIGIBILITY .................................................................................................................... 27 Significance ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Integrity and Rehabilitation Considerations.................................................................................. 30 IV. ENDNOTES / WORKS CITED............................................................................................................................ 31 Tables
Table 1. Designated Historic Landmarks in La Mesa
Table 2. San Diego City Directory Listings for the Diamond Construction Company, 1927-1974.

Table 3. Identified Properties Attributed to the Diamond Construction Company, 1927-1974.

Attachments
A. HISTORIC IMAGERY AND DOCUMENTATION
Figure 1a-c: P. “Delos” Diamond Building Permits.

Figure 2a-b: P. “Delos” Diamond Partnerships.

Figure 3a-b: ASB Homes
Figure 4: 10541 S. Hoyne Avenue.

Figure 5a-c: Chicago Housing Project
Figure 6a-b: Los Angeles Housing Expert
Figure 7a-e: Los Angeles Diamond Construction Co. properties.

Figure 8: Evening Tribune, 1929
Figure 9: Evening Tribune, 1930.

Figure 10a-b: Darrel Diamond and Norval Diamond Credentials.

Figure 11a-b: Diamond Construction Co. Cottage House Type Figure 12a-b: Diamond Construction Co. Property, 2435 Marilouise Way.

Figure 13a-b: Bay Park Village Development, 1937.

Figure 14: Bay Park Village Featured on American Builder in 1937.

Figure 15: Evening Tribune, 1938.

Figure 16a-c: Diamond Construction Co. Garden House, 1938.

Figure 17a-b: Diamond Construction Co. 3319 Udall Street property, 1940.

Figure 18a-b: Diamond Tract, 1952.

Figure 19a-b: Diamond Tract Map No. 2885.

Figure 20a-b: Diamond Construction Co. Coronado Lots, 1956.

Figure 21a-b: Coronado Record of Survey Map No.4107, 1956.

Figure 22: Evening Tribune, 1956.

Figure 23a-c: Sapphire Terrace Map No. 3610, 1957.

Figure 24: Evening Tribune, 1960.

Figure 25a-b: The Onlooker, 1929.

Figure 26a-b: Janis Diamond President of Pacific Beach Women’s Club, 1930s.

Figure 27a-c: Janis Diamond Art Shows.

Figure 28a-f: Diamond Construction Company Blueprints, 1956.

Figure 29a-b: Grossmont Hospital Women’s Auxiliary Home and Garden Tour, 1957.

Figure 30a-h: Historic Aerials.

Page 277 of 479 ends

La Mesa City CouncilSeptember 10, 2024

La Mesa City Council
September 10, 2024