La Mesa City Council
April 22, 2025

LA MESA CITY COUNCIL AND LA MESA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA

A Regular Meeting of the City Council and a Special Meeting of the La Mesa Public Financing Authority

Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 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 Lauren Cazares
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Genevieve Suzuki
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 be 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 CAZARES

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 2025 CITY OF LA MESA COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY 8

5.2 PRESENTATION ON THE PLANNING PHASE OF THE LA MESA BIKE

AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT
100

5.3 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS VOLUNTEER

APPRECIATION MONTH

5.4 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY AS WATER SAFETY MONTH

5.5 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY AS BIKE MONTH

5.6 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY 2025 AS JEWISH AMERICAN

HERITAGE MONTH

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 THE VACANCY ON

THE MOBILITY COMMISSION
127
Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:

The Mayor make the appointment to fill the vacancy, with the approval of the Council, and adopt the Resolution confirming the appointment.

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 10.7)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.
*If a public hearing item is part of the Consent Calendar, the public hearing shall be deemed held if the item is not removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action (Items 10.6 and 10.7).

Recommended Motion:

Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.7.

10.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT

OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2025
131
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.3 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ("SANDAG")

SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION
138

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT

APPLICATION TO THE SANDAG SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE
PROGRAM TO FUND PHASE 2 OF THE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE

SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE, AND IF AWARDED, ACCEPTING AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDEMENT TO THE 2023 PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (“PLA”) BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA

MESA AND THE SAN DIEGO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL AND SIGNATORY CRAFT UNIONS (“TRADES
COUNCIL AND UNIONS”)
143
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 5

FOR THE BOULEVARD DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT BID NO. 24-16, TO SC VALLEY ENGINEERING, INC.
200
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.6 *QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK

ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE
208

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINDINGS FOR THE QUIMBY ACT

PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK ACQUISITION

AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ. AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PROJECTS AS OUTLINED IN THE

PARKS MASTER PLAN
Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.7 *SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ("SANDAG")

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ("RTCIP")

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
214

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANDAG ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO

THE RTCIP DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01

AND TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE
PLAN
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

11. CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC FINANCING

AUTHORITY
(Items 11.1 through 11.2)
Recommended Motion:

Approve Consent Calendar Items 11.1 through 11.2.

11.1 ACCEPTANCE OF THE SINGLE AUDIT OF FEDERALLY ASSISTED GRANT PROGRAMS FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2023
219
Staff Reference: Mr. Herrera
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

11.2 ACCEPTANCE OF BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LA MESA
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2023
238
Staff Reference: Mr. Herrera
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

12. ORDINANCE: FIRST READING

12.1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

ADOPTING A FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES MAP AS REQUIRED

BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
379
Staff Reference: Chief Koch
Recommended Motion:

Approve the introduction and first reading of the Ordinance.

13. STAFF REPORT

13.1 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS REQUIRED BY PROPOSITION 218 AND SCHEDULE A

PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED INCREASE IN EDCO WASTE
RATES TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025
391
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:

Authorize staff to initiate the notification process required by Proposition 218 and schedule a public hearing for a proposed increase in EDCO waste rates to be effective July 1, 2025.

14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)

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

16. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

17. ADJOURNMENT

DATE: April 22, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Greg Humora, City Manager
VIA: Lyn Dedmon, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: 2025 CITY OF LA MESA COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
Every two years, the City of La Mesa conducts a statistically valid public opinion community survey to identify key issues of concern for residents and measure their overall satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide municipal services. This sample survey is designed to gather opinions on specific topics, including public safety, code enforcement, and communication as well as overall quality of life. The survey, which began in 2006, enables the City to track trends and identify areas of improvement.

For the 2025 Community Opinion Survey, the independent survey research firm True North Research randomly selected 1,110 La Mesa residents to participate in the survey.

True North designed the sampling methodology to ensure that respondents equally represented the four quadrants of the community. Respondents were offered the option to participate by telephone or online. The study used a combination of mailed invitations, email, and phone calls to recruit participation in the survey.

Attached please find the Summary Report for the 2025 City of La Mesa Community Opinion Survey. A concise outline of the key findings from the survey can be found beginning on page 4. A more detailed analysis of the responses to each question in the survey begins on page 10.

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

Attachments:

A. Summary Report: 2025 City of La Mesa Community Opinion Survey

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table of Contents
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Table of Contents
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

List of Tables
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Top Changes to Improve La Mesa by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2 Importance of Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 3 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 4 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfaction With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 5 Resident Service Needs & Priorities Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 6 Perceptions of Personal Safety by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 7 Opinion of Police Performance by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 8 Agreement With Statements About Police Department by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 9 Interactions With La Mesa Police Department in Past 2 Years by Study Year. . . . . . 34 Table 10 Perception of Traffic Circulation by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 11 Opinion of City Staff by Study Year (Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . 43 Table 12 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Age & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table 13 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Satisfaction With Communication & Opinion of Police Department (Showing % Very Effective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table 14 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Very Effective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table 15 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Quadrant of City & Child in Hsld (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table 16 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

List of Figures
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

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

List of Figures
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Figure 38 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 39 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Years in La Mesa, Home Ownership Status & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 40 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Age & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 41 Satisfaction With Enforcement by Quadrant, Child in Hsld, Gender & Perceived Safety of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 42 Reason For Dissatisfaction With Code Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 43 Perception of Traffic Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 44 Perception of Traffic Circulation Overall by Quadrant of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 45 Perception of Traffic Circulation on Major Streets by Quadrant of City. . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 46 Perception of Traffic Circulation in Residential Areas by Quadrant of City . . . . . . . 40 Figure 47 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 48 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Age & Quadrant of City . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 49 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Home Ownership Status, Ethnicity, Overall Satisfaction & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 50 Opinion of City Staff (Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 51 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 52 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in La Mesa, Visited City Website & Child in Hsld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 53 Satisfaction With Communication by Age & Quadrant of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 54 Satisfaction With Communication by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 55 Satisfaction With Communication by Perceived Safety of City, Interacted With Police Department in Past 2 Years & Opinion of Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 56 Effectiveness of Communication Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 57 Preferred Social Media Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 58 Preferred Social Media Site by Years in La Mesa & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 59 Preferred Social Media Site by Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status, Quadrant of City & Perceived Safety of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 60 Preferred Social Media Site by Opinion of Police Department & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 61 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 62 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Years in La Mesa, Contact With City Staff & Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 63 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Quadrant of City, Age & Child in Hsld. . . . 52 Figure 64 City Website Visit in Past 12 Months by Home Ownership Status, Gender & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 65 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Introduction
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
Known as the Jewel of the Hills, the City of La Mesa encompasses approximately nine square miles in the rolling hills of southern San Diego County. Incorporated as a general law city in 1912, La Mesa has a rich and colorful history that extends more than a century from its agricultural origins in the late 1800s and has been well-preserved throughout the City with more than three-dozen historical landmarks. Today, La Mesa is home to an estimated 60,620 residents1 and has a team of full-time and part-time employees that provides a full suite of services to the community through ten primary departments: City Manager’s Office, City Clerk, Community Development, Community Services, Finance, Fire, Human Resources, Information Technology, Police, and Public Works.

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

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

This is not the first statistically reliable ‘resident satisfaction’ survey conducted for the City— similar studies have been implemented in prior years dating back to 1989, with the most recent

1. Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population and Housing Estimates, January 2024.

Introduction
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 being completed by True North in 2006, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023.

Because of the natural interest in tracking the City’s performance in meeting the evolving needs of its residents, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions included in previous studies.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE Many figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2025 alongside the results found in prior surveys for identical questions. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the most recent prior survey (2023) and the current (2025)—as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at random. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2025.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 54). In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 1,110 adults who reside within the City. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English and Spanish between March 5 and March 11, 2025, the average telephone interview lasted 20 minutes. For sampling and analytical purposes, all respondents were grouped into one of four geographic subareas (quadrants) shown in Figure 1 on the next page based on the location of their residence.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

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

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

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

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

Introduction
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FIGURE 1 QUADRANTS IDENTIFIED IN STUDY
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, organizational development, establishing fiscal priorities, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 500 studies for California municipalities and special districts. n¤
n¤
n¤
n¤
n¤
Lake Murray
!"#$8
!"#$8
!"#$8
!"#$8
·|}þ125
·|}þ125
·|}þ125
·|}þ94
Jackson Drive
Spring Street
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
Northwest
Data Sources:

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

OPINION SURVEY

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

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

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

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

How well is the City performing in meeting the
needs of La Mesa residents?
La Mesa residents continue to be satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide services and with the quality of life in their city. Moreover, as detailed throughout this report, resident satisfaction improved significantly over the past two years in many service areas. Overall, 80% of all residents surveyed in 2025 (and 87% of those with an opinion) indicated that they were satisfied with the City’s general performance in providing municipal services, which is significantly higher than the 71% recorded in 2023 and in line with the 81% recorded in 2021.

When asked to rate the City’s performance in providing 21 specific services, the majority of respondents in 2025 indicated they were satisfied with the City’s performance in all but two (2) service areas, with satisfaction highest for fire protection services (94% very or somewhat satisfied), emergency medical services (94%), keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (89%), maintaining parks and sports fields (89%), and providing programs for seniors (88%). Satisfaction with services trended positive from 2023 to 2025, with 13 statistically significant improvements. Among those, double-digit increases were recorded for addressing homelessness (+15%), providing programs for seniors (+14%), preparing the community for emergencies (+14%), and maintaining a low crime rate (+12%) (see Specific Services on page 16).

For all but four (4) of the 21 service areas tested, the City is meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of at least seven-in-ten residents—and for the majority of services the City is meeting the needs of at least eight-in-ten residents (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 20).

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The City’s performance providing municipal services has contributed to a strong quality of life for residents. Indeed, 85% of residents surveyed in 2025 rated the quality of the life in La Mesa as excellent or good. This figure is significantly higher than the level recorded in 2023 (73%). Positive sentiment was also widespread, with at least three-quarters of residents in nearly all demographic subgroups rating the quality of life in La Mesa as excellent or good (see Quality of Life on page 10).

How do residents view
city staff’s performance?
Staff members at the City of La Mesa are often the “face” of the City for residents who are using city facilities, participating in various programs or events, or in need of assistance from the City on any number of matters. City staff continue to be a bright spot in the Community Opinion Survey. Twenty-two percent (22%) of respondents in 2025 indicated that they had contacted La Mesa staff at least once during the 12 months prior to the interview, and approximately nine-in-ten residents indicated that staff members were professional (96%), responsive (92%), and helpful (88%) during these interactions. Although staff ratings have been consistently positive over the years, the 2025 results are even more so.

Indeed, the percentage who provided ratings of very or somewhat responsive was significantly higher in 2025 than 2023 (+7%), as was the percentage who rated staff as very professional (+12%) (see Staff Interactions on page 41).

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

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they feel city government could do to make La Mesa a better place to live (see Ways to Improve Quality of Life on page 12), as well as the list of services and their respective priority status for future city attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 20), the top priorities for residents remained the same from 2023 to 2025: addressing homelessness, facilitating the creation of affordable housing, maintaining and repairing streets, creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community, and providing neighborhood police patrols.

With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, as in past years it is equally important to stress that when it comes to improving satisfaction in service areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better communication and actual service improvements. That is, in some cases service improvements are needed to raise satisfaction with the City’s performance. In other cases, particularly those that

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 involve policies affecting services and facilities which are not readily apparent, the key may instead be to communicate better with residents about current efforts and future plans with respect to a particular service area. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware that the City has taken action to address homelessness through its 2021 to 2026 Homeless Action Plan and Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) Program developed through recommendations provided by the Citizen's Task Force on Homelessness. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvements, policy changes, and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfaction in the short- and long-term.

What do the survey
results reveal about residents’ perceptions of the
Police Department?
Recent surveys have addressed public perceptions of safety and the La Mesa Police Department head-on. In addition to questions that were included in surveys prior to 2021 designed to track the Department’s performance in maintaining a low crime rate, providing crime prevention programs, and providing neighborhood police patrols, a suite of new questions was added in 2021 to provide a more nuanced understanding of how residents perceive the Department’s interactions with the community and how they characterize the Department when it comes to professionalism, trustworthiness, and accountability (2021 to 2025), as well as equal treatment of residents (2023 & 2025).

With respect to the safety of La Mesa as a place to live, 91% of residents described the City as either very safe or somewhat safe, and this pattern was strikingly consistent across most demographic subgroups (see Perceived Safety on page 23). The percentage of residents who felt very safe experienced a statistically significant increase from 2023 to 2025 (+12%), as did their overall perception of safety (91% vs. 85%). The 2025 results are also significantly higher than levels recorded in 2021 when this question was first introduced (34% very safe and 88% overall).

There were also statistically significant increases in four of the five specific safety scenarios from 2023 to 2025. During daylight hours, 95% of residents who provided an opinion felt safe walking alone in their neighborhood (consistent with 2023) or in business and retail areas (+5% from 2023), and 87% felt safe walking alone in parks and on paths and recreation trails during the day (+7% from 2023). After dark, fewer residents felt safe walking alone in their neighborhood (67%) and in business and retail areas of the City (63%), although these metrics also saw improvement between 2023 and 2025 (see Perceived Safety on page 23).

When asked to rate various aspects of the La Mesa Police Department’s performance, between 73% and 82% of residents indicated they were generally satisfied with the Department’s efforts to maintain a low crime rate (82%), provide crime prevention programs (76%), enforce traffic laws

Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (75%), and provide neighborhood police patrols (73%). From 2023 to 2025, resident satisfaction with the Department’s efforts to maintain a low crime rate (+12%), provide neighborhood police patrols (+10%), and provide crime prevention programs (+7%) experienced significant improvements, whereas ratings were consistent for enforcing traffic laws (see Specific Services on page 16). Although not necessarily handled by the Police, residents were also much more satisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations such as illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction, junk storage, and properties not being properly maintained in 2025 than 2023 (71% vs. 63% very or somewhat satisfied) (see Code Enforcement on page 36).

The Police Department also received high marks from many respondents for maintaining a presence and being visible (52% excellent or good), engaging and interacting with the public (45%), communicating with La Mesa residents and local businesses (41%), and investigating crimes (40%). Ratings for the Department’s efforts to work with the community to solve problems were softer (38%). From 2023 to 2025, the performance rating for maintaining a presence and being visible improved (+4%), while the other four performance statements remained fairly consistent (see Ratings of Police Department’s Performance on page 29).

Turning to perceptions of conduct and culture, most La Mesans agreed that they trust the Police Department to protect and serve the public (69%) and perceived that the Department demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public (64%), while opinions were more divided regarding whether the Department treats people the same regardless of their race, income, or identity (41% in agreement, 19% in disagreement, 40% unsure) and how well it holds its officers accountable (38% in agreement, 14% in disagreement, 48% unsure). From 2023 to 2025, agreement with the statements related to professionalism and trust were higher (+6% and +5%, respectively), while equal treatment and accountability remained statistically unchanged.

Considering how each respondent rated the Department on the aforementioned dimensions, 64% generally held positive perceptions of the Police Department, whereas the remainder of respondents were evenly split between negative, mixed, and unsure perceptions (12% each). Perceptions were more positive in 2025 than 2023 (+5%), with statistically significant changes recorded in every response category (see Professionalism, Trust, Accountability & Equal Treatment on page 30).

Attitudes about the La Mesa Police Department are somewhat related to interactions with the Department. Although positive perceptions were only slightly higher among those who had interacted with the Police Department over the past two years when compared with those who had not (67% vs. 62%), respondents who had not interacted with the DepartPage 22 of 402 Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ment were nearly five times more likely to not have an opinion while those who had interacted with the Department were twice as likely to hold a mixed opinion. These same attitudes also appear to be associated with broader opinions about the community and the City’s performance.

Those with positive views of the Police Department were much more likely than those with negative views to rate the quality of life in the City as excellent or good, feel La Mesa is a safe place to live, and indicate that they are satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services.

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

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

The trends noted above likely underlie some of the changes in resident satisfaction with the City of La Mesa’s communication efforts since True North’s first survey for the City nearly 20 years ago. In 2006, eight-in-ten residents (80%) indicated that they were generally satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with them through newsletters, the Internet, and other means, with 45% stating that they were very satisfied. The corresponding figures in the 2025 survey were 58% and 19%, respectively. La Mesa is not alone in this area, as many other municipalities have displayed similar trends in satisfaction with city-resident communication.

Against this backdrop of declining satisfaction with public agency communications in general, the survey results indicate that the City of La Mesa has improved in this area over the past two years (+5%), yet is still below the prior range of 61% to 64% recorded from 2017 to 2021. The above notwithstanding, both the 2023 and 2025 studies did find a sigPage 23 of 402 Key Findings
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 nificant percentage of respondents who were unsure when asked about their satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts (21% and 24%, respectively), much higher than the 12% to 15% range recorded since 2015. Factoring those responses out of the analysis reveals a significant rebound for city-resident communication in 2025 when compared with the results from 2017 to 2023, and is now just one tick below the level recorded a decade ago (2025: 78%, 2023: 69%, 2021: 72%, 2019: 73%, 2017: 73%, 2015: 79%).

The relationship between city-resident communication and perceptions of the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services was also pronounced, with those satisfied with the City’s communication efforts also being much more likely than their counterparts to be satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services (see Communication on page 44).

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

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

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

QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the City using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 2 below, 85% of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in La Mesa, with 20% reporting it is excellent and 64% stating it is good. Approximately 13% of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, while 2% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in the City. When compared to 2023, there were statistically significant increases in excellent and good ratings (+12%) and a corresponding decline in the percentage who rated the quality of life in La Mesa as fair.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor? FIGURE 2 OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

For the interested reader, figures 3-5 on the next page show how quality of life ratings varied by years living in La Mesa, home ownership status, opinions of La Mesa’s Police Department, age of the respondent, ethnicity, the quadrant of the City where the respondent resides, presence of a child in the home, gender, and perceptions of safety. With the exception of residents who rated the City as unsafe, at least three-quarters of respondents in every other identified subgroup rated the quality of life in La Mesa as excellent or good. Furthermore, residents in the Southeast quadrant of the City and seniors (65+) were the most likely to view it as excellent.

16.6 23.6 30.9 29.8 32.0

40.7 32.3 34.1

56.1 61.5

58.7 60.9 58.2

50.7 57.0 55.1

23.8 13.4 9.5 7.8 8.1 7.3 8.7 9.1

20.2†

64.3†

13.2†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FIGURE 3 OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OPINION OF POLICE

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

21.7 19.9 25.5

16.0 63.2 64.2

63.3 61.4

72.3 63.8

17.2 12.5

23.4 Excellent

23.8 3.0

15.7 65.6

64.6 63.6 Good

62.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents

31.5 21.2 17.7 24.7

57.4 65.9

60.9 57.0 72.7

69.3 18.4 14.9
Excellent

19.8 16.7 15.7 21.3
Good

63.0 67.1 63.1

66.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or
older
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents

16.6 22.3 19.8 21.7

64.4 64.1 64.7 64.2 67.0

37.6 31.2

15.4 17.7 Excellent

16.5 22.1

1.7 60.7

68.2 62.2
Good

66.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 WAYS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE Respondents were next asked to indicate the one thing the City could change to make La Mesa a better place to live, now and in the future.

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

Approximately 15% of respondents said they could not think of a change they desire for the City of La Mesa. Among specific changes mentioned, the most common was addressing homeless issues (16%), followed by improving and repairing roads (13%), limiting growth and development (8%), and adding/improving sidewalks for increased walkability (7%). No other single improvement was mentioned by more than 5% of respondents overall, although there were specific references to additional public safety-related items including enforcing traffic laws (4%), increasing public safety (4%), and improving police presence/response (3%) that collectively total more than 5%.

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

16.2 15.0

12.5 7.5

7.4 4.7

4.1 4.1

4.1 3.8

3.6 3.3

2.9 2.3

2.1 2.1

1.9 1.8

1.7 4.0

3.6 0 5 10 15 20
Address homeless issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve, repair roads
Limit growth, development
Add, improve sidewalks / Improve walkability
Clean up public areas, facilities
Reduce traffic congestion
Enforce traffic laws
Provide affordable housing
Increase public safety
Add more bike lanes
Improve parking
Add, improve parks
Improve police presence, response
Improve public transportation
Address rent control issues
Provide more community events, activities
Improve building permitting process
Reduce marijuana dispensers
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Improve street lighting
% Respondents

Quality of Life
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 1 below shows the top five response categories for 2025, as well as each of the previous studies. The qualitative nature of recording, categorizing, and coding verbatim responses limits the ability to perform statistical significance testing between surveys. That said, four of the top five suggested improvements remained the same from 2023 to 2025.

TABLE 1 TOP CHANGES TO IMPROVE LA MESA BY STUDY YEAR
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Address
homeless
issues
Address
homeless
issues
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Not sure /
Cannot think of
anything
Address
homeless
issues
Address
homeless
issues
Improve, repair
roads
Increase public
safety
Increase public
safety
Increase public
safety
No problems /
Everything is
fine
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Address
homeless
issues
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Improve, repair
roads
Increase public
safety
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Increase public
safety
Provide
affordable
housing
Improve, police
presence,
response
Address
homeless
issues
No problems /
Everything is
fine
Reduce taxes,
fees
Reduce traffic
congestion
Add, improve
sidewalks /
Improve
walkability
Increase public
safety
Clean up public
areas, facilities
Limit growth,
development
Increase public
safety
Add, Improve
parks
Reduce taxes,
fees
No problems /
Everything is
fine
Improve, repair
roads
Study Year

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

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

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

As shown in Figure 7 below, eight-in-ten (80% of) La Mesa residents indicated that they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 24% saying they were very satisfied. Approximately 12% of residents reported that they were dissatisfied, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. When compared with 2023, overall satisfaction (very + somewhat) was significantly higher (+9%).

Question 4 Next, I'm going to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of La Mesa. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

The next three figures display satisfaction levels with the City’s performance among respondents who provided an opinion. When compared to their respective counterparts, overall satisfaction with the City’s performance was generally highest among those who had lived in the City 15 years or less, those holding a positive view of the Police Department or who did not provide an opinion, Asian respondents, those without a child in the home, and those who perceive the City to be safe. Satisfaction was relatively consistent by home ownership status, age, area of residence, and gender. Opinions regarding the Police Department and general safety of La Mesa bore a reasonably strong relationship to opinions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services.

20.2 30.3

41.7 41.5 43.5

51.6 47.0 52.5

50.7 50.7

43.8 45.6 42.8

40.0 43.1

40.6 15.2

6.4 3.2

4.8 1.1 8.8 6.0 2.5

23.5 56.6†

9.7 6.2 4.8 2.9 9.8†

2.4 2.6 2.1† 2.4 1.9

1.5 7.7 6.4 5.4 9.0 3.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 FIGURE 8 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OPINION OF POLICE

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

26.7 24.8 31.4

13.6 13.8 18.9

59.9 65.1

59.3 65.8 61.1

71.7 24.3 20.8 24.0
Very
satisfied

31.3 67.9 59.4 63.4
Smwt
satisfied

59.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

36.4 27.6 21.1

37.9 18.9 22.9

53.6 60.3

62.9 49.3

75.7 59.6
Very
satisfied

21.8 20.4 25.0 27.1
Smwt
satisfied

64.6 66.7 59.4

63.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

27.4 25.6 26.6 25.7 27.8

3.3 54.0 63.8 61.8 61.6 62.5

52.3 27.9 29.9

21.8 Very
satisfied

22.3 59.4 56.4 64.3
Smwt
satisfied

66.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 4 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next series of questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked if they thought a service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Respondents were then asked about their satisfaction with these same services. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.

Figure 11 presents the services sorted by order of importance according to the percentage of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. Overall, La Mesa residents rated providing fire protection services as the most important (97% extremely or very important) among the 21 services tested, followed by maintaining and repairing streets (95%), providing emergency medical services (93%), maintaining a low crime rate (92%), maintaining parks and sports fields (87%), and addressing homelessness (87%). At the other end of the spectrum, providing programs for adults (41%) and maintaining landscaped medians (46%) were viewed as less important.

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

FIGURE 11 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES

63.6 54.7

61.7 61.9

44.7 54.8

33.0 36.2

52.2 35.5

33.6 37.0

32.6 36.5

26.2 41.1

17.2 17.5

14.8 13.9

12.8 33.6

39.8 31.7

30.5 42.5

31.9 50.5

44.3 26.6

39.7 39.0

33.4 33.9

28.6 36.0

20.6 33.8

33.3 35.7

32.2 28.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection services
Maintaining and repairing streets
Providing emergency medical services
Maintaining a low crime rate
Maintaining parks and sports fields
Addressing homelessness
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Providing adequate traffic signs and signals
Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community
Preparing the community for emergencies
Providing programs for youth
Providing crime prevention programs
Providing neighborhood police patrols
Reducing stormwater pollution
Enforcing traffic laws
Facilitating the creation of affordable housing
Providing community events
Providing programs for seniors
Providing animal control services
Maintaining landscaped street medians
Providing programs for adults
% Respondents
Extremely important Very important

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 For the interested reader, Table 2 displays the percentage of respondents who viewed each service as extremely or very important by study year, as well as the difference between 2023 and 2025. Over the past two years, there were statistically significant increases in the importance ratings assigned to five of the services, with the largest for facilitating the creation of affordable housing and reducing stormwater pollution (each +8%).

TABLE 2 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 12 on the next page sorts the same list of 21 services according to the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service.2 Overall, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection services (94% very or somewhat satisfied), provide emergency medical services (94%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (89%), maintain parks and sports fields (89%), and provide programs for seniors (88%).

Respondents were notably less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the creation of affordable housing (36%) and address homelessness (38%).

Table 3 at the bottom of the next page displays the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service by study year, and shows there were 13 statistically significant improvements from 2023 to 2025. Double-digit increases in satisfaction were recorded for addressing homelessness (+15%), providing programs for seniors (+14%), preparing the community for emergencies (+14%), and maintaining a low crime rate (+12%).

2. Note that to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison of the satisfaction ratings, only respondents who held an opinion (either satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in Figure 12. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage who held an opinion for each service is shown to the right of the service label in brackets.
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Facilitating the creation of affordable housing 61.7 53.7 57.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A +8.0† Reducing stormwater pollution 65.1 57.3 66.7 70.5 74.2 67.9 63.7 59.3 70.4 +7.7† Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 83.5 76.2 79.2 77.6 78.1 72.6 69.8 62.3 75.8 +7.3† Providing programs for youth 72.6 66.8 77.3 75.5 74.7 68.5 69.9 66.4 N/A +5.8† Maintaining and repairing streets 94.5 89.9 89.7 93.8 91.1 88.6 87.2 86.8 83.8 +4.7† Providing adequate traffic signs and signals 80.5 75.9 79.1 80.0 78.0 76.3 74.8 73.0 79.9 +4.6 Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community 78.7 74.3 73.9 74.2 78.3 76.6 69.9 65.1 N/A +4.4 Providing animal control services 50.5 47.1 48.6 51.6 45.9 41.5 46.6 46.1 61.0 +3.5 Providing special events like community festivals 50.9 47.8 43.8 45.6 45.6 43.0 38.9 33.9 57.7 +3.1 Maintaining a low crime rate 92.4 89.5 91.4 97.0 93.9 98.1 93.6 94.2 91.1 +2.9 Providing fire protection services 97.2 94.4 92.2 94.2 92.9 95.2 94.5 91.2 91.0 +2.9 Providing neighborhood police patrols 66.5 64.8 71.6 79.0 79.0 80.3 79.5 78.5 84.4 +1.7 Providing programs for adults 41.4 40.1 44.9 45.5 46.9 40.6 38.6 35.3 N/A +1.3 Providing crime prevention programs 70.4 69.8 77.8 75.8 78.8 75.3 74.5 74.6 82.9 +0.6 Providing emergency medical services 93.4 93.0 94.3 89.9 93.9 89.1 91.4 91.3 87.9 +0.4 Maintaining parks and sports fields 87.2 86.8 84.6 80.2 78.4 71.5 70.3 67.1 71.2 +0.4 Preparing the community for emergencies 75.2 75.6 83.9 84.2 83.1 81.0 73.1 71.3 N/A -0.4 Providing programs for seniors 50.9 53.8 62.1 63.5 58.4 66.4 59.5 52.0 N/A -3.0 Addressing homelessness 86.7 89.9 88.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -3.2 Enforcing traffic laws 62.1 65.7 60.2 67.5 67.5 61.8 65.2 63.7 77.8 -3.6 Maintaining landscaped street medians 46.1 51.9 52.5 53.9 46.9 47.9 50.7 39.2 61.8 -5.8 Change in
Extremely + Very
Important
'23 to '25
Study Year

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 6 For the same list of services I just read I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 12 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
TABLE 3 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

56.4 50.2

29.9 34.3

24.6 27.7

32.1 31.1

17.6 24.4

26.6 29.9

18.7 19.6

19.9 29.8

23.2 17.1

16.5 7.5

7.3 37.2

43.3 58.8

54.4 63.2

56.1 51.2

52.2 65.3

57.5 54.4

50.1 60.9

56.4 55.8

45.5 49.6

47.6 37.7

30.7 28.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Provide fire protection services [76%]
Provide emergency medical services [67%]
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive [88%] Maintain parks and sports fields [90%]
Provide programs for seniors [41%]
Provide community events [76%]
Provide animal control services [61%]
Provide adequate traffic signs and signals [94%]
Provide programs for youth [50%]
Maintain a low crime rate [84%]
Prepare the community for emergencies [65%]
Maintain landscaped street medians [87%]
Provide programs for adults [44%]
Provide crime prevention programs [59%]
Reduce stormwater pollution [45%]
Enforce traffic laws [81%]
Provide neighborhood police patrols [75%]
Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community [88%]
Maintain and repair streets [97%]
Address homelessness [80%]
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing [65%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Address homelessness 38.2 22.8 29.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A +15.4† Provide programs for seniors 87.8 73.4 78.7 87.2 84.5 92.6 93.2 93.4 N/A +14.4† Prepare the community for emergencies 81.0 67.5 71.4 78.8 78.1 85.8 86.1 84.0 N/A +13.5† Maintain a low crime rate 81.8 69.5 73.2 87.5 81.5 86.4 85.8 79.5 85.7 +12.3† Provide neighborhood police patrols 72.8 63.1 69.4 83.6 77.5 87.1 87.1 83.5 83.7 +9.7† Maintain landscaped street medians 80.0 70.4 81.7 85.6 84.6 90.7 94.4 91.1 89.1 +9.6† Provide programs for youth 82.9 73.9 77.1 84.3 82.2 90.8 91.4 88.9 N/A +9.0† Maintain parks and sports fields 88.7 80.5 85.1 88.3 85.1 90.1 94.0 92.2 91.8 +8.1† Provide crime prevention programs 76.0 69.2 73.1 85.7 82.2 87.4 88.9 84.7 86.5 +6.8† Provide adequate traffic signs and signals 83.3 76.8 89.5 87.3 91.9 92.0 93.6 94.8 87.6 +6.5† Maintain and repair streets 54.1 47.9 62.5 68.5 66.7 80.5 79.7 72.0 80.6 +6.2† Provide emergency medical services 93.5 87.6 96.0 92.0 94.1 98.8 98.1 97.1 93.0 +5.9† Keep public buildings and facilities clean, attractive 88.7 83.7 86.8 87.3 86.2 93.4 96.7 94.9 90.2 +5.0† Enforce traffic laws 75.3 70.9 81.2 82.4 90.3 87.4 89.7 90.2 88.2 +4.4 Provide programs for adults 79.7 75.8 75.5 87.8 85.0 87.6 93.1 90.3 N/A +3.9 Provide special events like community festivals 83.8 80.4 78.6 88.1 82.1 91.6 93.0 95.2 87.6 +3.5 Provide animal control services 83.4 80.0 87.5 83.1 90.9 85.7 93.6 87.6 87.4 +3.4 Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community 64.8 62.4 72.6 71.4 71.3 80.2 84.8 84.8 N/A +2.4 Provide fire protection services 93.6 92.2 96.8 99.3 98.8 98.7 98.2 97.1 94.8 +1.3 Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 36.2 37.9 45.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -1.7 Reduce stormwater pollution 75.8 78.6 74.1 79.0 68.7 92.7 91.1 86.1 85.2 -2.8 Change in
Satisfaction
'23 to '25
Study Year

City Services
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 4 displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 6 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 14). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Question 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared with their counterparts, those who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the services tested in Question 6. That said, the greatest specific differentiator of opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied residents was found with respect to the City’s efforts to reduce stormwater pollution, followed by the City’s efforts to provide neighborhood police patrols, maintain parks and sports fields, keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive, provide programs for adults, and provide crime prevention programs.

At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide adequate traffic signs, provide fire protection services, and maintain landscaped street medians.

TABLE 4 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Reduce stormwater pollution 82.5 31.0 51.6
Provide neighborhood police patrols 78.0 43.7 34.4
Maintain parks and sports fields 92.5 59.7 32.9
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 93.1 60.7 32.4 Provide programs for adults 85.1 52.9 32.1
Provide crime prevention programs 82.7 50.8 31.9
Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community 68.7 37.5 31.2 Maintain and repair streets 58.1 27.4 30.6
Address homelessness 43.4 14.4 29.0
Provide programs for seniors 91.7 64.5 27.2
Enforce traffic laws 78.4 51.9 26.5
Prepare the community for emergencies 85.7 59.4 26.3
Provide community events 87.9 62.6 25.3
Provide animal control services 87.8 63.1 24.7
Maintain a low crime rate 86.5 63.4 23.1
Provide programs for youth 87.2 65.9 21.3
Provide emergency medical services 96.4 79.9 16.5
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 39.5 23.8 15.7 Maintain landscaped street medians 81.8 68.9 12.9
Provide fire protection services 95.0 83.8 11.2
Provide adequate traffic signs and signals 84.8 79.0 5.8 Satisfaction With
City's Overall Performance (Q4) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 P ERFORMANCE N EEDS & P RIORITIES With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify for which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents’ needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TABLE 5 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS & PRIORITIES MATRIX Using this framework, True North categorized each respondent individually for each of the 21 services tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that addressing homelessness was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., facilitating the creation of affordable housing) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.

Figure 13 on the next page presents the 21 services tested, along with the percentage of respondents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 13 is consistent with that presented in Table 5. Thus, for example, in the service area of addressing homelessness, the City is exceeding the needs of 2% of respondents, moderately meeting the needs of 9% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 27% of respondents, marginally not meeting the needs of 3% of respondents, moderately not meeting the needs of 10% of respondents, and severely not meeting the needs of 49% of respondents.

As shown in Figure 13, the City is meeting the needs of at least 70% of residents for 17 of the 21 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is moderately or severely not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted in order of priority. Thus, addressing homelessness is the top priority, followed by facilitating the creation of affordable housing, maintaining and repairing streets, creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community, and providing neighborhood police patrols.

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

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 13 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS 0142 9 10 16
19 11
6452
13 55
76 1
6 2
57 52
34 39
38 43
39 39
34 36
26 35
26 33
27 29
30 20
19 12
9 37
40 50
47 40
31 29
23 35
41 53
41 54
29 44
42 36
38 34
18 27
1 32
2 2
1 53
1 37
5 5
8 448
2 677
9 8
11 12
10 8
5 897
11 12
10 16
16 15
15 16
25 34
47 49
00 112
43 56
2 20
3 0
42 6667
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection services
Providing emergency medical services
Keeping public buildings, facilities clean, attractive
Maintaining parks and sports fields
Providing programs for seniors
Providing special events like community festivals
Providing animal control services
Maintaining landscaped street medians
Providing programs for adults
Providing adequate traffic signs and signals
Providing programs for youth
Preparing the community for emergencies
Maintaining a low crime rate
Enforcing traffic laws
Providing crime prevention programs
Reducing stormwater pollution
Providing neighborhood police patrols
Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community
Maintaining and repairing streets
Facilitating the creation of affordable housing
Addressing homelessness
% Respondents who Provided Opinion
Exceeding needs
Meeting needs
moderately
Meeting needs
marginally
Not meeting
needs marginally
Not meeting
needs moderately
Not meeting
needs severely

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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

PERCEIVED SAFETY The survey included several questions designed to measure respondents’ perceptions of safety, La Mesa’s Police Department, and code enforcement. The first of these questions simply asked residents to describe how safe La Mesa is as a place to live. As shown in Figure 14 below, nine-in-ten (91% of) respondents rated the City as either very safe (39%) or somewhat safe (51%). Approximately 8% described the City as somewhat unsafe, while 1% felt La Mesa is a very unsafe place to live. The percentage of residents who felt very safe experienced a statistically significant increase from 2023 to 2025 (+12%), as did their overall perception of safety (91% vs. 85%).

Question 7 Overall, how safe is the City of La Mesa as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
FIGURE 14 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

Figures 15-17 demonstrate that opinions regarding the safety of La Mesa as a place to live were generally consistent, ranging from 82% to 95% across all but one subgroup. A noticeably lower rating was reported among respondents dissatisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services (68%). Opinions regarding the safety of La Mesa were also tied to opinions about the Police Department, with a 12% point spread between those holding a negative view of the Department (82%) and those with a positive view (94%).

27.7 34.3

57.3 53.6

12.2 10.2

2.4 1.6

39.2†

51.4†

8.2†

0.9†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Somewhat safe
Very safe

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FIGURE 15 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP & OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT FIGURE 16 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY AGE & ETHNICITY
FIGURE 17 PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY BY QUADRANT OF CITY, CHILD IN HSLD, GENDER & OVERALL SATISFACTION

39.8 40.3 42.5

30.7 52.5 50.2 51.2

55.9 54.8

43.2 45.2

27.0 Very
safe

50.4 33.6 31.1 38.7
Smwt
safe

41.4 56.0 59.3 52.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents

40.2 39.5 33.3

57.0 54.8 55.4

49.6 28.6 51.4 37.2

36.4 30.8 37.1
Very
safe

56.0 43.2

52.6 55.2

53.6 57.1
Smwt
safe

30.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents

38.0 41.5 42.1 37.8

48.8 51.2 47.8 54.4

50.8 50.7

17.4 43.4 Very
safe

39.7 33.5 33.9

49.6 Smwt
safe

52.0 54.1 54.9

44.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Satisfied Dissatisfied Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) % Respondents

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Having measured respondents’ opinions regarding the overall safety of the City, the survey next focused on perceived safety in each of the five scenarios described at the bottom of Figure 18.

As shown in the figure, residents’ feelings of safety varied considerably depending on the setting. Ninety-five percent (95%) of residents who provided an opinion indicated that they feel safe walking alone in business and retail areas as well as in their neighborhood during the day, and 87% feel safe walking alone in parks and on paths and recreation trails during the day. After dark, however, 67% of residents stated they feel safe walking alone in their neighborhood and 63% in business and retail areas of the City.

Question 8 Next, I'd like to ask a few questions about personal safety and security in the City of La Mesa. When you are:_____, would you say that you feel very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? FIGURE 18 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY
Among those who had an opinion, Table 6 displays the percentage of respondents who stated they feel very or reasonably safe in each scenario by study year, as well as the difference between 2023 and 2025. Perceptions of safety improved between the two most recent studies, with statistically significant increases within four of the five scenarios.

TABLE 6 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

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

62.2 40.4

16.9 14.5

32.5 46.7

49.7 48.6

4.8 4.8

10.1 26.1 30.5

7.3 6.4

56.2 38.6

2.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Business and retail
areas during the
day
Neighborhood
during day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Neighborhood
after dark
Business and retail
areas after dark
Q8 Perceived safety of walking alone . . .
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Reasonably
safe
Very safe
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Neighborhood after dark 66.6 56.3 64.1 70.1 73.1 72.5 78.8 74.7 75.1 +10.3† Parks, paths, rec trails during the day 87.2 80.2 86.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A +6.9† Business areas after dark 63.1 58.0 62.3 70.5 71.3 66.4 78.7 77.4 76.0 +5.1† Business areas during day 94.8 89.8 97.3 97.3 95.1 94.8 97.5 96.8 97.9 +5.1† Neighborhood during day 94.7 92.8 95.6 95.6 96.1 94.4 97.1 96.8 97.5 +2.0 Change in
Very + Reasonably
Safe '23 to '25
Study Year

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Consistent with the relationship between overall safety ratings for the City and opinions about the Police Department (see Figure 15), individual feelings of safety in the specific scenarios tested in Question 8 were lower among those with a negative perception of the La Mesa Police Department than those with a positive one (Figure 21 on next page). The relationship was most evident when examining respondents’ safety ratings for their neighborhood after dark (73% of those with a positive perception of Police felt safe in their neighborhood after dark, 62% of those with mixed opinion, 56% of those with no opinion, and 51% of those with a negative opinion of the Department felt safe in their neighborhood after dark which is a 22 percentage point gap between those with positive vs. negative perceptions of the Department).

FIGURE 19 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY AGE & IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM FIGURE 20 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY QUADRANT OF CITY & GENDER 95 95
90 97 97 94 95 93 94 93 96 96 95 95
90 84 87 85
90 85 88
66 59
66 74 72
60 68
61 62 63
72 64
58 64
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No
Age (QD1) In Neighborhood Watch Program (Q9)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Neighborhood
during day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Neighborhood
after dark
Business and
retail areas after
dark
95 93 96 96 96 96 94 96
90 97 95 94
89 84 85
91 89 86
67 67
59 73 76
60 60
51 66
75 71
58 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Male Female
Quadrant of City Gender (QD4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Neighborhood
during day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Neighborhood
after dark
Business and
retail areas after
dark

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 21 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT FIGURE 22 PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY BY ETHNICITY
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH Neighborhood watch is a crime prevention program that enlists the active participation of residents in cooperation with law enforcement and other community agencies to reduce crime, solve problems, and improve the quality of life in their area.

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

Overall, 8% of survey respondents indicated that they were involved in a neighborhood watch program in 2025. Although statistically consistent with the percentage recorded in 2023, this figure has experienced a steady decline from the high of 16% recorded in 2019 (see Figure 23 on the next page). As shown in figures 24 to 26, residents who have lived in La Mesa more than 15 years, homeowners, residents at least 50 years of age, Caucasians, those living in the Southeast quadrant of the City, and those who feel the City is unsafe were the most likely to report involvement in a neighborhood watch program. 96 97
89 94 96 96
85 95
90 83
79 85
73 62
51 56
66 56
60 56
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Positive Mixed Negative None provided
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Neighborhood
during day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Neighborhood
after dark
Business and
retail areas after
dark
96 92 94 97 96 96
90 90
96 98
91 79
89 88 84
72 54
71 68
83 68
50 73
69 75
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian / White Latino / Hispanic African-American /
Black
Asian Mixed / Other
Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Reasonably Safe
Business and
retail areas during
the day
Neighborhood
during day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Neighborhood
after dark
Business and
retail areas after
dark

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 9 Are you involved in a neighborhood watch program? FIGURE 23 INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 24 INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS &

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

10.6 12.5 16.0 15.3 12.3 13.8

89.4 87.7 84.0 84.7 87.7 86.2

8.0 92.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013
Study Year
% Respondents
Not involved in
neighborhood
watch program /
Not sure
Yes, involved in
neighborhood
watch program

11.9 4.0

8.6 8.1

6.0 7.5

13.8 7.5

6.0 3.1
0 5
10 15
20 Less than
4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Involved in
Neighborhood Watch Program

12.8 11.0

3.5 4.5

5.8 4.3

3.5 3.5

6.5 14.9
0 5
10 15
20 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or
older
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Involved in
Neighborhood Watch Program

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 FIGURE 26 INVOLVED IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY QUADRANT OF CITY, CHILD IN HSLD, GENDER &

PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY
RATINGS OF POLICE DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMANCE Beginning in 2021, residents were asked to rate the La Mesa Police Department’s performance on a variety of dimensions, including investigating crimes, engaging and interacting with the public, and working with the community to solve problems. The Police Department received its highest mark for maintaining a presence and being visible (52% excellent or good), followed by engaging and interacting with the public (45%), communicating with La Mesa residents and local businesses (41%), investigating crimes (40%), and working with the community to solve problems (38%). The percentage who rated the Department as poor or very poor on a dimension ranged from 13% for investigating crimes to 18% for communicating with residents and local businesses, and the percentage unsure ranged from 10% (maintaining a presence/being visible) to 29% (investigating crimes).

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

FIGURE 27 OPINION OF POLICE PERFORMANCE

6.8 8.5

7.2 8.5 7.7

11.4 11.6

7.7 7.8

5.4 0
5 10
15 20
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents Involved in
Neighborhood Watch Program

17.1 14.5

11.5 11.4

11.5 35.0

30.2 29.9

28.4 26.6

24.6 23.2

22.5 18.3

23.6 4.9

5.1 29.1

9.5 11.5

12.8 7.8

11.2 3.5

4.8 4.9

10.2 15.6

18.5 22.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Maintaining a presence/being visible
Engaging and interacting with the public
Communicating with La Mesa residents and local
businesses
Investigating crimes
Working with the community to solve problems
Q10b Q10c Q10d Q10a Q10e
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Prefer not to answer

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 From 2023 to 2025, the performance rating for maintaining a presence and being visible improved (+4%), while each of the other four performance areas remained statistically consistent.

TABLE 7 OPINION OF POLICE PERFORMANCE BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

PROFESSIONALISM, TRUST, ACCOUNTABILITY & EQUAL TREATMENT In addition to rating the La Mesa Police Department’s performance (see above), the survey also explored respondents’ perceptions of the Department when it comes to professionalism, trustworthiness, accountability, and equal treatment. For each of the statements shown along the bottom of Figure 28, respondents were simply asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Approximately seven-in-ten respondents (69%) agreed with the statement I trust the La Mesa Police Department to protect and serve the public, whereas 16% disagreed with the statement and 15% were unsure. Six-in-ten respondents (64%) also agreed that The Police Department demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public, while 10% disagreed and 26% were unsure. Respondents were more mixed when it came to the statements The La Mesa Police Department treats people the same regardless of their race, income, or identity (41% in agreement, 19% in disagreement, 40% unsure) and The Police Department holds its officers accountable (38% in agreement, 14% in disagreement, 48% unsure).

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

FIGURE 28 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT POLICE DEPARTMENT 2025 2023 2021
Maintaining a presence/being visible 52.1 47.9 54.0 +4.2† Investigating crimes 39.8 36.3 43.8 +3.6
Engaging and interacting with the public 44.7 42.2 41.3 +2.5 Communicating with La Mesa residents and local businesses 41.5 40.9 41.9 +0.6 Working with the community to solve problems 38.1 41.3 39.8 -3.2 Change in
Excellent + Good
'23 to '25
Study Year

34.6 24.4 18.3

29.2 16.4

19.4 9.1

7.2 11.4

7.0 6.4

3.0 7.5

7.2 15.3

26.0 40.2 48.1

32.2 37.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
I trust the La Mesa
Police Department to
protect and serve the
public
Police Dept
demonstrates
professionalism when
interacting with the
public
The La Mesa Police
Department treats
people the same
regardless of their
race, income, or
identity
The Police Department
holds its officers
accountable
Q11 Agreement with statements about Police Department . . . % Respondents
Not sure/Prefer not
to answer
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Given the large and varying percentage of respondents who were unsure or declined to provide an opinion (see Figure 28 on prior page), Table 8 displays the level of agreement only among those who provided a response by study year. Agreement was higher in 2025 than 2023 for each statement, with two reaching the threshold for statistical significance (professionalism and trust).

TABLE 8 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT POLICE DEPARTMENT BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

To help clarify how opinions and perceptions of La Mesa’s Police Department vary among residents, each survey participant was classified into one of four categories (positive, negative, mixed, or none provided) based on how they responded to the statements tested in Question 11.

Those who generally disagreed with the statements were classified as negative, those who generally agreed with the statements were classified as positive, whereas those with a mix of responses (agree and disagree) were grouped into the mixed category.4 Sixty-four percent (64%) of La Mesa residents generally held positive perceptions of the Police Department in 2025, whereas the remainder of respondents were evenly split between negative, mixed, and unsure perceptions (12% each). Perceptions were more positive in 2025 than 2023 (+5%), with statistically significant changes recorded in every response category (Figure 29).

FIGURE 29 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

4. More specifically, respondents who agreed with all of the statements or three of the statements with the fourth being unsure were classified as positive. Respondents who disagreed with all of the statements or three of the statements with the fourth being unsure were classified as negative. Respondents who did not provide an opinion to all four of the statements were classified as none provided. Any other combination of answers was classified as mixed.
2025 2023 2021
Police Dept demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public 86.2 80.5 76.3 +5.7† I trust the La Mesa Police Department to protect and serve the public 81.7 76.5 77.1 +5.3† La Mesa Police Dept treats people the same regardless of race, income, identity 68.3 63.4 N/A +4.9 The Police Department holds its officers accountable 72.7 68.5 64.7 +4.2 Change in Agree,
Among Those With Opinion
'23 to '25
Study Year

58.8 60.5

16.4 15.8

18.7 17.1

6.5 63.9†

11.9†

12.1†

12.1† 6.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021
Study Year
% Respondents
None provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 When compared to their respective counterparts, positive perceptions of the Department were most frequently found among those who had lived in the City 11 to 15 years, respondents who perceived the City to be safe, homeowners, respondents at least 50 years of age, Caucasian respondents and those with a mixed/other ethnicity, and respondents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services (see figures 30-33).

Although positive perceptions were only slightly higher among those who had interacted with the Police Department over the past two years than those who had not (67% vs. 62%), those who had not interacted with the Department were nearly five times more likely to not have an opinion while those who had interacted with the Department were twice as likely to hold a mixed opinion (Figure 33 on next page). Positive perceptions were also slightly higher among those who participated in a neighborhood watch program compared with those who did not (Figure 30).

FIGURE 30 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY YEARS IN LA MESA, PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY & IN NEIGHBORHOOD

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

65.1 70.8 64.8 65.9

44.0 68.9 64.2

9.3 18.0

14.8 11.4

16.6 11.2

11.5 12.4

6.6 15.2

11.3 21.1

10.2 12.3

23.2 13.2

4.6 5.3 11.4 18.3

9.7 11.9

58.6 8.7

9.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15 Safe Unsafe Yes No Years in La Mesa (Q1) Perceived Safety of City (Q7) In Neighborhood Watch Program (Q9)
% Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

56.4 67.0 62.7 63.1 62.0 62.6 67.8

8.4 9.5 13.9 10.4 15.1 11.6

18.5 10.3

12.6 10.2 12.0 10.9 16.2 9.5

8.2 16.7 10.9 13.1 14.5 12.0 9.5 12.4

70.1 14.2

7.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent Male Female Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Home Ownership Status (QD3) Gender (QD4) Quadrant of City % Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 32 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY AGE & ETHNICITY FIGURE 33 OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BY CONTACT WITH STAFF, INTERACTED WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS, CHILD IN HSLD & OVERALL SATISFACTION
INTERACTIONS WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT Assessed for the first time in 2023, respondents were asked whether they had interacted with the Police Department by calling the Department, interacting at a community event, or being pulled over or stopped by an officer over the past two years. In 2025, 38% of residents had called the La Mesa Police Department for assistance and 37% had talked or interacted with a La Mesa Police Officer at a community event or other setting, whereas 7% indicated that they had been stopped or pulled over by a La Mesa Police Officer (see Figure 34 on next page). Respondents’ interactions with the La Mesa Police Department were statistically consistent from 2023 to 2025 (Table 9 on next page).

56.2 60.6

73.6 74.5 67.5

59.2 60.3

50.9 66.1

13.5 13.8

10.8 13.2

12.3 11.9 14.4

8.4 3.3

15.8 14.0

8.8 5.2

9.3 13.1

20.7 23.3

27.9 20.3 14.6 11.6 6.8 7.1 10.9 15.7

4.6 17.4

2.8 53.3

7.7 18.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

65.0 66.9 62.0 62.2 65.0 67.0

47.4 11.2

15.6 7.6

16.7 10.1 11.3

19.1 10.8

13.1 9.6

10.0 12.6 10.2

26.4 7.1 13.0

4.4 20.9

11.1 12.3 11.4 7.2

62.8 14.8

15.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes No Yes No Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied
Contact With Staff (Q16) Interacted With Police Dept in Past Two Years (Q12)
Child in Hsld (QD2) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents
None
provided
Negative
Mixed
Positive

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 12 In the past two years, have you: _____?
FIGURE 34 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS TABLE 9 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS BY STUDY YEAR Figures 35 to 37 display residents’ interactions with the Police Department over the past two years by age, involvement in a neighborhood watch program, quadrant of the City, gender, opinion of Police Department, and ethnicity. The majority of residents in a neighborhood watch program, 40 to 49 years of age, or with a mixed/other ethnicity had interacted with a La Mesa Police Officer at a community event or other setting or called the Department for assistance. Respondents with a mixed opinion of the Department were also more likely than those with a positive, negative, or no opinion to have interacted in those two ways. Respondents with a mixed/other ethnicity reported the highest percentage of being pulled over or stopped by police (27%).

37.4 7.1

60.1 90.9

37.6 60.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Talked or interacted with a
La Mesa Police Officer at a
community event or other
setting
Called the La Mesa Police
Department for assistance
Been stopped or pulled
over by a La Mesa Police
Officer
Q12 Interactions with La Mesa Police Department in past 2 years . . . % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
No
Yes
2025 2023
Been stopped or pulled over by a La Mesa Police Officer 7.1 7.3 -0.2 Talked, interacted with a La Mesa Police Officer at a community event, other setting 37.6 39.3 -1.7 Called the La Mesa Police Department for assistance 37.4 40.7 -3.2 Study Year Change in
Yes
'23 to '25

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 FIGURE 35 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS BY AGE & IN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH

PROGRAM
FIGURE 36 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS BY QUADRANT OF CITY & GENDER FIGURE 37 INTERACTIONS WITH LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS BY OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT & ETHNICITY
28 39
51 41
35 57
35 33
37 53
38 29
51 36
11 7 8 8
3 77
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No Age (QD1) In Neighborhood Watch Program (Q9)
% Respondents Who Interacted With Police
Department in Past 2 Years
Talked or
interacted with a
La Mesa Police
Officer at a
community event
or other setting
Called the La
Mesa Police
Department for
assistance
Been stopped or
pulled over by a
La Mesa Police
Officer
27 38 39
47 39 36
40 32
41 36 38 37
5 5 7
11 9
6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Male Female
Quadrant of City Gender (QD4)
% Respondents Who Interacted With Police
Department in Past 2 Years
Talked or
interacted with a
La Mesa Police
Officer at a
community event
or other setting
Called the La
Mesa Police
Department for
assistance
Been stopped or
pulled over by a
La Mesa Police
Officer
41 48
36 8
35 39
46 33
60 38
52 37
18 35 38 41
47 60
8 7 6
0 4
9 12
5 27
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed / Other
Opinion of Police Department (Q11) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Interacted With Police
Department in Past 2 Years
Talked or
interacted with a
La Mesa Police
Officer at a
community event
or other setting
Called the La
Mesa Police
Department for
assistance
Been stopped or
pulled over by a
La Mesa Police
Officer

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CODE ENFORCEMENT Respondents were next informed that the City has created codes to address and prevent a variety of issues that can affect a neighborhood, including illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction, junk storage, and properties not being properly maintained. They were then asked if, in general, they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations, or if they do not have an opinion on the matter.

Figure 38 provides the responses to Question 13 among those who provided an opinion. In 2025, 31% of residents did not have an opinion. Among those with an opinion, approximately 71% indicated they were satisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts, while the remaining 29% were dissatisfied. The overall level of satisfaction with the City’s code enforcement efforts improved from 2023 to 2025 (+8%), driven by a statistically significant increase in the perception who reported being somewhat satisfied.

Question 13 The City of La Mesa has created codes to address a variety of issues that can affect a neighborhood, such as illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction, junk storage, and properties not being properly maintained. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to enforce code violations, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 38 SATISFACTION WITH ENFORCEMENT BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

Figures 39 to 41 demonstrate how satisfaction with the City’s code enforcement efforts (among respondents who provided an opinion) varied by length of residence, home ownership status, general opinion of La Mesa’s Police Department, age, ethnicity, quadrant of residence, presence of a child in the home, gender, and perceived safety of La Mesa. There is a striking correlation between perceived safety of La Mesa and opinions regarding the City’s code enforcement efforts, with those who perceive the City as a safe place to live being much more likely to also be satisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts. A similar relationship exists by opinion of the Police Department, with those with a positive opinion much more likely than those with another viewpoint to be satisfied with code enforcement. By demographics, at least three-quarters of newer residents (less than 4 years), those 18 to 29 years of age, seniors (65+), residents of the Northwest and Southeast quadrants, and female respondents reported satisfaction with the City’s code enforcement efforts.

19.4 21.8 29.0

36.4 31.8

49.5 45.1 50.6

43.6 46.2

41.5 39.6 44.9

39.9 37.8

41.4 21.9

20.7 19.3

15.8 15.6

5.7 9.0

10.1 8.2 4.7 7.6 5.0 8.1 3.3

20.1 50.7†

17.0†

11.3 12.1 15.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025
[69% provided
opinion]
2023
[73% provided
opinion]
2021
[71% provided
opinion]
2019
[65% provided
opinion]
2017
[64% provided
opinion]
2015
[64% provided
opinion]
2013
[63% provided
opinion]
2011
[66% provided
opinion]
2006
[82% provided
opinion]
Study Year
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FIGURE 39 SATISFACTION WITH ENFORCEMENT BY YEARS IN LA MESA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OPINION OF

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

15.0 28.2 23.2 19.6

6.0 8.6

55.2 44.5 55.2

39.1 30.4

56.1 Very
satisfied

28.2 19.9 19.0 16.0
Smwt
satisfied

47.9 53.6

44.1 52.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Own Rent Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

20.8 21.3 18.9 20.7 16.3 16.0

57.5 50.9 49.4 51.9 55.8 54.2

20.1 21.2 14.9
Very
satisfied

32.1 46.7 46.3

49.5 Smwt
satisfied

54.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Caucasian / White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Age (QD1) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

19.6 21.3 19.0 21.6 21.6

4.6 50.0 51.5

48.2 53.9 53.6

21.2 Very
satisfied

24.6 17.1 19.1 19.8
Smwt
satisfied

52.3 47.3 48.9

55.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No Male Female Safe Unsafe Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2) Gender (QD4) Perceived Safety of City (Q7)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

Public Safety & Police
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Respondents who reported they were dissatisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts were subsequently asked if their dissatisfaction was motivated by a particular issue or violation. Illegal parking and unattended/abandoned vehicles was the most frequently mentioned issue (35%), followed by unmaintained properties and lawns (15%) and violations not being enforced fairly (12%). Approximately 15% of residents who were dissatisfied with the City’s code enforcement efforts could not provide a particular reason for their sentiment.

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

34.7 15.0

14.6 11.5

6.9 6.7

6.7 4.7

2.4 1.9

1.7 1.6

1.6 1.2

1.7 2.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Illegal parking, unattended, abandoned vehicles
Unmaintained properties, lawns
No particular issue
Violations not enforced fairly
Homeless issues
Speeding cars, traffic violations
City not responding quickly to city resident issues
littering, trash cans left outside
Road, street maintenance
Noise violations
Safety, security issues
Dogs off-leash
Enforcing building permit violations
Loitering
Vandalism, graffiti
Streetlights not working
% Respondents Who Are Dissatisfied With Code Enforcement

Traffic
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

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

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION As shown in Figure 43 below, 73% of residents in 2025 rated traffic circulation in residential areas of La Mesa as excellent or good. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of respondents also rated traffic circulation in the City overall as excellent or good, whereas just over half (52%) held similarly positive views of circulation on major streets in La Mesa.

Question 15 Next, I'd like to ask you a few questions about traffic circulation. By traffic circulation, I mean the ability to drive around La Mesa without encountering long delays. Would you rate: _____ within the City of La Mesa as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor? FIGURE 43 PERCEPTION OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Table 10 provides the percentage of respondents who regarded traffic congestion as excellent or good overall, on major streets, and in residential areas by study year. The percentage of residents who rated traffic circulation in each of the three categories as excellent or good showed little movement from 2023 to 2025.

TABLE 10 PERCEPTION OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION BY STUDY YEAR

11.5 9.7

46.2 42.3

18.9 31.3

31.9 4.6 6.7 11.0

24.3 48.5

1.9 2.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
In residential areas Overall On major streets
Q15 Rating traffic circulation . . .
% Respondents
Not sure / Prefer
not to answer
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Traffic in residential areas 72.8 71.1 84.4 81.7 86.0 83.0 88.2 87.5 81.6 +1.7 Traffic on major streets 52.0 52.0 63.9 63.7 67.1 61.2 73.8 70.3 63.7 0.0 Traffic overall 57.7 59.3 73.9 69.1 72.1 73.2 75.4 72.5 70.8 -1.5 Change in
Excellent + Good
'23 to '25
Study Year

Traffic
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figures 44 through 46 present ratings of traffic circulation overall, on major streets, and in residential areas according to the quadrant of the City in which respondents reside.

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

11.4 11.2 8.6

50.1 46.2

40.3 28.1 27.8 33.2

36.2 8.4 12.4

14.9 48.2

7.1 9.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast
Quadrant of City
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
Poor /
Very poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

9.9 9.0 7.4

49.0 39.4 36.2

30.3 28.7

34.8 33.9

15.8 19.7

12.7 44.4

10.7 11.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast
Quadrant of City
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
Poor /
Very poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

27.0 23.8 17.0

49.9 45.7

50.0 16.1 18.6

22.0 19.0

7.5 11.0

29.6 48.4

3.9 3.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast
Quadrant of City
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
Poor /
Very poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Staff Interactions
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

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

The first of these questions asked respondents if they had been in contact with city staff in the 12 months prior to the interview. As shown in Figure 47 below, 22% of residents indicated that they had been in contact with city staff over the past year. The percentage of residents who interacted with city staff showed little movement from 2023 to 2025. For the interested reader, figures 48-49 on the next page provide the responses to Question 16 by respondents’ age, area of residence, home ownership status, ethnicity, overall satisfaction, and perceived safety of the City.

Question 16 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of La Mesa staff? FIGURE 47 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR

24.0 30.1 35.9 30.7 27.9 33.3 37.4

71.1 65.7 61.2 66.9 69.3

66.1 62.3

4.8 4.9 4.2 2.9 2.4 2.8 0.6 0.3

22.0 73.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011
Study Year
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
No contact
with staff in
past 12
months
Yes, contact
with staff in
past 12
months

Staff Interactions
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 48 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY AGE & QUADRANT OF CITY FIGURE 49 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, ETHNICITY, OVERALL

SATISFACTION & PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY
The next question in this section asked respondents who had been in contact with staff to rate staff members’ helpfulness, professionalism, and responsiveness. The findings of this question are presented on the next page in Figure 50, and show that staff received high ratings for all three dimensions tested. Approximately 96% of respondents who had interacted with staff in the past 12 months and provided an opinion felt staff were very (76%) or somewhat (20%) professional. Similarly, 92% felt staff was very or somewhat responsive and 88% found them very or somewhat helpful. Table 11 on the next page provides the responses to this question for the current study compared with 2023. The percentage who provided ratings of very or somewhat responsive was significantly higher in 2025 than 2023 (+7%), as was the percentage who rated staff as very professional (+12%, not shown).

28.1 18.4

20.7 25.1 23.8

9.6 20.1

27.0 24.5
0 10
20 30
40 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Age (QD1) Quadrant of City
% Respondents That Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months

18.7 30.5 32.1

22.3 28.5

22.1 20.8 20.5 21.7

13.6 29.0
0 10
20 30
40 Own Rent Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican
/ Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Satisfied DissatisfiedSafe Unsafe
Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Ethnicity (QD5) Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Perceived Safety of
City (Q7)
% Respondents That Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months

Staff Interactions
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Question 17 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all ______.

FIGURE 50 OPINION OF CITY STAFF (AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION) TABLE 11 OPINION OF CITY STAFF BY STUDY YEAR (AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION) † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

52.6 58.0

39.8 29.5

3.8 7.6 12.5

75.8 20.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Professionalism Responsiveness Helpfulness
Q17 Rating city staff on . . .
% Respondents Who Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011
Responsiveness 92.4 85.8 84.7 93.1 93.6 93.2 96.9 95.3 +6.6† Professionalism 96.2 93.4 93.4 97.1 95.8 97.3 98.5 97.0 +2.8 Helpfulness 87.5 85.4 85.5 92.1 93.0 93.6 96.9 94.4 +2.1 Change in
Very + Somewhat
'23 to '25
Study Year

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

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

OVERALL SATISFACTION Question 18 asked residents to report their overall satisfaction with city-resident communication in the City of La Mesa. Overall, 58% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, or other means, 16% indicated they were dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect, and 26% were not sure or chose not to provide an opinion (see Figure 51). Driven by statistically significant declines in the percentage very and somewhat dissatisfied, satisfaction improved from 2023 (54%) to 2025 (58%).

Question 18 Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, and other means? FIGURE 51 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

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

Satisfaction with communication was strongly correlated with respondents’ overall performance rating for the City, perceived safety of La Mesa as a place to live, and their opinion of the Police Department. Also notable is that the majority of African-American/Black respondents were very satisfied with city-resident communication.

16.9 17.7 24.1 25.1 22.8

35.5 32.4

45.3 36.6

42.9 38.2 38.6 46.3

44.2 39.1

16.4 34.6

16.4 17.7 16.1

13.9 10.2

13.2 6.4

21.1 14.6 13.9 12.2 12.0 7.2 6.0 8.1

19.1 38.8

12.5†

4.5 3.5† 8.1

6.7 5.6 6.9

2.6 24.1

2.1† 0.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 52 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN LA MESA, VISITED CITY WEBSITE & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 53 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE & QUADRANT OF CITY

28.6 23.0 28.0 25.4

51.3 54.3 49.7 53.7
Very
satisfied

24.9 30.7

18.9 24.8
Smwt
satisfied

54.6 52.7

50.7 51.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15 Yes No Yes No Years in La Mesa (Q1) Visited City Website (Q21) Child in Hsld (QD2) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion

30.6 24.8 25.7 28.9 23.9

52.6 58.2

47.0 48.2 57.3

28.1 18.6 20.8
Very
satisfied

38.4 59.0

47.6 49.6
Smwt
satisfied

49.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Age (QD1) Quadrant of City
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FIGURE 54 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & OVERALL

SATISFACTION
FIGURE 55 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY, INTERACTED WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PAST 2 YEARS & OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES To help the City identify the most effective means of communicating with residents, it is helpful to understand which methods of communication residents prefer. Accordingly, for each of the methods shown to the left of Figure 56 on the next page, respondents were simply asked to indicate if it would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them. Overall, respondents indicated that the most effective methods were email (80% very or somewhat effective), electronic newsletters (72%), text messages (69%), and the City’s website (69%).

7.6 25.4 27.8

19.9 33.2 27.6

11.8 85.3 56.3 48.0 56.5

47.6 54.2

41.0 Very
satisfied

25.0 26.3

50.4 15.1
Smwt
satisfied

53.4 71.9

32.4 47.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Own Rent Male Female Satisfied Dissatisfied
Ethnicity (QD5) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Gender (QD4) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

30.1 30.5

6.1 14.1

54.3 43.9

54.2 48.6

25.6 27.8 21.9
Very
satisfied

26.3 33.2

52.6 50.7
Smwt
satisfied

54.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Safe Unsafe Yes No Positive Mixed Negative None provided Perceived Safety of City (Q7) Interacted With Police Dept in Past Two Years (Q12)
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Question 19 As I read the following ways that the City of La Mesa can communicate with residents, I'd like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

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

TABLE 12 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY AGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % VERY

EFFECTIVE)

42.1 33.4

39.7 24.5

26.3 17.4

24.8 19.9

38.2 38.6

29.4 44.1

38.3 44.9

36.0 39.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Email
Electronic newsletter
Text messages
City’s website
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home
Local news media
Social media like Facebook, Twitter/X, and Next Door
Townhall meetings
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dissatisfied Email 44.6 39.5 41.1 41.6 50.5 44.3 32.8
Text messages 50.0 38.4 43.6 40.3 35.2 40.5 40.5
Electronic newsletter 32.7 32.3 36.2 33.4 38.5 36.2 21.3 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 26.3 24.3 23.2 27.4 32.1 26.8 24.0 Social media like Facebook, Twitter/X, and Next Door 23.6 32.9 34.3 25.9 11.2 25.6 27.0 City’s website 28.4 21.7 22.8 23.9 26.2 26.0 22.7
Townhall meetings 18.1 13.9 24.2 22.9 21.7 20.8 24.1
Local news media 16.8 9.6 20.3 20.0 22.1 18.8 12.9
Age (QD1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 TABLE 13 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION & OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE)
TABLE 14 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING %

VERY EFFECTIVE)
TABLE 15 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY QUADRANT OF CITY & CHILD IN HSLD (SHOWING % VERY

EFFECTIVE)
PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE Respondents who indicated that social media was at least a somewhat effective method for the City to communicate with them were subsequently asked to identify the social media site that they use most often. Figure 57 on the next page shows responses to this question in the context of all residents. Overall, Instagram (28%) was the most common choice for social media, followed by Facebook (15%), Twitter/X (4%), and Nextdoor (2%). Approximately 46% of respondents indicated that they do not currently use social media and/or that it would not be an effective method for the City to communicate with them.

Satisfied Dissatisfied Not sure Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Email 47.6 36.2 36.3 44.6 38.2 35.7 39.2
Text messages 43.3 38.0 35.2 40.0 39.1 38.1 40.0
Electronic newsletter 40.3 25.7 24.6 36.7 27.3 27.0 29.2 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 31.8 27.2 14.7 29.1 25.9 20.5 17.4 Social media like Facebook, Twitter/X, and Next Door 28.6 22.9 19.0 28.8 33.4 13.4 5.7 City’s website 30.6 16.3 17.3 26.4 27.1 19.6 16.8
Townhall meetings 23.1 20.6 12.5 19.4 22.8 19.5 20.3
Local news media 19.8 14.2 14.5 20.4 18.8 10.9 5.5
Opinion of Police Department (Q11)
Satisfaction With
Communication (Q18)
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black Asian
Mixed /
Other Own Rent
Email 46.1 34.9 36.1 40.3 54.0 44.0 41.7
Text messages 42.8 35.1 35.2 29.4 53.8 42.5 39.0
Electronic newsletter 34.2 30.0 24.4 42.1 57.2 33.5 34.8 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 26.1 27.4 23.6 14.5 47.0 28.1 26.2 Social media like Facebook, Twitter/X, and Next Door 21.7 33.5 22.6 12.3 22.4 24.6 25.9 City’s website 22.7 26.4 20.5 30.4 56.1 22.3 26.1
Townhall meetings 17.4 25.3 25.8 7.8 37.2 17.4 22.3
Local news media 15.9 21.0 19.7 8.5 21.1 14.3 20.3
Ethnicity (QD5) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Yes No
Email 44.4 43.4 39.8 40.7 41.1 43.8
Text messages 38.7 34.5 41.7 43.7 48.5 38.0
Electronic newsletter 38.2 26.6 32.8 36.1 36.1 33.9
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home 24.1 26.3 27.6 27.2 26.5 26.4 Social media like Facebook, Twitter/X, and Next Door 18.0 27.3 23.6 30.4 36.5 20.9 City’s website 26.0 22.2 19.7 30.3 28.2 23.6
Townhall meetings 16.4 20.0 19.3 24.1 23.4 18.3
Local news media 15.3 15.7 18.6 19.8 16.2 18.2
Quadrant of City Child in Hsld (QD2)

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Question 20 What is your preferred Social Media site - the one you currently use most often? FIGURE 57 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE
For the interested reader, figures 58-60 present the results to Question 20 for various subgroups of La Mesa residents. It’s worth noting that the percentage who do not currently use social media and/or felt it would not be an effective method for the City to communicate with them reached majority status for seniors (65+), those who perceived the City to be unsafe, respondents with a negative opinion of the Police Department or who did not provide an opinion either way, and those who identified their ethnicity as mixed/other.

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

27.5 14.9

4.1 2.4

2.2 1.0

0.9 0.9

0.5 45.7
0 10 20 30 40 50
Instagram
Facebook
Twitter/X
Nextdoor
Not sure / Prefer not to answer
BlueSky
Reddit
Other
Nixle
Don’t currently use social media /
Not effective method
% All Respondents
27 25
51 5 6 5 5
2 5 6 5
2 1 2 1 3 4 5 4
0 1 11 0 1 00 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 10 0 0 0 1 1 00 2 2 1 43 48
38 48
40 39
44 43
57 10
15 27
15 3
10 11
25 25
37 19
38 29
18 1 1 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Years in La Mesa (Q1) Age (QD1)
% All Respondents
Facebook Instagram Twitter/X Nextdoor Nixle BlueSky Reddit Other Don’t use social media currently

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 FIGURE 59 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE BY CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, QUADRANT OF CITY &

PERCEIVED SAFETY OF CITY
FIGURE 60 PREFERRED SOCIAL MEDIA SITE BY OPINION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT & ETHNICITY CITY’S WEBSITE The final substantive question of the survey asked if, in the 12 months prior to the interview, the respondent had visited the City of La Mesa’s website. As shown in Figure 61 on the next page, 50% of respondents in 2025 indicated that they had visited the site during this period, which is statistically similar to the percentage recorded in 2023 (54%) and largely unchanged since 2011.
16 9
26 27 29
13 6
3 4 5
2 7
2 5 4 6
1 3 3 2 1 2 2 01 11 1 0 1 00 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
39 48 49
40 46
49 48
40 44
60 15 15 15 17
14 13 13
20 33 32
24 22
29 31
2 4 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Yes No Own Rent Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Safe Unsafe Child in Household
(QD2)
Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Quadrant of City Perceived Safety of City
(Q7)
% All Respondents
Facebook Instagram Twitter/X Nextdoor Nixle BlueSky Reddit Other Don’t use social media currently 12 32
25 21
4 6
3 1 2
9 0 2 0
3 2 2 0 2 11 1 0 0 1 1 000 0 2 1 1 1 1
3 1 0 00 2 3 1 0 2 00 1 1 0 2 1 1
4 1 0
43 41
51 62
47 41 42
49 63
18 11 10
6 18
10 24
11 25 27 26
34 18
31 4
2 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Positive Mixed Negative None
provided
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Opinion of Police Department (Q11) Ethnicity (QD5)
% All Respondents
Facebook Instagram Twitter/X Nextdoor Nixle BlueSky Reddit Other Don’t use social media currently

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Question 21 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City of La Mesa's website? FIGURE 61 CITY WEBSITE VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR As displayed in figures 62 to 64, use of the City’s website varied across demographic subgroups.

Those most likely to have visited the website in the past 12 months were residents who had contact with city staff during the same period, respondents either satisfied or dissatisfied with cityresident communication (as opposed to not having an opinion), those in the Southeast quadrant of the City, residents at least 30 years of age, those with a child in the home, home owners, and female respondents.

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

SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION

53.9 51.1 49.2 49.9 46.4 49.8 52.3

27.2 42.9 46.0 48.3 48.1 52.7 49.5 46.8

70.8 4.8 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 2.0

49.9 45.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Not sure
Did not visit
City website
in past 12
months
Yes, visited
City website
in past 12
months

75.5 43.0

57.1 52.3

32.5 51.3 50.4 50.0 47.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 4 4 to 10 11 to 15 More than
15 Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied Not sure
Years in La Mesa (Q1) Contact With Staff (Q16) Satisfaction With Communication (Q18) % Respondents That Visited City Website

Communication
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 FIGURE 63 CITY WEBSITE VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY QUADRANT OF CITY, AGE & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 64 CITY WEBSITE VISIT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & ETHNICITY

40.0 53.6 52.6 50.9 51.5

60.8 45.8

38.1 48.2

53.6 59.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older
Yes No
Quadrant of City Age (QD1) Child in Household
(QD2)
% Respondents That Visited City Website

50.2 49.7

45.1 48.7 45.6

54.6 44.2 43.8

55.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Own Rent Male Female Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican /
Black
Asian Mixed /
Other
Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Gender (QD4) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Respondents That Visited City Website

Background & Demographics
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS Table 16 presents the key demographic and background information collected during the survey by study year. Because of the probability-based sampling methodology used in this study, the results shown in the table are representative of adult residents in the City of La Mesa. The primary motivation for collecting the background and demographic information was to provide a better insight into how results of the substantive questions of the survey vary by demographic characteristics. TABLE 16 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Total Respondents 1,110 1,069 1,257 1,218 1,023 825 800 800 800 QD1 Age
18 to 29 19.0 22.7 25.4 25.0 26.4 24.2 24.8 21.7 22.4
30 to 39 22.5 21.2 21.0 20.9 17.6 18.5 17.2 19.4 19.4
40 to 49 15.6 13.1 13.9 13.3 14.3 15.6 16.5 19.2 18.2
50 to 64 19.1 20.0 21.3 20.9 20.7 23.8 22.7 18.2 16.2
65 or older 18.5 17.1 17.5 19.7 19.7 17.4 17.4 21.3 20.5 Prefer not to answer 5.3 5.9 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.4 0.3 3.3 QD2 Children in hsld
Yes 26.8 27.1 28.1 28.2 28.1 27.9 30.8 33.2 31.2
No 68.7 69.7 70.2 70.6 69.5 71.5 67.0 66.4 65.4
Prefer not to answer 4.6 3.2 1.7 1.1 2.4 0.6 2.2 0.4 3.3 QD3 Home ownership status
Own 51.6 51.1 58.0 60.1 60.7 60.1 60.6 64.8 55.6
Rent 41.5 42.0 40.2 38.3 37.6 38.7 37.2 34.7 39.8
Prefer not to answer 6.9 6.9 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.2 2.1 0.5 4.6 QD4 Gender
Male 46.8 48.3 44.5 47.3 47.0 46.6 51.5 50.5 46.3
Female 48.7 45.8 52.1 51.6 52.3 53.2 48.5 49.5 53.7
Non-binary 1.0 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prefer not to answer 3.5 3.4 2.6 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 QD5 Ethnicity
Caucasian / White 55.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Latino / Hispanic 28.8 25.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A African-American / Black 6.3 7.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asian 5.6 5.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mixed / Other 2.1 3.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Prefer not to answer 1.8 3.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Study Year

Methodology
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

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

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

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

Nearly all of the questions asked in the 2025 survey were tracked directly from the City’s prior surveys to allow the City to assess its performance over time.

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

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

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

Methodology
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Telephone interviews averaged 20 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 1,110 completed surveys were gathered online and by telephone between March 5 and March 11, 2025.

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

Because not every adult in the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 1,110 adults for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 48,041 adults in the City5 had been interviewed.

For example, in estimating the percentage of adults who have been in contact with City of La Mesa staff in the past 12 months (Question 16), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a desired confidence level, and the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below.
where is the proportion of adults who said had been in contact with staff (0.22 for 22% in this example), is the population size of all adults (48,041), is the sample size that received the question (1,110), and is the upper point for the t-distribution with degrees of freedom (1.96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error of ± 2.4%. This means that with 22% of survey respondents indicating they had been in contact with city staff in the past 12 months, we can be 95 percent confident that the actual percentage of all adult residents in La Mesa in contact with staff during this period is between 20% and 24%.

Figure 65 on the next page provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response (i.e., = 0.5). For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 2.9% for questions answered by all 1,110 respondents.

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

5. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-year estimate. pˆ t Nn –
N------------   pˆ 1 – pˆ n – 1  ------------------- pˆ
N n
t   2 n – 1
pˆ

Methodology
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 FIGURE 65 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. Where appropriate, tests of statistical significance were conducted to evaluate changes in responses between the 2023 and 2025 studies.

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

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

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and figures for a given question. Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that sum to slightly more or less than 100%.
1,110 Respondents
± 2.9%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES Copyright © 2025 True North Research, Inc. Page 1
City of La Mesa
Resident Satisfaction Survey
Final Toplines (n=1,110)
March 2025
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hello, may I please speak to ______. Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, a public opinion research company. We’re conducting a survey about issues in La Mesa (la MAYsuh) and we would like to get your opinions.

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

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

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

Section 2: Land Line (only) Screener for Inclusion in the Study SC1 To begin, are you at least 18 years of age?
1 Yes Qualified
2 No Ask to speak to someone in household
that is at least 18 years of age
99 Prefer not to answer Terminate
Section 3: General Perceptions of City & Local Issues
Q1 How long have you lived in the City of La Mesa?
1 Less than 1 year 6%
2 1 to 3 years 19%
3 4 to 5 years 13%
4 6 to 10 years 18%
5 11 to 15 years 10%
6 16 to 20 years 8%
7 More than 20 years 26%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 20%
2 Good 64%
3 Fair 13%
4 Poor 2%
5 Very poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q3
If the City government could change one thing to make La Mesa a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Address homeless issues 16%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 15%
Improve, repair roads 13%
Limit growth, development 7%
Add, improve sidewalks / Improve
walkability 7%
Clean up public areas, facilities 5%
Increase public safety 4%
Reduce traffic congestion 4%
Provide affordable housing 4%
Improve parking 4%
Add, improve parks 4%
Enforce traffic laws 4%
Add more bike lanes 4%
Improve public transportation 3%
Improve police presence, response 3%
Improve street lighting 2%
Improve shopping, dining opportunities 2%
Reduce marijuana dispensers 2%
Improve building permitting process 2%
Provide more community events, activities 2%
Address rent control issues 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Section 4: City Services
Next, I’m going to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of La Mesa.

Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 23%
2 Somewhat satisfied 57%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 10%
4 Very dissatisfied 2%
98 Not sure 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Split Sample for Q5 and Q6. Even PINS receive items A-K, Odd PINS receive items L-U.

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

Randomize
Extremely important
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Maintaining and repairing streets 55% 40% 5% 0% 0% 0% B Maintaining landscaped street medians 14% 32% 42% 12% 0% 0% C Providing adequate traffic signs and signals 36% 44% 16% 2% 2% 0% D Enforcing traffic laws 26% 36% 33% 4% 1% 0%
E Maintaining a low crime rate 62% 31% 5% 0% 1% 1%
F Providing crime prevention programs 37% 33% 22% 3% 4% 0% G Providing neighborhood police patrols 33% 34% 24% 6% 3% 0% H Providing fire protection services 64% 34% 2% 0% 0% 0% I Providing animal control services 15% 36% 38% 7% 3% 1% J Preparing the community for emergencies 36% 40% 20% 4% 1% 0% K Providing emergency medical services 62% 32% 4% 0% 2% 0% L Keeping public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 33% 50% 15% 1% 0% 0%
M Maintaining parks and sports fields 45% 42% 11% 2% 0% 0% N Providing programs for youth 34% 39% 20% 4% 2% 1%
O Providing programs for adults 13% 29% 38% 15% 4% 1%
P Providing programs for seniors 18% 33% 34% 8% 5% 2%
Q Providing community events 17% 34% 38% 9% 1% 0%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4
R Reducing stormwater pollution 36% 29% 26% 4% 4% 1%
S Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable
community 52% 27% 17% 4% 0% 0%
T Facilitating the creation of affordable
housing 41% 21% 20% 14% 3% 1%
U Addressing homelessness 55% 32% 10% 2% 0% 1%
Q6
For the same list of services I just read I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City of La Mesa is doing to provide the service.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? (Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask): Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Maintain and repair streets 16% 37% 26% 19% 2% 0%
B Maintain landscaped street medians 26% 44% 13% 5% 10% 2% C Provide adequate traffic signs and signals 29% 49% 11% 5% 6% 0% D Enforce traffic laws 24% 37% 13% 7% 17% 1%
E Maintain a low crime rate 20% 48% 12% 3% 15% 1%
F Provide crime prevention programs 12% 33% 9% 5% 39% 2% G Provide neighborhood police patrols 17% 37% 15% 6% 23% 3% H Provide fire protection services 43% 28% 3% 2% 24% 0% I Provide animal control services 20% 31% 6% 4% 38% 1%
J Prepare the community for emergencies 17% 35% 10% 2% 34% 1% K Provide emergency medical services 34% 29% 4% 1% 32% 0% L Keep public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 26% 52% 7% 3% 10% 2%
M Maintain parks and sports fields 31% 49% 8% 3% 10% 1% N Provide programs for youth 9% 33% 7% 1% 47% 3%
O Provide programs for adults 8% 27% 7% 2% 53% 3%
P Provide programs for seniors 10% 26% 3% 2% 56% 3%
Q Provide community events 21% 42% 10% 2% 22% 2%
R Reduce stormwater pollution 9% 25% 9% 2% 53% 1%
S Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable
community 15% 42% 22% 9% 11% 1%
T Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 5% 19% 22% 20% 31% 4% U Address homelessness 6% 25% 28% 21% 18% 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5
Section 5: Public Safety & Police
Q7 Overall, how safe is the City of La Mesa as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
1 Very safe 39%
2 Somewhat safe 51%
3 Somewhat unsafe 8%
4 Very unsafe 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q8 When you are: _____, would you say that you feel very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
Randomize
Very safe
Reasonably
safe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Walking alone in your neighborhood during
the day 62% 32% 5% 0% 0% 0%
B Walking alone in your neighborhood after
dark 17% 49% 26% 7% 2% 0%
C Walking alone in business and retail areas
during the day 56% 38% 5% 0% 0% 0%
D Walking alone in business and retail areas
after dark 14% 46% 29% 6% 4% 1%
E Walking alone in parks, paths, and
recreational trails during the day 39% 45% 10% 3% 4% 0% Q9 Are you involved in a neighborhood watch program?
1 Yes 8%
2 No 88%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q10
Thinking of the La Mesa Police Department, please tell me how well you feel the Department performs in the following areas.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Would you say the La Mesa Police Department does an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job in this area? Randomize
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Prefer not to
answer
A Investigating crimes 11% 28% 18% 8% 5% 29%
B Maintaining a presence/being visible 17% 35% 25% 10% 4% 10%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
C Engaging and interacting with the public 15% 30% 23% 12% 5% 16% D Communicating with La Mesa residents and
local businesses 12% 30% 22% 13% 5% 18%
E Working with the community to solve
problems 12% 27% 24% 11% 5% 22%
Q11
Next, I’m going to read you a few statements about the La Mesa Police Department. For each, I’d like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
No opinion
Prefer not to
answer
A
The Police Department demonstrates
professionalism when interacting with the
public
35% 29% 7% 3% 24% 2%
B I trust the La Mesa Police Department to
protect and serve the public 32% 37% 9% 6% 13% 2%
C The Police Department holds its officers
accountable 18% 19% 7% 7% 44% 4%
D
The La Mesa Police Department treats
people the same regardless of their race,
income, or identity
24% 16% 11% 8% 38% 3%
Q12 In the past two years, have you: _____?
Randomize
Yes
No
Prefer
not to
answer
A Been stopped or pulled over by a La Mesa
Police Officer 7% 91% 2%
B Called the La Mesa Police Department for
assistance 37% 60% 2%
C
Talked or interacted with a La Mesa Police
Officer at a community event or other
setting
38% 60% 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7
Q13
The City of La Mesa has created codes to address a variety of issues that can affect a neighborhood, such as illegal parking, abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction, junk storage and properties not being properly maintained.

Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to enforce code violations, or do you not have an opinion? (Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask): Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
1 Very satisfied 14% Skip to Q15
2 Somewhat satisfied 35% Skip to Q15
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 12% Ask Q14
4 Very dissatisfied 8% Ask Q14
98 No opinion 28% Skip to Q15
99 Prefer not to answer 3% Skip to Q15
Q14
Is there a particular issue or code violation that the City isn’t addressing that leads you to be dissatisfied? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe it to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Illegal parking, unattended, abandoned
vehicles 35%
Unmaintained properties, lawns 15%
No particular issue 15%
Violations not enforced fairly 12%
Homeless issues 7%
City not responding quickly to city resident
issues 7%
Speeding cars, traffic violations 7%
littering, trash cans left outside 5%
Road, street maintenance 2%
Noise violations 2%
Safety, security issues 2%
Vandalism, graffiti 2%
Loitering 2%
Dogs off-leash 2%
Enforcing building permit violations 2%
Streetlights not working 1%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
Section 6: Traffic
Q15
Next, I’d like to ask you a few questions about traffic circulation. By traffic circulation, I mean the ability to drive around La Mesa without encountering long delays. Would you rate: ____ within the City of La Mesa as excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Read in Order
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Overall traffic circulation 12% 46% 31% 7% 3% 1% 1%
B Traffic circulation on major streets 10% 42% 32% 11% 3% 1% 1% C Traffic circulation in residential areas 24% 48% 19% 5% 2% 1% 1% Section 7: Staff Interactions
Q16 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of La Mesa staff? 1 Yes 22% Ask Q17
2 No 73% Skip to Q18
98 Not sure/No opinion 4% Skip to Q18
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q18
Q17 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____. (Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read).

Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Helpful 58% 29% 12% 0% 0%
B Professional 74% 20% 4% 2% 1%
C Responsive 51% 39% 7% 2% 1%
Section 8: Communication
Q18
Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, and other means? (get answer, then ask): Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 19%
2 Somewhat satisfied 39%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 12%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 24%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9
Q19
As I read the following ways that the City of La Mesa can communicate with residents, I’d like to know if you think they would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not an effective way for the City to communicate with you.

Randomize
Very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Not
effective
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Email 42% 38% 10% 8% 2%
B Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to
your home 26% 38% 23% 11% 2%
C Electronic newsletter 33% 39% 13% 13% 2%
D City’s website 25% 44% 20% 9% 2%
E Local news media 17% 45% 22% 14% 2%
F Social media like Facebook, Twitter/X and
Next Door 25% 36% 23% 14% 2%
G Townhall meetings 20% 39% 19% 20% 2%
H Text messages 40% 29% 16% 13% 2%
Ask Q20 if Q19F=(1,2). Otherwise skip to Q21.

Q20 What is your preferred Social Media site – the one you currently use most often? 1 Facebook 25%
2 Instagram 45%
3 Twitter/X 7%
4 Nextdoor 4%
5 Nixle 1%
8 BlueSky 2%
9 Reddit 2%
6 Other responses 2%
7 Don’t use social media currently 11%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Q21 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City of La Mesa’s website? 1 Yes 50%
2 No 45%
98 Not sure 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
Section 9: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year recorded into age categories shown below. 18 to 29 19%
30 to 39 22%
40 to 49 16%
50 to 64 19%
65 or older 18%
Prefer not to answer 5%
D2 Do you currently have any children under the age of 18 living in your home? 1 Yes 27%
2 No 69%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D3 Do you own or rent your residence in the City of La Mesa? 1 Own 52%
2 Rent 42%
99 Prefer not to answer 7%
D4 What is your gender?
1 Male 47%
2 Female 49%
3 Non-binary 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of La Mesa True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 City of La Mesa Resident Satisfaction Survey March 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 11
D5 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates.
1 Caucasian/White 55%
2 Latino/Hispanic 29%
3 African-American/Black 6%
4 Native American Indian or Alaskan
Native <1%
5 Asian -- Korean, Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Filipino or other Asian 6%
6 Pacific Islander <1%
7 Mixed Heritage 1%
8 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of La Mesa.

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

4/22/2025

COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY

CONDUCTED FOR THE

CITY OF LA MESA

PRESENTED BY
TIMOTHY MCLARNEY PH.D.

2 o How did we select residents to survey?
o Stratified random sample of adult residents
o Balanced, representative sample that aligns with Census estimates o How did we recruit participation?
o Personalized email, text, and telephone calls
o PINs to restrict access and ensure one complete per respondent o How were respondents able to share their opinions?
o Secure, PIN-protected website that scales to the device o Telephone (land line or mobile)
o What was the sample size?
o 1,110 completed interviews
oOverall margin of error of ± 2.9% @ 95% level of confidence

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

3 DEMOGRAPHICS: CENSUS VS SURVEY
Census 2023 ACS
5-Year Estimates
2025 Community
Opinion Survey
Age
18 to 29 20% 20%
30 to 39 23% 24%
40 to 49 16% 16%
50 to 64 21% 20%
65 or older 20% 20%
Child in Household
Yes 25% 28%
No 75% 72%
Ethnicity
Hispanic 28% 29%
Black 8% 6%
Asian 6% 6%
White 52% 56%
Other 6% 2%

4 OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY STUDY YEAR

16.6 23.6 30.9 29.8 32.0

40.7 32.3 34.1

56.1 61.5

58.7 60.9 58.2

50.7 57.0 55.1

23.8 13.4 9.5 7.8 8.1 7.3 8.7 9.1

20.2†

64.3†

13.2†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY

16.2 15.0

12.5 7.5

7.4 4.7

4.1 4.1

4.1 3.8

3.6 3.3

2.9 2.3

2.1 2.1

1.9 1.8

1.7 4.0

3.6 0 5 10 15 20
Address homeless issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve, repair roads
Limit growth, development
Add, improve sidewalks / Improve walkability
Clean up public areas, facilities
Reduce traffic congestion
Enforce traffic laws
Provide affordable housing
Increase public safety
Add more bike lanes
Improve parking
Add, improve parks
Improve police presence, response
Improve public transportation
Address rent control issues
Provide more community events, activities
Improve building permitting process
Reduce marijuana dispensers
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Improve street lighting

6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR

20.2 30.3

41.7 41.5 43.5

51.6 47.0 52.5

50.7 50.7

43.8 45.6 42.8

40.0 43.1

40.6 15.2

6.4 3.2

4.8 1.1 8.8 6.0 2.5

23.5 56.6†

9.7 6.2 4.8 2.9 9.8†

2.4 2.6 2.1† 2.4 1.9

1.5 7.7 6.4 5.4 9.0 3.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES

63.6 54.7

61.7 61.9

44.7 54.8

33.0 36.2

52.2 35.5

33.6 37.0

32.6 36.5

26.2 41.1

17.2 17.5

14.8 13.9

12.8 33.6

39.8 31.7

30.5 42.5

31.9 50.5

44.3 26.6

39.7 39.0

33.4 33.9

28.6 36.0

20.6 33.8

33.3 35.7

32.2 28.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection services
Maintaining and repairing streets
Providing emergency medical services
Maintaining a low crime rate
Maintaining parks and sports fields
Addressing homelessness
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Providing adequate traffic signs and signals
Creating a pedestrian friendly, walkable community
Preparing the community for emergencies
Providing programs for youth
Providing crime prevention programs
Providing neighborhood police patrols
Reducing stormwater pollution
Enforcing traffic laws
Facilitating the creation of affordable housing
Providing community events
Providing programs for seniors
Providing animal control services
Maintaining landscaped street medians
Providing programs for adults
% Respondents
Extremely important Very important

8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES

56.4 50.2

29.9 34.3

24.6 27.7

32.1 31.1

17.6 24.4

26.6 29.9

18.7 19.6

19.9 29.8

23.2 17.1

16.5 7.5

7.3 37.2

43.3 58.8

54.4 63.2

56.1 51.2

52.2 65.3

57.5 54.4

50.1 60.9

56.4 55.8

45.5 49.6

47.6 37.7

30.7 28.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Provide fire protection services
Provide emergency medical services
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Maintain parks and sports fields
Provide programs for seniors
Provide community events
Provide animal control services
Provide adequate traffic signs and signals
Provide programs for youth
Maintain a low crime rate
Prepare the community for emergencies
Maintain landscaped street medians
Provide programs for adults
Provide crime prevention programs
Reduce stormwater pollution
Enforce traffic laws
Provide neighborhood police patrols
Create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community
Maintain and repair streets
Address homelessness
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied

9 HOW SAFE IS LA MESA OVERALL?

27.7 34.3

57.3 53.6

12.2 10.2

2.4 1.6

39.2†

51.4†

8.2†

0.9†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Somewhat safe
Very safe

10 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY SCENARIOS

62.2 40.4

16.9 14.5

32.5 46.7

49.7 48.6

4.8 4.8

10.1 26.1 30.5

7.3 6.4

56.2 38.6

2.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Business and retail
areas during the
day
Neighborhood
during day
Parks, paths, rec
trails during the
day
Neighborhood
after dark
Business and retail
areas after dark
Q8 Perceived safety of walking alone . . .
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Reasonably
safe
Very safe

11 RATING POLICE DEPT PERFORMANCE

17.1 14.5

11.5 11.4

11.5 35.0

30.2 29.9

28.4 26.6

24.6 23.2

22.5 18.3

23.6 4.9

5.1 29.1

9.5 11.5

12.8 7.8

11.2 3.5

4.8 4.9

10.2 15.6

18.5 22.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Maintaining a presence/being visible
Engaging and interacting with the public
Communicating with La Mesa residents and local
businesses
Investigating crimes
Working with the community to solve problems
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Prefer not to answer

12 STATEMENTS ABOUT POLICE DEPARTMENT

34.6 24.4 18.3

29.2 16.4

19.4 9.1

7.2 11.4

7.0 6.4

3.0 7.5

7.2 15.3

26.0 40.2 48.1

32.2 37.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
I trust the La Mesa
Police Department to
protect and serve the
public
Police Dept
demonstrates
professionalism when
interacting with the
public
The La Mesa Police
Department treats
people the same
regardless of their
race, income, or
identity
The Police Department
holds its officers
accountable
Q11 Agreement with statements about Police Department . . . % Respondents
Not sure/Prefer not
to answer
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree

13 CITY STAFF CUSTOMER SERVICE

52.6 58.0

39.8 29.5

3.8 7.6 12.5

75.8 20.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Professionalism Responsiveness Helpfulness
Q17 Rating city staff on . . .
% Respondents Who Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months
Not at all
Somewhat
Very

14 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION

16.9 17.7 24.1 25.1 22.8

35.5 32.4

45.3 36.6

42.9 38.2 38.6 46.3

44.2 39.1

16.4 34.6

16.4 17.7 16.1

13.9 10.2

13.2 6.4

21.1 14.6 13.9 12.2 12.0 7.2 6.0 8.1

19.1 38.8

12.5†

4.5 3.5† 8.1

6.7 5.6 6.9

2.6 24.1

2.1† 0.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2006
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

15 RATING COMMUNICATION METHODS

42.1 33.4

39.7 24.5

26.3 17.4

24.8 19.9

38.2 38.6

29.4 44.1

38.3 44.9

36.0 39.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Email
Electronic newsletter
Text messages
City’s website
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to your home
Local news media
Social media like Facebook, Twitter/X, and Next Door
Townhall meetings
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective

16 Residents are quite satisfied with La Mesa and the City’s performance
oOverall quality of life
oOverall performance in providing municipal services
oCustomer service provided by staff
oStatistically significant improvement in 23 performance areas.

Zero (0) declines
Specific Strengths
o Fire Protection
o EMS
o Keeping public buildings clean & attractive
o Maintaining parks & sports fields
o Senior programs
o Community events
o Animal control
o Traffic signals & signs

KEY CONCLUSIONS

17 Priority/Opportunities Areas
oAddressing homelessness
oFacilitating the development of affordable housing
oMaintaining and repairing streets
oCreating a pedestrian friendly/walkable community
oProviding neighborhood police patrols

KEY CONCLUSIONS

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 22, 2025
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION ON THE PLANNING PHASE OF THE

LA MESA BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS

PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Recommendation:

Receive a presentation on La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Study and provide comments to Staff.

Fiscal Impact:

None at this time. Final design and construction activities are contingent on grants and other sources of funding yet to be determined. Adoption of the staff recommended alternatives makes these projects more competitive for grant funding.

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

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 T-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Development

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 2 of 3
BACKGROUND:

Consistent with the City's goals mentioned above and the adopted Vision Zero Plan, the City of La Mesa invests in its transportation corridors to maintain its infrastructure, improve corridor safety, and encourage economic development.

The City of La Mesa received an Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant for the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk project. The project approval and environmental documentation (PA&ED) phase of the grant was completed in 2024.

DISCUSSION:

The goal of the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections project is to complete gaps in the bike and pedestrian circulation networks along collector and arterial streets within the City of La Mesa to improve safety and access to transit, schools, parks, healthcare, and other essential services.

The goal of the PA&ED phase is to complete a planning level study that assessed opportunities and constraints, determined needs/demands, informed the community, collected feedback, and evaluated alternatives, have multiple options, and complicating factors such as school traffic, challenges to construction (such as encroaching private improvements) or right of way acquisition. There are eight planning segments included in this scope of work:

A. La Mesa Rail Trail Multi-Use Path
B. Pasadena Avenue Sidewalks/Collier Multi-Use Path/Mariposa Trail (Spring Street to Upland Street)
C. Palm Avenue Bike Lanes (University Avenue to Spring Street) D. Gateside Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalk (Park Lane to Payson Road) E. La Mesa Boulevard Bike Lanes (Jackson Drive to I-8)
F. Jackson Drive Bike Lanes and Sidewalks (La Mesa Blvd. to Lemon Avenue) G. Lemon Avenue Sidewalks and Bike Lanes (Glen St. to SR 125) H. Garfield Street Sidewalks
Staff recommended alternatives are provided in this presentation and the final planning study report. Segment E (La Mesa Boulevard Bike Lanes) is not included in this presentation because it overlaps with the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets project area and those improvements will be made as part of that project.

City staff presented the results of the study to the Mobility Commission and the Environmental Sustainability Commission in June 2024 and May 2024, respectively. The commissions have passed motions to approve the staff recommended alternatives. After

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 3 of 3
the presentation, staff will return at a future City Council meeting with a recommendation of adoption of the planning study.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council provide comments on the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Study.

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

La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project
Planning Study
April 22, 2025

LMBSW Project Overview
• $180,000 planning grant – no design or construction in scope• Completion of gaps in the bike and pedestrian circulation networks • Prepare concept plans, conduct public outreach, and gather public feedback• Supports:
• Sidewalk Master Plan• Bicycle Master Plan• Climate Action Plan • Strategic Plan • Vision Zero

Projects

Projects

Projects

Community and Stakeholder Outreach
• Outreach Plan• Stakeholder List• Media Development• Public Workshops• Comment Summary• Commission Subcommittee

1. Garfield Street Sidewalks

1. Garfield Street Sidewalks
Alternative B:

Recommended Alternative Improvement Quantity (linear feet) 600 New Sidewalk
Improvement Quantity (linear feet)
400 New Sidewalk
Front Lawn Front Lawn
Alternative A:

2. Jackson Drive Bike Lanes and Sidewalks

2. Jackson Drive Bike Lanes and Sidewalks
• Alternative A:

Alternative B:

Recommended Alternative
Alternative A:

Improvement Quantity (linear feet)
1,100 New Sidewalk1,900 New Bike Lane

3. Lemon Avenue Sidewalks and Bike Lanes
• Tabletop Raised Intersection at
Garfield St.
• Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing with
Curb Pop‐outs at Wood St.
• Reduction of Posted Speed per
Assembly Bill 43
• Posting of Permanent Truck Weight
Restriction
• Improved Lighting and Monitoring
Using Smart Street Lights
• Neighborhood Entry Monument with
Chicane
• Permanent Radar Speed Feedback
Signs
• Narrower Traffic Lanes with High
Visibility Edge Lines
• ADA‐Compliant Sidewalks on North
Side
• Dedicated, Buffered Bike Lanes Both
Sides with No On‐Street Parking

4. Palm Avenue Bike Lanes-Alternatives A & B

4. Palm Avenue Bike Lanes-Alternatives A & B
• Alternative A:

Alternative B:

Recommended Alternative
Improvement Quantity (linear feet)
4,800 New Bike Lane
Alternative A: Alternative B:

5. La Mesa Rail Trail Multi-Use Path
• Water Main Alternate A: Multi‐use path
located within new and existing City right‐of‐
way and
a Helix Water District easement.

Would provide
a curving, scenic route with
a
bridge crossing and hills up to 5% grade.

5. La Mesa Rail Trail Multi-Use Path
• Railroad Alternate B: Multi‐use path
located within MTS right‐of‐way, parallel
to and west of the San Diego Trolley.

Would provide
a flatter, more direct
route in closer proximity to the trolley
tracks.

5. La Mesa Rail Trail Multi-Use Path –
Nebo Hill Neighborhood Meeting
• Resident Concerns:• Safety and privacy – increased foot traffic• Traffic and parking• Drainage • Maintenance

5. La Mesa Rail Trail Multi-Use Path
• Water Main Alternate A: Multi‐use path located
within new and existing City right‐of‐way and
a
Helix Water District easement. Would provide
a
curving, scenic route with
a bridge crossing and
hills up to 5% grade.
• Railroad Alternate B: Multi‐use path located
within MTS right‐of‐way, parallel to and west of
the San Diego Trolley. Would provide
a flatter,
more direct route in closer proximity to the trolley
tracks.

Recommended Alternative
Improvement Quantity (linear feet)
2,200 New Multi‐Use Trail

6. Pasadena Avenue/Collier/Mariposa Path
Recommended

6. Pasadena Avenue/Collier/Mariposa Path
Recommended
Collier Park Path
Improvement Quantity (linear feet)
800 New Park Trail

7. Gateside Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalk

7. Gateside Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalk
Existing Condition Proposed Improvements
Improvement Quantity (linear feet)
850 New Sidewalk850 New Bike Lane

Next Steps
• City Council action to approved recommended alternatives• Prioritized list of projects for funding

1. Lemon Ave Sidewalks and Bike Lanes – grant has been submitted2. Jackson Dr Sidewalks and Bike Lanes – grant has been submitted3. Garfield St Sidewalks4. Palm Ave Bike Lanes5. Gateside Rd Bike Lanes and Sidewalk6. Collier Park Path7. La Mesa Rail Trail/Multi Use Path

Recommendations
Project Staff Recommendation
Lemon Ave Sidewalks and Bike Lanes All improvements except dedicated bike lanes Alternative A:Sharrows and keep on‐street parking
Jackson Drive Bike Lanes and Sidewalks
Alternative B:Sidewalks on west side of street
Garfield Street Sidewalks
Alternative B:Dedicated bike lane northbound, sharrow southbound Palm Ave Bike Lanes
Gateside Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalk All improvementsPasadena Ave/Collier/Mariposa Path Collier Park Path Alternative B:

Railroad path farther away from homes
La Mesa Rail Trail Multi‐Use Path

DATE: April 22, 2025
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 THE VACANCY ON

THE MOBILITY COMMISSION
On April 8th, the City Council interviewed applicants who were interested in being appointed to fill the vacancy on the City’s Mobility Commission. At the Council meeting on April 22nd, 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 applicants 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

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

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

A MEMBER TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE MOBILITY COMMISSION ___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, a position on the Mobility Commission is vacant; 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 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 appointed to fill the vacant 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 22nd day of April 2025, 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. 2025- , 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)

Mobility Commission: 1 position – four-year term
One appointee will fill the vacancy with term expiring June 30, 2028.

All Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code. Of the seven voting members, five shall be members of the general public. One member shall preferably have experience as a vulnerable road user, who frequently walk, ride a bicycle, or use another vulnerable non-car mode of transportation. One member shall preferably have significant experience with climate or environmental issues.

First Appointed Terms
Philip Cavello
Emma McClees

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

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

Location:

April 8, 2025, 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California

Present: Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Lauren Cazares
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Genevieve Suzuki
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
Assistant City Manager Amanda Lee
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
_____________________________________________________________________

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

The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.

Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER CAZARES

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.

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

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

2 Consent Calendar Item 11.6 was deleted from the agenda.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY POWER PRESENTATION ON 2025 RATES,

POWER PROCUREMENT, AND PROGRAM OFFERINGS
Lee Friedman, Senior Manager Strategic Partnerships, San Diego Community Power ("SDCP"), provided a PowerPoint presentation on SDCP's efforts to deliver cleaner, renewable energy at competitive rates while maintaining local control. The presentation highlighted service plans ranging from 45% to 100% renewable energy, community programs such as solar battery savings and energy efficiency grants, and specific impacts in La Mesa, including funding for EV charging infrastructure and e-bike incentives. Mr. Friedman also discussed upcoming initiatives, including the launch of the San Diego Regional Energy Network to support energy efficiency and workforce development programs.

Council questions and comments ensued.

5.2 PRESENTATION OF THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE
STREETS PLAN, SEGMENT 2
Engineering Project Manager Kinnard provided a PowerPoint presentation on the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 2. The presentation covered the project overview, timeline, and key concepts, which included alignment with the Climate Action Plan, reducing exposure times for pedestrians and cyclists, balancing transportation modes, promoting equitable access, and maintaining or adding parking where feasible. Community outreach efforts, including surveys and public workshops, identified concerns related to speeding, parking challenges, and pedestrian safety. Engineering Project Manager Kinnard also reviewed existing conditions in the project area, proposed roadway configurations, anticipated mode-share changes following improvements, and outlined the next steps for project implementation.

Council questions and comments ensued.

5.3 PROCLAIMING APRIL 25, 2025 AS ARBOR DAY
Mayor Arapostathis read and presented the proclamation designating April 19, 2025, as Arbor Day to Environmental Sustainability Manager Ego. (Note: The agenda incorrectly listed the date as April 25, 2025.)

3 Environmental Sustainability Manager Ego extended an invitation to the community to attend the City of La Mesa’s Earth Day event on Saturday, April 19, 2025.

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

CREATIVITY MONTH
Mayor Arapostathis read and presented the proclamation declaring April as Art, Culture, and Creativity Month to Misty Thompson, the newly appointed Director of Community Services.

Director of Community Services Thompson expressed her enthusiasm for collaborating with artists throughout the City.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Barbie Wheeler spoke on her concerns about a house on Bellflower Drive.

Brenda Hammond spoke out against exploiting homeless individuals for religious, financial, or political gain, and also commented on her new haircut.

Brenda Leek spoke about the Flag Day Parade scheduled for June 14, 2025, and the Taste of La Mesa event scheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2025.

7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflicts of interest disclosed.

8. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

8.1 INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR THE UNSCHEDULED VACANCY

ON THE MOBILITY COMMISSION
City Clerk Wiegelman briefly explained the interview process.

The following applicants spoke regarding their qualifications and interest in being appointed:

Philip Cavello
Emma McClees
City Clerk Wiegelman said the appointment would be made at the April 22, 2025, City Council meeting.

Following the interviews, no action was taken.

9. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

4 9.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL THE VACANCY ON

THE LA MESA COMMUNITY PARKING COMMISSION
Mayor Arapostathis nominated Jacqueline Bougie for appointment to the La Mesa Community Parking Commission.

Resolution No. 2025-029
Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Cazares
Approve the appointment of Jacqueline Bougie to the La Mesa Community Parking Commission as the general population representative, and adopt Resolution confirming the appointment.

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

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

11. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 11.1 through 11.7)
Councilmember Lothian announced she would no longer be traveling to Sacramento to attend the California for the Arts Summit and Arts Advocacy Day (Item 11.3).

Councilmember Cazares asked a question and made comments on Item 11.4.

City Manager Humora responded to Councilmember Cazares' question regarding Item 11.4.

Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Vice Mayor Dillard
Approve Consent Calendar Items 11.1 through 11.7, except for Item 11.6.

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

5 11.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.

11.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2025
Approve.

11.3 APPROVAL FOR VICE MAYOR DILLARD AND COUNCILMEMBER

LOTHIAN TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA FOR THE ARTS SUMMIT

AND ARTS ADVOCACY DAY IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, FROM
APRIL 22 THROUGH APRIL 23, 2025
Approve.

11.4 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT WITH

PARTNER INSIGHTS, LLC FOR INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR

SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT
BOARD
Resolution No. 2025-030
Adopt Resolution.

11.5 RESOLUTION AWARDING A TASK ORDER TO CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL AREA

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Resolution No. 2025-031
Adopt Resolution.

11.7 GRANT APPLICATION FOR LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE

STREETS GATEWAY ROUNDABOUT

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT

APPLICATION TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF

GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM

TO FUND THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS

GATEWAY ROUNDABOUT, AND IF AWARDED, ACCEPTING AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT
Resolution No. 2025-032
Adopt Resolution.

6 11.6 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2023

PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA

AND THE SAN DIEGO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES

COUNCIL AND SIGNATORY CRAFT UNIONS
This Item was deleted from the agenda.

12. COUNCIL INITIATED

12.1 CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT

OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND

RECREATION AND THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION TO

THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - MAYOR

ARAPOSTATHIS AND COUNCILMEMBER SUZUKI
Mayor Arapostathis and Councilmember Suzuki explained the purpose for changing the name of the Department of Community Services to the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Suzuki
Direct staff to: (1) draft the necessary amendments to the La Mesa Municipal Code to rename the Department of Community Services back to the Department of Parks and Recreation, update the names of all associated commissions accordingly, and return to the City Council within 90 days with a draft ordinance for consideration; (2) update all position titles currently associated with the Department of Community Services to reflect the Department of Parks and Recreation; and (3) conduct outreach to inform employees, residents, and stakeholders of the transition and provide information about the changes.

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

13. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.

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

7 There were no reports.

15. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.

16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 22, 2025
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A

GRANT APPLICATION TO THE SAN DIEGO

ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) SMART
GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO FUND PHASE 2

OF THE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN

UPDATE, AND IF AWARDED, ACCEPTING AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for the Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) to fund Phase 2 of the Downtown Village Specific Plan Update, and, if awarded, accepting and appropriating the funds for the project?
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of a grant application to the San Diego Association of Governments for the Smart Growth Incentive Program to fund Phase 2 of the Downtown Village Specific Plan Update, and, if awarded, accepting and appropriating the funds for the project
Fiscal Impact:

The cost estimate for Phase 2 of the Downtown Village Specific Plan Update project is $372,289. Staff had previously identified that funding for Phase 2 would, in part, be funded from Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant funds that were reimbursed to Community Development in February 2024 and $72,289 funded

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 2 of 3
from the Community Development FY24/25 adopted budget. The City is seeking a maximum grant amount from the program of $372,289, and if awarded the grant, the LEAP reimbursement funds would be used to reimburse previously committed money from the General Fund for the project. All funding match requirements would be met by personnel expenditures approved in the FY25/26 Community Development budget.

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.

BACKGROUND:

The Downtown Village Specific Plan (DVSP) area consists of approximately 161 acres of land, which extends from Interstate 8 south along Spring Street to Pasadena and Date Avenues, roughly bounded on the east by the University Avenue – La Mesa Boulevard intersection and on the west by the University Avenue – La Mesa Boulevard intersection.

The Orange Line of the MTS Trolley runs through the DVSP, and the entirety of the DVSP area is located within ½ mile of a trolley station.

The DVSP, adopted in 1990, is currently going through a comprehensive update. The updated DVSP will align with current policy priorities, recent legislative changes, and regional growth projections, while reflecting the community’s vision for the next 20 years.

It will support the implementation of the City’s 2012 General Plan and Strategic Goals - emphasizing sustainability, complete streets, wellness, and economic vitality.

The DVSP update is divided into 2 phases. On February 13, 2024 and March 11, 2025, RICK was awarded a professional services contract for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. Phase 1 commenced in the spring of 2024 and is almost completed. Phase 2 is anticipated to commence in early summer 2025. The City of La Mesa is seeking to submit a grant application to SANDAG for the SGIP to supplement the funding of Phase

2. The goal of the SGIP grant program is to fund planning, capital and climate action planning activities that facilitate compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development and increase housing and transportation choices. The DVSP update would be considered a planning project under the SGIP.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 3 of 3
DISCUSSION:

The DVSP will assist in developing the Downtown Village Area into a more vibrant, transitoriented destination. The vision for the Downtown Village is a welcoming, walkable, and inclusive city center with a thriving mix of shops, restaurants, housing, culture, and community space where La Mesa’s history and charm foster strong social connections and a sense of belonging for all. If the City is successful in obtaining SGIP funds, it could finance the completion of the document, which would offer benefits such as:
 Encouraging infill, mixed-use, and multi-family residential development;  Promoting economic development and job creation;
 Enhancing mobility and safety through improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections;
 Implementing smart growth-oriented parking policies;
 Preserving surrounding single-family neighborhoods and maintaining Downtown as a vibrant focal point for community life and traditions; and  Improving the usability of the plan to streamline discretionary review processes.

By facilitating a mix of housing, retail, office, and entertainment uses within walking distance and in close proximity to transit, the DVSP aligns with the SGIP. If awarded the full amount requested, the SGIP grant would replace previously identified funding.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of a grant application to the San Diego Association of Governments for the Smart Growth Incentive Program to fund Phase 2 of the Downtown Village Specific Plan Update, and, if awarded, accept and appropriate the amount of the award for the project.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Lynnette Santos
City Manager Director of Community Development
Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Submittal of the Grant Application

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (“SANDAG”) SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO FUND PHASE 2 OF THE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN

UPDATE, AND IF AWARDED, ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR

THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, up to $45 million of TransNet funding for Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) projects is available to local jurisdictions and the County of San Diego through the SGIP Program;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa wishes to receive grant funding from SANDAG; and WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) or Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction plan that includes all of the following items:
 Establishes a locally appropriate 2030 GHG reduction target for communitywide GHG emissions derived from the State’s legislative target for 2030 (as established by SB 32 or as amended by future legislation) and establishes long-term targets  Quantifies, using substantial evidence, how local GHG reduction strategies, programs, and measures would meet or exceed the local GHG reduction target.  Establishes a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the target, including reporting data to SANDAG and a requirement to amend the plan if it is not achieving adopted goals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by City Council that the City of La Mesa is authorized to submit a grant application for the following Project(s) to SANDAG, which is/are referred to as:
 La Mesa Downtown Village Specific Plan – Phase 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if a grant award is made by SANDAG to fund one or more of these projects, the City of La Mesa commits to providing the matching fund amounts per project as listed in the grant application.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if a grant award is made by SANDAG, the City of La Mesa authorizes staff to accept the grant funds, execute the grant agreement(s) with no exceptions in substantially the same form as provided with the call for projects, and complete the Project(s).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, the City of La Mesa understands and agrees that SANDAG shall have no liability for costs that may arise associated with the Project(s), which are not included in the grant agreement(s), including but not limited to costs stemming from claims, litigation, changes in law, or force majeure events.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 22nd day of April 2025, 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. 2025- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

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

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 22, 2025
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDEMENT
TO THE 2023 PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (“PLA”)

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA AND THE SAN

DIEGO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES

COUNCIL AND SIGNATORY CRAFT UNIONS
(“TRADES COUNCIL AND UNIONS”)
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution approving the First Amendment to the PLA?
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution approving the First Amendment to the PLA, subject to the final review, revision and approval of the City Attorney.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact related to this action.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Ensure a strong financial outlook through careful planning, sustainable service levels, and fiscal sustainability.
 Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 2 of 6
BACKGROUND:

In September 2023, the City executed the PLA for the purpose of timely, efficient, economical and successful completion of public works projects valued over $1 million.

The PLA has been implemented on several projects including last year’s street resurfacing and the soon-to-be completed 69th and Boulevard storm drain project.

Pursuant to Section 20.1(b) of the PLA, if any city with a population not exceeding 100,000 executes a project labor agreement with the Trades Council and Unions, the City Council, in its sole and exclusive discretion, may amend the PLA to include terms, provisions and conditions of any such agreement(s) if it finds it beneficial for the City of La Mesa to do so. In 2024, National City executed a project labor agreement with the Trades Council and Unions containing certain provisions (as noted herein) that staff has determined to be beneficial to the City of La Mesa.

DISCUSSION:

The following proposed amendments to the PLA, derived from the National City project labor agreement, would benefit the City of La Mesa by improving project delivery, increasing bidding opportunities and simplifying contract administration:
a) Add the following provisions to Section 3.2 of the PLA entitled “Exclusions”:

3.2 (h) Contracts for which there are less than three (3) unrelated, qualified bidders for a Covered Contract, in which case the Public Agency reserves the right to reject all bids and readvertise the contract not as a Covered Project or Covered Contract and not subject to this PLA.

3.2 (k)(1) If the lowest apparent responsive and responsible bid is ten percent (10%) or greater than the engineer’s estimate, in which case the City reserves the right to reject all bids and readvertise the contract not as a Covered Project or Covered Contract and not subject to this PLA.

3.2 (m) All off-site manufacturing, fabrication, maintenance, and handling of materials, equipment, or machinery.

3.2 (n) All operation of equipment and machinery owned or controlled by the Public Agency.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 3 of 6
NOTE:

Sections 3.2 (h) and (k)(1) will provide increased flexibility for the City Council to bid construction contracts in the best economic interest of the City. b) Amend Section 3.3 of the PLA entitled “Awarding of Contracts” to read as follows:

3.3 (b) Each Union shall enroll in the electronic bidding system used at the time of bidding (currently PlanetBids) and provide the listing information to all Union contractors able to provide services to the trades required for the project. Each Union contractor may provide bids to each prime bidding contractor in accordance with California law and the bidding documents. Union prime contractors may bid the project in accordance with California law and the bidding documents.

NOTE:

The PLA has a cumbersome process related to advertising projects that has been found to consume significant staff time. This change would shift the burden of informing union contractors of projects being advertised for bid from staff to the union contractors. City public works projects that are not PLA projects typically place this responsibility on the private contractors, and the inclusion of this clause simplifies the advertisement process thereby reducing staff time and involvement. c) Add a new section as Section 4.5 of the PLA to be entitled “Employment of Local Residents” as follows (and renumber accordingly):

4.5 (a) In recognition of the Public Agency’s mission to service its residents, the Unions and Contractors agree that, to the extent allowed by law, and as long as they possess the requisite skills and qualifications, the Unions shall first refer for Covered Projects permanent residents of zip codes 91941 and 91942 (“qualifying zip codes”) at the time of initial employment on a Covered Project or Veterans residing anywhere.

4.5 (b) To facilitate the dispatch of Local Residents, as well as all Contractor requests for referral and dispatch of workers from the applicable Union referral system, the Parties will develop and utilize a Workforce Dispatch Request Form for Covered Projects.

4.5 (c) It is the Parties’ goal that at least 80% of the total craft hours to be performed on a Covered Project shall be performed by residents of San Diego

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 4 of 6
County, graduates of, or recipients of a GED from a school in San Diego County residing anywhere, or Veterans residing anywhere, of which 5% should be from qualifying zip codes or graduates of, or recipients of a GED from all La Mesa schools residing anywhere, or Veterans residing anywhere.

NOTE:

This amendment enhances employment opportunities for La Mesa Residents. d) Add the following provisions to renumbered Section 4.6 of the PLA entitled “Core Employees” (formerly Section 4.5):

4.6 (a) The Parties recognize the Public Agency’s interest in promoting competition and inclusion of disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) which may not be a signatory to a current Schedule A. For purposes of this Section, DBEs shall be defined by the United Stated Department of Transportation, as that definition may be amended from time to time. (See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/disadvantaged -businessenterprise/definition-disadvantaged-business-enterprise; see also Appendix E to Part 26 of 49 CFR Part 26.) In order to promote participation and attract DBEs to work under this Agreement, and subject to the limitations set forth below, each Contractor that is a DBE may employ up to five (5) Core Employees per craft on a Covered Project, alternating with Core Employees and Union referrals (fist a Core Employee, then a referral from the appropriate union hiring hall, then a Core Employee, and so on.) After five (5) Core Employees have been employed, all additional employees in the affected trade or craft shall be requested and referred from the appropriate Union hiring hall.

The preceding Core Employee hiring procedures for DEBs are subject to the following limitation:
(1) Each Contractor is limited to utilizing the preceding Core Employee hiring procedure on one Covered Project.

NOTE:

This amendment enhances the City’s interests in promoting competition and inclusion or disadvantaged business enterprises (as defined by the United States Department of Transportation).
e) Amend Section 6.4 of the PLA entitled “Compliance with Prevailing Wage Laws” as follows:

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 5 of 6

6.4 All complaints regarding possible prevailing wage violations may be referred to the Project Labor Coordinator Labor Compliance Program, if any, for referral to the Department of Industrial Relations, State Labor Commissioner.

NOTE:

This amendment would serve to streamline a convoluted process that involves significant staff resources and time.
f) Amend Section 21.2 of the PLA entitled “Turnover and Final Acceptance of Completed Work” as follows:

21.2 Turnover and final acceptance of completed work shall be in accordance with the requirement of the prime contract and Public Agency policy. As areas and systems of the Covered Project are inspected and construction-tested and/or approved and accepted by the Public Agency or third parties with approval of the Public Agency, the PLA shall have no further force or effect on such items or areas, except when the Contractor is directed by the Public Agency to engage in repairs, modifications or warranty work required by its Contract(s) with the Public Agency or the Prime Contractor.

NOTE:

This amendment would serve to clarify the duties and obligations of the parties related to Turnover and Final Acceptance of Completed Work.

The City Manager, City Attorney and Public Works Director met with the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council representatives on March 26, 2025, to inform them of the above-referenced changes to the PLA presented for City Council review and possible adoption.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 22, 2025
Page: 6 of 6
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution approving the First Amendment to the PLA, subject to the final review, revision and approval of the City Attorney.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments:A. Resolution approving the First Amendment to the PLA B. Exhibit A to Resolution: PLA (strike-out format denoting amendments)

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDEMENT TO THE 2023 PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (“PLA”) BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA AND THE SAN

DIEGO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AND
SIGNATORY CRAFT UNIONS (“TRADES COUNCIL AND UNIONS”)
WHEREAS, the City Council on September 26, 2023, executed the PLA for the purpose of timely, efficient, economical and successful completion of public works projects valued over $1 million;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.1(b) of the PLA, if any city with a population not exceeding 100,000 executes a project labor agreement with the Trades Council and Unions, the City Council, in its sole and exclusive discretion, may amend the PLA to include terms, provisions and conditions of any such agreement(s) if it finds it beneficial for the City of La Mesa to do so; WHEREAS, in 2024, National City executed a project labor agreement with the Trades Council and Unions containing certain provisions (as noted herein) that staff has determined to be beneficial to the City of La Mesa; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends incorporating said provisions into the PLA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California approves the proposed First Amendment to the PLA as contained in Exhibit ‘A’ attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference, subject to the final review, revision and approval of the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 22nd day of April 2025, 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. 2025- , 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)

CITY OF LA MESA

PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
Effective Date: September 26, 2023
First Amendment and Restated Agreement Date: April 22, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
- i -
ARTICLE 1 RECITALS .........................................................................................................- 1 - ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................- 2 - ARTICLE 3 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT........................................................................- 4 - ARTICLE 4 UNION RECOGNITION AND EMPLOYMENT...........................................- 10 - ARTICLE 5 UNION ACCESS AND STEWARDS .............................................................- 14 - ARTICLE 6 WAGES AND BENEFITS...............................................................................- 16 - ARTICLE 7 WORK STOPPAGES AND LOCKOUTS.......................................................- 17 - ARTICLE 8 WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES...................- 22 - ARTICLE 9 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ..............................................................................- 23 - ARTICLE 10 SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES...................................- 26 - ARTICLE 11 COMPLIANCE.................................................................................................- 28 - ARTICLE 12 SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY ..................- 28 - ARTICLE 13 TRAVEL, SUBSISTENCE AND PARKING..................................................- 29 - ARTICLE 14 APPRENTICES ................................................................................................- 29 - ARTICLE 15 LEGAL ACTION .............................................................................................- 30 - ARTICLE 16 PRE-JOB CONFERENCE................................................................................- 31 - ARTICLE 17 LABOR/MANAGEMENT AND COOPERATION........................................- 32 - ARTICLE 18 SAVINGS AND SEPARABILITY ..................................................................- 32 - ARTICLE 19 WAIVER...........................................................................................................- 33 - ARTICLE 20 AMENDMENTS ..............................................................................................- 33 - ARTICLE 21 DURATION OF THE PLA ..............................................................................- 33 - ARTICLE 22 [DELETED]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
- ii -
ARTICLE 23 HELMETS TO HARDHATS...........................................................................- 35 - ATTACHMENT A – LETTER OF ASSENT..........................................................................- 39 - ATTACHMENT B-1 – WORKFORCE DISPATCH REQUEST FORM...............................- 40 - ATTACHMENT B-2 – CONTRACTOR CORE WORKFORCE FORM...............................- 41 - ATTACHMENT C – DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING POLICY.....................................- 42 -

- 1 -

CITY OF LA MESA

PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
This Project Labor Agreement (hereinafter the “PLA” or “Agreement”) is entered into this 26th day of September 2023 by and between the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council (hereinafter the “Council”), and the signatory Craft Unions (hereinafter, together with the Council, collectively, the “Union” or “Unions”), and the City of La Mesa (“Public Agency”).

ARTICLE 1

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Public Agency desires the completion of Covered Projects in a professional, safe, efficient, and economical manner, without undue delay or work stoppages; and
WHEREAS, the timely, efficient, economical and successful completion of the Covered Projects is of the utmost importance to the Public Agency; and WHEREAS, large numbers of workers of various skills will be required in the performance of the construction work on Covered Projects, including workers affiliated with and/or represented by the Unions; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that on construction projects with multiple contractors and bargaining units on the job site at the same time over an extended period of time, the potential for work disruption is substantial without an overriding commitment to maintain continuity of work; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that by establishing and stabilizing wages, hours, and working conditions for the workers employed on Covered Projects, a satisfactory, continuous, and harmonious relationship will exist among labor and management that will lead to the efficient and economical completion of Covered Projects; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the special needs of the Covered Projects and to maintain a spirit of harmony, cooperative labor-management relations, peace, and stability during the term of this PLA, the Parties agree to establish effective and binding methods for the settlement of all misunderstandings, disputes and grievances without any strikes, slowdowns, work interruptions, or disruption of Covered Projects, and the Contractors agree not to engage in any lockout; and

- 2 -
WHEREAS, the Public Agency places high priority upon the development of comprehensive programs for the recruitment, training, and employment of local residents, and also recognize the ability of local Apprenticeship Programs to provide meaningful and sustainable careers in the building and construction industry. The Parties will encourage local residents to participate in Covered Projects through programs and procedures jointly developed to prepare and encourage such individuals for entrance into Apprenticeship Programs and formal employment on the Covered Projects through the referral programs sponsored and/or supported by the Parties to this PLA; and
WHEREAS, it is further understood that the Public Agency shall actively administer and apply the obligations of this PLA; and
WHEREAS, it is further understood that in accordance with Article 20 Amendments, the Public Agency desires to amend and restate this Agreement to include provisions from the City of National City project labor agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN AND AMONG THE
PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE 2

DEFINITIONS
Capitalized terms utilized in this PLA which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to said terms below.
“Agreement” means this Project Labor Agreement (PLA).
“Applicable Prevailing Wage Determination” means the prevailing wage determinations applicable to a Covered Project issued by the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to the California Labor Code.
“Apprentice” means an apprentice properly registered in an Apprenticeship Program for the time they are employed on a Covered Project. “Apprenticeship Program” as used in this PLA shall be defined as an apprenticeship program approved by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS). “Contractor” means the Prime Contractor and any subcontractor of any tier awarded Covered Work. The term “Contractor” includes any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, owner operator, consultant or combination thereof, including joint ventures, performing Covered Work.

- 3 -
“Core Employees” are defined in Article 4, Section 4.6 (e). “Council” means the San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council. “Covered Contract” means a prime contract or subcontract awarded for performance of Covered Work, or an individual job order constituting a Covered Project as defined below.
“Covered Project” means a construction project with a prime contract awarded by the Public Agency with an estimated construction contract award value of $1,000,000 or greater. “Covered Project also includes individual task orders valued at $100,000 or greater and Job Order Contracts for Surveyors and/or Building/Construction Inspectors and/or Field Soils and Material Testers (Inspectors) that are related to a Covered Project. “Covered Work” means construction work in furtherance of a Covered Project, other than work excluded pursuant to specific exemptions set forth in this PLA. “Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program” means a Joint LaborManagement Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California DAS as provided for in the Schedule A’s.
“Party” means Public Agency, Council, and each Union.
“Prime Contractor” means the contractor awarded a Covered Contract in privity directly with the Public Agency.
“Project Labor Coordinator” means the designee of the Public Agency, either from its own staff (including but not limited to the City Engineer) and/or an independent entity acting on behalf of the Public Agency, to monitor compliance with this PLA and assist with developing, implementing and administering the requirements, policies and programs referenced herein.
“Schedule A’s” means the local master labor agreements of the Unions. “Union” or “Unions” means any labor organization signatory to this Agreement acting on their own behalf and on behalf of their respective affiliates and member organizations whose names are subscribed hereto and who have, through their officers, executed this Agreement.
“Veteran” means a veteran or the eligible spouse of a veteran of the United States Armed Forces, under Section 2(a) of the Jobs for Veterans Act (38 U.S.C. 4215[a]).

- 4 -
“Workforce Dispatch Request Form” means the project-specific form by which Contractors request workers from the Union hiring halls on Covered Projects, an example of which is attached as Attachment B-1.

ARTICLE 3

SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT
Section 3.1 Scope.
(a) This Agreement covers, without limitation, all on-site site preparation, surveying, construction, alteration, demolition, installation, improvement, landscaping, painting or repair of buildings, structures and other works, and related activities for the Covered Project that is within the craft jurisdiction of one of the Unions and which is directly part of the Covered Project, including, without limitation to the following examples, geotechnical and exploratory drilling, temporary HVAC, landscaping, temporary fencing, pipelines (including those in linear corridors built to serve the Project), pumps, and pump stations. On-site work includes work done solely for the Covered Project in temporary yards, dedicated sites, or other areas provided that they are adjacent to the Covered Project, and at any on-site or off-site batch plant constructed solely to supply materials to the Covered Project.
(b) This Agreement applies to any start-up, calibration, commissioning, performance testing, repair, maintenance or operational revisions to systems and/or subsystems for the Project that are required as part of a Covered Contract, including warranty work performed after completion, unless such work is performed by Public Agency employees. Covered Work includes all onsite physical craft work that is part of startup and commissioning, including, but not limited to, system flushes and testing, loop checks, rework and modifications, and functional and operational testing up to and including the final running test. It is understood that the Public Agency’s personnel and/or its representatives, together with the manufacturer’s and/or vendor’s representatives, and/or plant operating personnel may supervise and direct the startup, commissioning, rework, and modification activity, and that the onsite physical craft work is typically performed as part of a joint effort with these representatives and personnel. A manufacturer or its representatives may perform industry standard startup and commissioning work to satisfy its guarantee or warranty on a piece of equipment, and such work will be exempt from the Project Labor Agreement to the extent the work is excluded by Section 3.2(b) and/or Section 3.2(d).

- 5 -
(c) This Agreement covers all on-site fabrication work over which Contractors possess the right of control (including work done for a Covered Project in any temporary yard or area established for the Covered Project). This Agreement also covers off-site fabrication to the extent that it is covered by existing Master Agreements in effect at the time of the execution of this PLA. All fabrication work over which a Contractor possesses the right of control, including without limitation, the fabrication of medical gas piping, air-handling systems and ducts, and HVAC sheet metal work, and which is traditionally claimed as on-site fabrication shall be performed on-site. Purchase of manufactured items from a genuine manufacturing facility for the supply of products is not considered fabrication and not subject to this PLA.
(d) On-site construction shall also include the site of any batch plant constructed solely to supply materials to the Project. Construction trucking work for the delivery of ready-mix, asphalt, aggregate, sand, or other fill or material which are directly incorporated into the construction process as well as the offhauling of debris and excess fill, material and/or mud, shall be covered by the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the fullest extent allowed by law and by the prevailing wage determinations of the California Department of Industrial Relations.

Section 3.2 Exclusions. Items specifically excluded from the scope of this PLA include the following:
(a) Work of non-manual employees, including but not limited to, superintendents, supervisors, staff engineers, quality control and quality assurance personnel, timekeepers, mail carriers, clerks, office workers, messengers, guards, safety personnel, emergency medical and first aid technicians, and other professional, engineering, administrative, supervisory, and management employees; and
(b) All employees of the Public Agency, Project Labor Coordinator, design teams (including, but not limited to, architects, engineers, and master planners), or any other consultants for the Public Agency (including, but not limited to, project managers and construction managers and their employees where not engaged in Covered Work) and their subconsultants, and other employees of professional service organizations, not performing manual labor within the scope of this PLA.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, this exclusion shall not apply to surveying and inspection services on a Covered Project, within the State of California’s general prevailing wage determination for Field Surveyors and/or Building/Construction Inspectors and Field Soils and Material Tester, when this

- 6 -
work is performed under a Covered Contract or under a professional services agreement. This shall also specifically include such work where it is referred to by utilization of such terms as “quality control” or “quality assurance.” Every Surveyor and Inspector performing under the wage classifications of Field Surveyors and/or Building/Construction Inspectors and Field Soils and Material Tester (Inspectors) on Covered Work pursuant to a professional services agreement or a construction contract shall be bound to all applicable requirements of this Agreement regardless of the manner in which the work was awarded; and (c) Any work performed by state, county, city, or other governmental bodies, or their contractors (other than work within the scope of this PLA undertaken by contractors to the Public Agency); or by private utilities, or their contractors; and (d) Work performed by employees of a manufacturer or vendor necessary to install, commission and/or maintain such manufacturer’s or vendor’s warranty or guarantee and provided that the warranty agreement is the manufacturer’s or vendor’s usual and customary warranty agreement for such equipment and is consistent with industry practice. Any work to be excluded pursuant to this subsection (e) shall be identified and discussed at the relevant pre-job conference.

Upon request from the Council, the Public Agency shall review with the vendor whether installation or application may be performed pursuant to terms of the PLA without affecting the status of the warranty; and
(e) Specialized or technical work requiring specialized training, unique skills, or a level of specific technical experience which employees represented by the Unions do not possess. At least ten (10) working days’ notice shall be given to the Council before any work is performed pursuant to this exemption; and (f) Laboratory testing work; and
(g) Non-construction support services contracted by the Public Agency, Project Labor Coordinator, or Contractor in connection with a Covered Project; and
(h) Contracts for which there are less than three (3) unrelated, qualified bidders for a Covered Contract, in which case the Public Agency reserves the right to reject all bids and readvertise the contract not as a Covered Project or Covered Contract and not subject to this PLA; and
(i) Non-construction support services contracted by the Public Agency in connection with Covered Projects;

- 7 -
(j) Emergency work; and
(k) Substantial impracticality or inefficiency. Public Agency may exclude any work constituting a Covered Project upon a 4/5 vote of its City Council finding and determining that said work as a Covered Project would result in a substantial inefficiency or impracticality.
(l) If the lowest apparent responsive and responsible bid is ten percent (10%) or greater than the engineer’s estimate of probable cost, in which case the Public Agency reserves the right to reject all bids and readvertise the contract not as a Covered Project or Covered Contract and not subject to this PLA; and (m) All off-site manufacturing, fabrication, maintenance, and handling of materials, equipment, or machinery; and
(n) All operation of equipment and machinery owned or controlled by the Public Agency.

Section 3.3 Awarding of Contracts.

Notwithstanding any obligation, term, duty or condition contained herein to the contrary, this agreement shall be subject to all applicable laws including the California Public Contracts Code.

Public Agency shall maintain absolute and sole discretion regarding the application and the related enforecement of said laws.
(a) The Public Agency has the absolute right to bid or award Covered Contracts regardless of delivery method to any Contractor notwithstanding the existence or non-existence of any agreements between such Contractor and any Union, provided only that such Contractor is willing, ready, and able to execute a Letter of Assent as set forth in Attachment A hereto, and comply with this PLA in performance of Covered Work.
(b) Each Union shall enroll in the electronic bidding system used at the time of bidding (currently, PlanetBids) and provide the listing information to all Union contractors able to provide services to the trades required of the project. Each Union contractor may provide bids to each prime bidding contractor in accordance with California law and the bidding documents. Union prime contractors may bid the project in accordance with California law and the bidding documents.
(c) It is agreed that all Contractors who have been awarded a contract for Covered Work shall be required to accept and be bound by the terms and

- 8 -
conditions of this PLA. Contractors shall evidence their acceptance of this Agreement by executing a Letter of Assent as set forth in Attachment A hereto.

No Contractor shall commence Covered Work without first providing a copy of the signed Letter of Assent to the Project Labor Coordinator. (d) The Public Agency and all Contractors awarded Covered Work agree that to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the economy and efficiency of construction and operation, they will use best efforts to purchase materials, equipment, and supplies that will not create labor strife. Under all circumstances, however, the Public Agency and Contractors shall retain the absolute right to select Contractors for the award of contracts and subcontracts on all Covered Projects.
(e) Project funding-source restrictions. Notwithstanding anything contained in this PLA to the contrary, Public Agency shall comply with any and all restrictions related to any funding source for project work, including but not limited to federal, state or local (e.g. County of San Diego, State of California Department of Transportation or San Diego Association of Governments) regulations.

Section 3.4 Schedule A’s.
(a) The provisions of this PLA, including the Schedule A's (which are the local Master Labor Agreements of the signatory Unions having jurisdiction over Covered Work, as such may be changed from time to time consistent with Section

21.3, and which are incorporated herein by reference), shall apply to the work covered by this PLA, notwithstanding the provisions of any other local, area and/or national agreement that may conflict with or differ from the terms of this PLA. Where a subject covered by the provisions of this PLA is also covered by a Schedule A, the provisions of this PLA shall prevail. Where a subject is covered by a provision of a Schedule A and not covered by this PLA, the provisions of the Schedule A shall govern. Any dispute as to the applicable source between this PLA and any Schedule A shall be resolved under the procedures established in Article 10.
(b) It is understood that this PLA, together with the referenced Schedule A's, constitutes a self-contained, stand-alone agreement and, by virtue of having become bound to this PLA, the Contractor will not be obligated to sign any other local, area, or national collective bargaining agreement as a condition of performing work within the scope of this PLA (provided, however, that the Contractor may be required to sign a uniformly applied non-discriminatory Participation or Subscription Agreement at the request of the trustees or administrator of a trust fund established pursuant to Section 302 of the Labor

- 9 -
Management Relations Act, and to which such Contractor may be bound to make contributions under this PLA, provided that such Participation or Subscription Agreement does not purport to bind the Contractor beyond the terms and conditions of this PLA and/or expand its obligation to make contributions pursuant thereto). It shall be the responsibility of the Prime Contractor to have each of its Contractors of any tier sign the documents with the appropriate Union prior to the Contractor beginning work on Covered Projects.

Section 3.5 The Parties agree that this PLA will be made available to, and will fully apply to, any successful bidder for Covered Work, without regard to whether that successful bidder performs work at other sites on either a Union or non-Union basis. This PLA shall not apply to any work of any Contractor other than that on Covered Projects specifically covered by this PLA.

Section 3.6 Binding Signatories Only. This PLA and Letter of Assent shall only be binding on Contractors in the performance of Covered Work, and shall not apply to the parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, or other ventures of any such Contractors.

Section 3.7 Other Work. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to prohibit, restrict, or interfere with the performance of any other operation, work, or function not covered by this PLA, which may be performed by the Public Agency employees or contracted for by the Public Agency for its own account, on its property, or in and around Covered Project sites.

Section 3.8 Separate Liability. It is understood that the liability of the Contractor(s) and the liability of the separate Unions under this PLA shall be several and not joint. The Unions agree that this PLA does not have the effect of creating any joint employment status between or among the Public Agency or Project Labor Coordinator and/or any Contractor.

Section 3.9 Completed Covered Projects. As portions of Covered Projects are completed, this PLA shall have no further force or effect on such items or areas except where the Contractor is directed by the Public Agency or its representatives to engage in repairs, modification and/or check-out functions required by its contract(s) with the Public Agency.

Section 3.10 Except for all work performed under the NTL Articles of Agreement, the National Stack/Chimney Agreement, and the National Cooling Tower Agreement, all instrument calibrations work and loop checking shall be performed under the terms of the UA/IBEW Joint National Agreement for Instrument and Control Systems Technicians, and the National Agreement of the International Union of Elevator Constructors, with the exception of Article 7 (Work Stoppages and

- 10 -
Lockouts), Article 8 (Work Assignments and Jurisdictional Disputes) and Article 10 (Settlement of Grievances and Disputes) of this PLA, which shall apply to such work.

ARTICLE 4

UNION RECOGNITION AND EMPLOYMENT
Section 4.1 Recognition. The Contractors recognize the Unions as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees engaged in Covered Work. Such recognition does not extend beyond the period when the employee is engaged in Covered Work.

Section 4.2 Contractor Selection of Employees. The Contractors shall have the right to determine the competency of all employees, the number of employees required, the duties of such employees within their craft jurisdiction, and shall have the sole responsibility for selecting employees to be laid off, consistent with this Article.

The Contractors shall also have the right to reject any applicant referred by a Union for any reason, subject to any reporting time requirements of the applicable Schedule A; provided, however, that such right is exercised in good faith and not for the purpose of avoiding the Contractors’ commitment to employ qualified workers through the procedures endorsed in this PLA.

Section 4.3 Referral Procedures.
(a) For signatory Unions to this Agreement having a job referral system contained in a Schedule A, the Contractor agrees to comply with such system and it shall be used exclusively by such Contractor, except as modified by this PLA.

Such job referral system will be operated in a nondiscriminatory manner and in full compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations that require equal employment opportunities and non-discrimination.
(b) The local Unions will exert their best efforts to recruit and refer sufficient numbers of skilled craft workers to fulfill the labor requirements of the Contractor, including specific employment obligations to which the Contractor may be legally and/or contractually obligated; and to refer Apprentices as requested to develop a larger, skilled workforce. The Unions will work with the Project Labor Coordinator and others designated by the Public Agency to identify and refer competent craft persons as needed for Covered Work, and to identify individuals, particularly local residents, for entrance into Apprenticeship Programs, or participation in other identified programs and procedures to assist individuals in qualifying and becoming eligible for such Apprenticeship

- 11 -
Programs, all maintained to increase the available supply of skilled craft personnel for Covered Projects.
(c) The Union shall not knowingly refer an employee currently employed by a Contractor on a Covered Project to any other Contractor.

Section 4.4 Non-Discrimination in Referral, Employment, and Contracting. The Unions and Contractors agree that they will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, age, marital status, denial of family care leave, genetic information, gender, gender identity, gender expression, military and veteran status, criminal records, past incarceration, previous status as a foster youth, political affiliation or membership in a labor organization in hiring and dispatching workers for the Covered Projects.. The Parties and Contractors will ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees, members, and applicants for employment or membership are free from such discrimination and harassment.

Section 4.5 Employment of Local Residents.
(a) In recognition of the Public Agency’s mission to serve its residents, the Unions and Contractors agree that, to the extent allowed by law, and as long as they possess the requisite skills and qualifications, the Unions shall first refer for Covered Projects permanent residents of zip codes 91941 and 91942 (“qualifying zip codes”) at the time of initial employment on a Covered Project or Veterans residing anywhere.
(b) To facilitate the dispatch of Local Residents, as well as all Contractor requests for referral and dispatch of workers from the applicable Union referral system, the Parties will develop and utilize a Workforce Dispatch Request Form for Covered Projects.
(c) It is the Parties’ goal that at least 80% of the total craft hours to be performed on a Covered Project shall be performed by residents of San Diego County, graduates of, or recipients of a GED from a school in San Diego County residing anywhere, or Veterans residing anywhere, of which 5% should be from qualifying zip codes or graduates of, or recipients of a GED from all La Mesa schools residing anywhere, or Veterans residing anywhere.

- 12 -
Section 4.6 Core Employees. This Section only applies to Contractors who are not directly signatory to an applicable Schedule A.
(a) The Parties recognize the Public Agency’s interest in promoting competition and inclusion of disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) which may not be signatory to a current Schedule A. For purposes of this Section, DBEs shall be as defined by the United States Department of Transportation, as that definition may be amended from time to time. (See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/disadvantaged-businessenterprise/definition-disadvantaged-business-enterprise; see also Appendix E to Part 26 of 49 CFR Part 26.) In order to promote participation and attract DBEs to work under this Agreement, and subject to the limitations set forth below, each Contractor that is a DBE may employ up to five (5) Core Employees per craft on a Covered Project, alternating with Core Employees and Union referrals (first a Core Employee, then a referral from the appropriate Union hiring hall, then a Core Employee, and so on). After five (5) Core Employees have been employed, all additional employees in the affected trade or craft shall be requested and referred from the appropriate Union hiring hall.

The preceding Core Employee hiring procedures for DBEs are subject to the following limitation:
(1) Each Contractor is limited to utilizing the preceding Core Employee hiring procedure on one Covered Project.
(b) Contractors who are not otherwise signatory to a current Schedule A may employ, as needed, first, a referral from the appropriate Union hiring hall, then a Core Employee, then a second employee through the referral system, then a second Core Employee, and so on, until a maximum of three (3) Core Employees are employed per craft on the Project. Thereafter, all additional employees in the affected trade or craft shall be requested and referred from the appropriate Union hiring hall in accordance with this Article.
(1) Section 4.6 only applies to Contractors who are not directly signatory to a current Schedule A for the craft worker in its employ and is not intended to limit the transfer provisions of the Schedule A of any trade. As part of this process, and in order to facilitate the contract administration procedures, as well as appropriate fringe benefit fund coverage, all Contractors shall require their Core Employees and any other persons employed other than through the referral process, to register with the appropriate Union hiring hall, if any, prior to their first day of employment working under the Construction Contract at the Project site.

- 13 -
The registration process shall be administered by the Contractors and Union reasonably, but without impacting the Project schedule. (c) Prior to each Contractor performing any work a Covered Project, each Contractor shall provide a list of Core Employees to the Project Labor Coordinator and the Council. After submitting the Core Employee list prior to commencing work on that Covered Project, Contractors shall not make any changes or substitutions to the Core Employee list for the duration of that Covered Project without prior agreement by the Parties, unless one or more Core Employees retires, changes employer, resigns or is terminated. (d) Upon request by any Party to this Agreement, the Contractor hiring any Core Employee shall provide satisfactory proof (i.e., payroll records, quarterly tax records, and such other documentation) evidencing the Core Employee’s qualification as a Core Employee to the Project Labor Coordinator and the Council.
(e) Core Employees must meet the following eligibility requirements to qualify for employment on Covered Projects:
(1) A Core Employee must be either a journeyperson or Apprentice and appear on the Contractor’s active payroll for at least ninety (90) of the last one-hundred-eighty (180) working days prior to being designated as a Core Employee. The date a Core Employee is designated is the date the Core Employee list is submitted to the Project Labor Coordinator and Council prior to the Contractor commencing work; and
(2) A Core Employee must possess any license required by state or federal law for the Covered Work to be performed; and
(3) A Core Employee must have the ability to safely perform the basic functions of the applicable trade; and
(4) A Core Employee must be a resident of San Diego County. (f) In addition to the Core Employee provisions set forth herein, all Contractors may avail themselves of any opportunity provided for in the applicable Schedule A’s to call for specific employees by name. (g) During any layoffs or reductions in workforce, Contractors shall lay off employees in an order and manner consistent with the Core Employee hiring procedures and maintain the required Core Employee-to-Union referral ratios required by this Section for the duration of the Project.

- 14 -
Section 4.7 Time for Referral. If any Union’s registration and referral system does not fulfill the requirements for specific classifications of covered employees (including Local Residents) requested by any Contractor within forty-eight (48) hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays), that Contractor may employ Core Employees without reference to the ratio requirements in Section 4.6 or use employment sources other than the Union registration and referral services, and may employ applicants from any other available source. The Contractor shall promptly inform the Union of any applicants hired from other sources, and such applicants shall register with the appropriate hiring hall, if any.

Section 4.8 Lack of Referral Procedure. If a signatory local Union does not have a job referral system as set forth in Section 4.3 above, the Contractors shall give the Union equal opportunity to refer applicants. The Contractors shall notify the Union of employees so hired, as set forth in Section 4.7.

Section 4.9 Union Membership. Employees are not required to become or remain union members, or pay dues or fees to a union, as a condition of performing Covered Work under this Agreement. Employers shall make and transmit all deductions for union dues, fees, and assessments that have been authorized by employees in writing in accordance with the applicable Schedule A. Nothing in this Section 4.9, however, is intended to supersede independent requirements in applicable local union agreements such as those in Schedule A as to those Employers that are otherwise signatory to those agreements and as to the employees of those Employers who are performing Covered Work.

Section 4.10 Foremen. The selection and number of craft foremen and/or general foremen shall be the responsibility of the Contractor, consistent with the Schedule A’s. All foremen shall take orders exclusively from the designated Contractor representatives. Craft foremen shall be designated as working foremen at the request of the Contractors.

ARTICLE 5

UNION ACCESS AND STEWARDS
Section 5.1 Access to Project Sites. Authorized representatives of the Union shall have access to Covered Projects, provided that they do not interfere with the work of employees and further provided that such representatives fully comply with posted visitor, security, and safety rules.

Section 5.2 Stewards.

- 15 -
(a) Each signatory local Union shall have the right to dispatch a working journeyperson as a steward for each shift, and shall notify the Contractor in writing of the identity of the designated steward or stewards prior to the assumption of such person's duties as steward. Such designated steward or stewards shall not exercise any supervisory functions. There will be no nonworking stewards. Stewards will receive the regular rate of pay for their respective crafts.
(b) In addition to his/her work as an employee, the steward should have the right to receive, but not to solicit, complaints or grievances and to discuss and assist in the adjustment of the same with the employee's appropriate supervisor.

Each steward should be concerned only with the employees of the steward's Contractor and not with the employees of any other Contractor. The Contractor will not discriminate against the steward in the proper performance of his/her Union duties.
(c) When a Contractor has multiple, non-contiguous work locations at one site, the Contractor may request and the Union shall appoint such additional working stewards as the Contractor requests to provide independent coverage of one or more such locations. In such cases, a steward may not service more than one work location without the approval of the Contractor. (d) The stewards shall not have the right to determine when overtime shall be worked or who shall work overtime.

Section 5.3 Steward Layoff/Discharge. The Contractor agrees to notify the appropriate Union twenty-four (24) hours before the layoff of a steward, except in the case of disciplinary discharge for just cause. If the steward is protected against such layoff by the provisions of the applicable Schedule A, such provisions shall be recognized when the steward possesses the necessary qualifications to perform the remaining work. In any case in which the steward is discharged or disciplined for just cause, the appropriate Union will be notified immediately by the Contractor, and such discharge or discipline shall not become final (subject to any later filed grievance) until twenty-four (24) hours after such notice has been given; provided, however, that during the 24-hour period before the discipline or discharge becomes final, the steward will be considered suspended pending investigation without pay.

Section 5.4 Employees on Non-Covered Projects. On work where the personnel of the Public Agency may be working in close proximity to the construction activities covered by this PLA, the Union agrees that the Union representatives, stewards, and

- 16 -
individual workers will not interfere with Public Agency personnel, or with personnel employed by any other employer not a Party to this PLA.

ARTICLE 6

WAGES AND BENEFITS
Section 6.1 Wages. At a minimum, all employees covered by this PLA shall be classified in accordance with work performed and paid the hourly wage rates and benefits for those classifications in compliance with the applicable Prevailing Wage Determination established pursuant to the California Labor Code by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

Section 6.2 Benefits.
(a) Payment of Benefits. For all employees performing Covered Work, Contractors shall pay all fringe benefits and other required employer contributions to the established Union employee benefit funds in the amounts required by the applicable Schedule A. In addition, the Contractors and Unions agree that only such bona fide employee benefits that accrue to the direct benefit of the employees (such as pension and annuity, health and welfare, vacation, apprenticeship, and training funds) shall be included in this requirement and required to be paid by the Contractor on Covered Projects. (c) Where applicable, the Contractor adopts and agrees to be bound by the written terms of the applicable, legally established, Union trust agreement(s) specifying the detailed basis how payments will be made into, and benefits paid out of, such trust funds for its employees. The Contractor authorizes the sponsoring Parties to such trust funds to appoint trustees and successor trustees to administer the trust funds and hereby ratifies and accepts the trustees so appointed as if made by the Contractor. The Contractor obligations to the applicable Union benefit fund(s) and trust agreement(s) are limited to work performed on Covered Work. The Union benefit funds and trust agreement(s) applicable to each Contractor are determined by the pre-job conference and Union work assignment process described in Articles 8 and 16.
(d) Each Contractor is required to certify to the Project Labor Coordinator that it has paid all benefit contributions due and owing to the appropriate Union trust(s) and benefit funds prior to the receipt of its final payment and/or retention.

Further, upon timely notification by a Union to the Project Labor Coordinator, the Project Labor Coordinator shall work with any Contractor who is delinquent in payments to assure that proper benefit contributions are made, to the extent of

- 17 -
requesting the Public Agency or the prime Contractor to withhold payments otherwise due such Contractor, until such contributions have been made or otherwise guaranteed.

Section 6.3 Wage Premiums, with the exception of shift premiums, shall not be applicable to work performed under this PLA, except to the extent provided for in any applicable prevailing wage determination. The types of wage premiums that will not apply to the Project include, but are not limited to, pay based on height of work, hazard pay, scaffold pay, and special skills, except to the extent provided for in any prevailing wage determination. Similarly, there will be no wage premiums based on staggered start times or start times that are earlier or later than set forth in the applicable Schedule A, with the exception of shift premiums.

Section 6.4 Compliance with Prevailing Wage Laws. All complaints regarding possible prevailing wage violations may be referred to the Project Labor Coordinator or Labor Compliance Program, if any, for referral to the Department of Industrial Relations, State Labor Commissioner.

ARTICLE 7

WORK STOPPAGES AND LOCKOUTS
Section 7.1 No Work Stoppages or Disruptive Activity. The Council and the Unions signatory hereto agree that neither they, nor their respective officers, agents or representatives, shall incite or encourage, condone or participate in any strike, walk-out, slowdown, picketing, observation of picket lines, or other activity of any nature or kind whatsoever, for any cause or dispute whatsoever with respect to or any way related to Covered Work, or which interferes with or otherwise disrupts Covered Work, including, but not limited to, economic strikes, unfair labor practice strikes, safety strikes, sympathy strikes, and jurisdictional dispute strikes, whether or not the underlying dispute is arbitrable. Any such actions by the Council, or any Union, or their members, agents, representatives, or the employees they represent shall constitute a material violation of this PLA. The Council and the Union shall take all steps necessary to obtain compliance with this Article.

Section 7.2 Employee Violations. The Contractor may discharge any employee violating Section 7.1 above, and any such employee will not be eligible for rehire under this PLA.

Section 7.3 Standing to Enforce. Any Contractor affected by an alleged violation of Section

7.1 shall have standing and the right to enforce the obligations established therein.

- 18 -
Section 7.4 Expiration of Schedule A’s. If a collective bargaining agreement between a signatory Contractor and one or more of the Union(s) expires before the Contractor completes the performance of a Contract for Covered Work, and the Union or the Contractor gives notice of demand for a new or modified collective bargaining agreement, the Unions agree that they will not strike the Contractor on the Project, and the Union and the Contractor agree that the expired collective bargaining agreement will continue in full force and effect for the Covered Work until a new or modified collective bargaining agreement is reached between the Union and the Contractor. If the new or modified collective bargaining agreement reached between the Union and the Contractor provides that any terms of the collective bargaining agreement shall be retroactive, the Contractor agrees to comply, consistent with the terms of this PLA and the Prevailing Wage Statute, with any retroactive terms of the new or modified collective bargaining agreement which are applicable to employees of said Contractor that are employed on the Project within seven (7) days at no cost to the Public Agency. All employees shall continue to work and to perform all their obligations with respect to Covered Work despite the expiration of a Schedule A agreement. Should a Contractor engaged in Covered Work enter into an interim agreement with the Unions for work being performed elsewhere after the expiration, and before the renewal of a local collective bargaining agreement forming the basis for Schedule A, such interim agreement shall be utilized by that Contractor for Covered Work, subject to the provisions of Section 21.3.

Section 7.5 No Lock Outs. Contractors shall not cause, incite, encourage, condone or participate in any lock-out of employees with respect to Covered Work during the term of this PLA. The term “lock-out'' refers only to a Contractor's exclusion of employees in order to secure collective bargaining advantage, and does not refer to the discharge, termination, or lay off of employees by the Contractor for any reason in the exercise of rights pursuant to any provision of this PLA, or any other agreement, nor does “lock-out” include the Public Agency’s decision to stop, suspend, or discontinue any Covered Project or any portion thereof for any reason.

Section 7.6 Best Efforts to End Violations.
(a) If a Contractor contends that there is any violation of this Article, it shall, prior to invoking the procedures of Section 7.7, provide written notification to the Council of the involved Union(s) and to the Project Labor Coordinator, setting forth the facts which the Contractor contends violates this Article. The Council and the leadership of the involved Union(s) will immediately instruct, order, and use their best efforts to cause the cessation of any violation of the Article.

- 19 -
(b) If the Union contends that any Contractor has violated this Article, it will notify the Contractor and the Project Labor Coordinator, setting forth the facts which the Union contends violate this Article, prior to invoking the procedures of Section 7.7. The Project Labor Coordinator shall promptly order the involved Contractor(s) to cease any violation of the Article.

Section 7.7 Expedited Enforcement Procedure. Any Party, and affected Contractors, may institute the following procedures, in lieu of or in addition to any other action at law or equity, when a breach of this Article is alleged. (a) The Party invoking this procedure shall notify Robert M. Hirsch, who has been selected by the negotiating Parties, and whom the Parties agree shall be the permanent arbitrator under this procedure, and if Mr. Hirsch is unavailable, shall notify John Kagel, who has been selected as the alternate arbitrator under this procedure. If the permanent arbitrator is unavailable at any time, the alternate will be contacted. If neither is available, then a selection shall be made from the list of arbitrators as set forth in Article 10. Notice to the arbitrator shall be by the most expeditious means available, with notices to the Parties alleged to be in violation, and to the Project Labor Coordinator and the Council. For purposes of this Article, written notice may be given by email, facsimile, hand delivery, or overnight mail and will be deemed effective upon receipt. (b) Upon receipt of said notice, the arbitrator named above or his/her alternate shall sit and hold a hearing within seventy-two (72) hours if it is contended that the violation still exists, but not sooner than twenty-four (24) hours after notice has been dispatched to the Council of the involved Union(s) and/or Contractor as required by Section 7.6, above.
(c) The arbitrator shall notify the Parties of the place and time chosen for this hearing, which may be a Zoom proceeding or the equivalent. Said hearing shall be completed in one session, which, with appropriate recesses at the arbitrator's discretion, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) hours unless otherwise agreed upon by all Parties. A failure of any Party or Parties to attend said hearings shall not delay the hearing of evidence or the issuance of any award by the arbitrator. (d) The sole issue at the hearing shall be whether or not a violation of this Article has in fact occurred, and if so, whether the arbitrator shall order the applicable union(s) to return to work. The arbitrator shall have no authority to consider any matter in justification, explanation, or mitigation of such violation or to award damages, (except for damages as set forth in Section 7.8 below) which issue is reserved for court proceedings, if any. The award shall be issued in writing within three (3) hours after the close of the hearing and may be issued

- 20 -
without an opinion. If any Party desires a written opinion, one shall be issued within fifteen (15) days, but its issuance shall not delay compliance with, or enforcement of, the award. The arbitrator may order cessation of the violation of this Article and other appropriate relief, and such award shall be served on all Parties by hand, facsimile, email or registered mail upon issuance. The amount of liquidated damages pursuant to Section 7.8 below shall be determined at a second hearing scheduled by the arbitrator within thirty (30) days of the first hearing to determine if a violation of this Article has occurred.
(e) Such arbitration award(s) shall be final and binding on all Parties and may be enforced by any court of competent jurisdiction upon the filing of this PLA and all other relevant documents referred to herein above in the following manner.

Written notice of the filing of such enforcement proceedings shall be given to the other Party. In any judicial proceeding to obtain a temporary order enforcing the arbitrator's award as issued under Section 7.7(d) of this Article, all Parties waive the right to a hearing and agree that such proceedings may be ex parte. Such agreement does not waive any Party's right to participate in a hearing for a final order of enforcement. The court's order or orders enforcing the arbitrator's award shall be sent to all disputing parties.
(f) The fees and expenses of the arbitrator shall be equally divided between the Party or Parties initiating this procedure and the respondent Party or Parties.

Section 7.8 Liquidated Damages.
(a) If the arbitrator determines in accordance with Section 7.7 above that a work stoppage has occurred, the respondent Union(s) shall, within eight (8) hours of receipt of the Award, direct all the employees they represent on the project to immediately return to work. If the craft(s) involved do not return to work by the beginning of the next regularly scheduled shift following such eight (8) hour period after receipt of the arbitrator's Award, and the respondent Union(s) have not complied with their obligations to immediately instruct, order, and use their best efforts to cause a cessation of the violation and return the employees they represent to work, then the non-complying Union(s) found in violation of Section

7.7 shall each pay liquidated damages in accordance with subsection (c) below. (b) If the arbitrator determines in accordance with Section 7.7 above that a lock out has occurred, the respondent Contractor(s) found in violation of Section

7.7 shall pay liquidated damages in accordance with subsection (c) below. (c) The Parties agree that project delays caused by violations of this Article will cause the Public Agency to sustain damages. They agree that it would be