La Mesa City Council
May 13, 2025

DATE: LOCATION: LA MESA PROJECT #: ETD24-0531-01
5/30/24 NORTH & SOUTH: SEVERIN DRIVE LOCATION #: 3
THURSDAY EAST & WEST: AMAYA DRIVE CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: X X X X
7:00 AM 14 19 5 1 17 12 3 28 17 18 67 0 201 0
7:15 AM 29 29 25 0 22 12 4 32 24 13 73 4 267 0
7:30 AM 26 28 30 2 32 16 13 53 30 22 82 5 339 0
7:45 AM 19 36 51 3 37 18 15 91 47 32 108 3 460 0
8:00 AM 26 16 27 3 42 11 10 84 29 32 114 3 397 0
8:15 AM 30 19 17 4 12 14 7 94 22 12 99 3 333 0
8:30 AM 27 20 11 4 14 6 3 55 19 23 92 4 278 0
8:45 AM 33 20 21 1 21 11 8 56 33 20 74 3 301 0
VOLUMES 204 187 187 18 197 100 63 493 221 172 709 25 2,576 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 35% 32% 32% 6% 63% 32% 8% 63% 28% 19% 78% 3% APP/DEPART 578 / 275 315 / 590 777 / 698 906 / 1,013 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 101 99 125 12 123 59 45 322 128 98 403 14 1,529 APPROACH % 31% 30% 38% 6% 63% 30% 9% 65% 26% 19% 78% 3% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.767 0.836 0.809 0.864 0.831
APP/DEPART 325 / 158 194 / 349 495 / 459 515 / 563 0
2:00 PM 23 22 22 0 17 8 15 69 34 0 50 5 265 0
2:15 PM 29 31 31 4 29 10 6 66 38 11 72 4 331 0
2:30 PM 23 27 23 4 35 21 17 96 34 26 88 6 400 0
2:45 PM 30 33 37 7 30 16 22 83 41 23 134 9 465 0
3:00 PM 27 33 27 7 36 19 14 67 46 31 76 6 389 0
3:15 PM 22 21 28 8 39 15 10 95 46 29 72 3 388 0
3:30 PM 26 23 17 6 36 7 14 114 53 15 84 5 400 0
3:45 PM 24 31 28 5 36 8 13 96 52 23 102 7 425 0
VOLUMES 204 221 213 41 258 104 111 686 344 158 678 45 3,063 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 32% 35% 33% 10% 64% 26% 10% 60% 30% 18% 77% 5% APP/DEPART 638 / 377 403 / 760 1,141 / 940 881 / 986 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 105 110 109 28 141 57 60 359 186 98 366 23 1,642 APPROACH % 32% 34% 34% 12% 62% 25% 10% 59% 31% 20% 75% 5% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.810 0.911 0.836 0.733 0.883
APP/DEPART 324 / 193 226 / 425 605 / 496 487 / 528 0
4:00 PM 37 28 27 7 26 13 15 84 39 15 80 2 373 0
4:15 PM 24 15 22 3 24 12 15 94 67 15 81 4 376 0
4:30 PM 30 32 20 3 38 10 13 73 53 15 62 5 354 0
4:45 PM 28 29 25 3 28 7 18 86 41 20 62 5 352 0
5:00 PM 22 30 23 5 39 19 15 98 43 16 61 7 378 0
5:15 PM 33 23 26 4 39 12 16 86 54 15 42 7 357 0
5:30 PM 20 17 17 3 32 6 20 99 33 10 45 7 309 0
5:45 PM 13 18 19 1 23 10 13 67 52 12 56 4 288 0
VOLUMES 207 192 179 29 249 89 125 687 382 118 489 41 2,787 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 36% 33% 31% 8% 68% 24% 10% 58% 32% 18% 75% 6% APP/DEPART 578 / 358 367 / 749 1,194 / 895 648 / 785 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 104 106 90 14 129 48 61 351 204 66 266 21 1,460 APPROACH % 35% 35% 30% 7% 68% 25% 10% 57% 33% 19% 75% 6% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.915 0.758 0.875 0.883 0.966
APP/DEPART 300 / 188 191 / 399 616 / 455 353 / 418 0

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 3 1 4 0 0
7:15 AM 1 4 1 2 8 0 0
7:30 AM 3 3 6 0 0
7:45 AM 1 9 1 3 14 0 0
8:00 AM 5 6 1 12 0 0
8:15 AM 8 1 9 0 2 2
8:30 AM 2 10 2 1 15 0 0
8:45 AM 3 2 5 0 1 1
2:00 PM 5 1 2 8 0 0
2:15 PM 1 1 1 3 0 0
2:30 PM 1 2 2 2 7 0 0
2:45 PM 3 3 6 0 0
3:00 PM 3 10 4 17 0 1 1
3:15 PM 3 1 2 6 0 1 1
3:30 PM 2 4 1 1 8 0 0
3:45 PM 2 22 6 4 34 0 2 1 3
4:00 PM 6 11 1 4 22 0 1 1 1 3
4:15 PM 1 1 2 0 1 1 2
4:30 PM 2 3 2 7 0 0
4:45 PM 3 1 2 6 0 2 2
5:00 PM 3 4 7 0 1 1
5:15 PM 2 1 3 0 0
5:30 PM 1 2 1 4 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0
TOTAL 41 112 16 44 213 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 2 2 16

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS

WEEKDAY AM
7:30 AM

WEEKDAY MD
2:45 PM

WEEKDAY PM
4:15 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: ELITE TRAFFIC DYNAMICS, LLC

INCLUDES BIKE & PED

U-TURNS

SEVERIN DRIVE SEVERIN DRIVE AMAYA DRIVE AMAYA DRIVE

Attachment B
Traffic Control Signal Warrants

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 855
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
May 30, 2024
Broadmoor Drive
Jericho Road
25 20
X
1800
1700
1500
1400
13001200
1100
0700
22 22 25 21 26 25 22
16 26
13 13 14 16 13 17 17
X
X
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
17001800
0700
22 22 25 21 26 22
16 26
13 13 14 16 13 17 17
25 X
X
X
X
X
X
11

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 856
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
X
X
X
1400
1500
1 0700
700
25 16
26 21 26
16 13 17
X

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 850
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
_____________________________________________________________________________________

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 855
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
May 30, 2024
Amaya Drive
Jericho Road
39 20
X
1800
1700
1600
1 1500
400
1300
0800
0700
409 339 500 467 460 418 360
16 379
15 14 16 13 10 17 17
X
X
0800
1300
1400
1500
1600
17001800
0700
409 339 500 467 460 360
16 379
15 14 16 13 10 17 17
418
X
X
X
X
X
X
11

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 856
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
X
X
X
1500
1600
1 14
700
00 418
13 500 467 460
16 10 17
X

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 850
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
_____________________________________________________________________________________

# Time Volume % of 210 (values
reduced to 70%) # Time Volume % of 200
1 7:00 AM 26 12% 1 7:00 AM 25 18%
2 11:00 AM 22 10% 2 11:00 AM 23 16%
3 12:00 PM 22 10% 3 12:00 PM 24 17%
4 1:00 PM 25 12% 4 1:00 PM 24 17%
5 2:00 PM 21 10% 5 2:00 PM 29 21%
6 3:00 PM 26 12% 6 3:00 PM 24 17%
7 5:00 PM 25 12% 7 5:00 PM 26 19%
8 6:00 PM 22 10% 8 6:00 PM 23 16%
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Yes No
Yes No
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Traffic volume requirements for Multi-Way Stop Control are not satisfied for Major and Minor Road Traffic. However, based on existing conditions, the multi-way stop control warrant is satisfied based on the "Other Criteria" requirements.

Yes

2. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes
Satisfied
For the same 8 hours, the combined
No
Satisfied Not Satisfied

1. The need to control left-turn conflicts
Major & Minor Traffic ≥ 70% for 8 Hours
and
Major Road Speed > 40 MPH
CRITERIA C3 Satisfied Not Satisfied
Are the requirements for Multi-Way Stop satisfied? Please provide comments below.

CONCLUSION
Satisfied Not Satisfied

4. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection
Satisfied Not Satisfied

3. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop Broadmoor Drive 25 MPH (Prima Facie) Jericho Road 25 MPH (Prima Facie) Major Road Name Minor Road Name
6/29/2024 Jonathan Sanchez, PE
Major Road Posted Speed Limit
La Mesa, CA
MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL APPLICATION - CA MUTCD Section 2B.07 Date Prepared By Analysis Year
2024
City
Minor Road Posted Speed Limit
Major & Minor Traffic ≥ 80% for 8 Hours and
Peak Hour Delay ≥ 24 Seconds and
Crashes ≥ 4?
OTHER CRITERIA THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED IN AN ENGINEERING STUDY:

Where traffic signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. Satisfied Not Satisfied
Crashes ≥ 5?
Major & Minor Traffic ≥ 100% for 8
Hours and
Minor Street Peak Hour Delay ≥ 30
seconds?
CRITERIA C1 AND C2

CRITERIA A

CRITERIA B

CRITERIA C

CRITERIA D

OTHER CRITERIA
Not Satisfied

MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC
THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE ENGINEERING STUDY FOR A MULTI-WAY STOP:

IDENTIFY CRASHES SUSCEPTIBLE TO CORRECTION BY MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL, SUCH AS RIGHT-TURN, LEFT-TURN, AND RIGHTANGLE COLLISIONS Comments
N/A
Highest Number of Crashes within 12-Month Period:

N/A
N/A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS MET?
Yes No If so, identify warrant number(s):

Highest 8 hours of total vehicular
volume
entering the intersection from the major road approaches (total of both approaches)
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)

MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC

# Time Volume % of 210 (values reduced
to 70%) # Time Volume % of 140 (values reduced to 70%)
1 7:00 AM 379 180% 1 7:00 AM 25 18%
2 8:00 AM 409 195% 2 8:00 AM 23 16%
3 1:00 PM 339 161% 3 1:00 PM 24 17%
4 2:00 PM 500 238% 4 2:00 PM 29 21%
5 3:00 PM 467 222% 5 3:00 PM 24 17%
6 4:00 PM 460 219% 6 4:00 PM 18 13%
7 5:00 PM 418 199% 7 5:00 PM 26 19%
8 6:00 PM 360 171% 8 6:00 PM 23 16%
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Yes No
Yes No
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Traffic volume requirements for Multi-Way Stop Control are not satisfied for Major and Minor Road Traffic. Based on existing conditions, "Other Criteria" does not satisfy the requirements either.

Not Satisfied

MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC
THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE ENGINEERING STUDY FOR A MULTI-WAY STOP:

IDENTIFY CRASHES SUSCEPTIBLE TO CORRECTION BY MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL, SUCH AS RIGHT-TURN, LEFT-TURN, AND RIGHT-ANGLE

COLLISIONS
Comments
N/A
Highest Number of Crashes within 12-Month Period:

N/A
N/A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS MET?
Yes No If so, identify warrant number(s):

Highest 8 hours of total vehicular volume
entering the intersection from the major road approaches (total of both approaches)
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)

MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC
Major & Minor Traffic ≥ 80% for 8 Hours and
Peak Hour Delay ≥ 24 Seconds and
Crashes ≥ 4?
OTHER CRITERIA THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED IN AN ENGINEERING STUDY:

Where traffic signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. Satisfied Not Satisfied
Crashes ≥ 5?
Major & Minor Traffic ≥ 100% for 8
Hours and
Minor Street Peak Hour Delay ≥ 30
seconds?
CRITERIA C1 AND C2

CRITERIA A

CRITERIA B

CRITERIA C

CRITERIA D

OTHER CRITERIA
6/29/2024 Jonathan Sanchez, PE
Major Road Posted Speed Limit
La Mesa, CA
MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL APPLICATION - CA MUTCD Section 2B.07 Date Prepared By Analysis Year
2024
City
Minor Road Posted Speed Limit
Amaya Drive 30 MPH Jericho Road 25 MPH (Prima Facie)
Major Road Name Minor Road Name
Not Satisfied

4. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection
Satisfied Not Satisfied

3. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop Yes

2. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes
Satisfied
For the same 8 hours, the combined
No
Satisfied Not Satisfied

1. The need to control left-turn conflicts
Major & Minor Traffic ≥ 70% for 8 Hours
and
Major Road Speed > 40 MPH
CRITERIA C3 Satisfied Not Satisfied
Are the requirements for Multi-Way Stop satisfied? Please provide comments below.

CONCLUSION
Satisfied

Attachment C
TIMS Collision Data







 


 !"#$
%$"&#
"
 ' !(
$
!"$
!)*+,$
-.+
"/0),.12),.
$
3&4'! &3+5678'+.$(9:6"! !4
&;
%8$
+&( $%
"!6$'
(!$%

&"
.$#
&)"-$ &$(
%9!&
.+"/0.<)9.1"
$
3-!=%&3+.$(9:6"!/$8
"$
+"!/$ %$

2
>?@ABCDE?@FGHIJKLMN  =NO OPQRSJTL.$U
-!PVJTLW$,

XSJKYZ[JVQS
\F]@A^_
`=)"
%"
!
aQJIbPYZcK
aQJIbdV[JeZ
fJIKgVhciIT
jKkXSlQbKk
mVnKXSlQbKk oQJQY[TbKXSlQbKk
OpOq
'&rsM)*&O0s2tu1p0M2Ou1s0u1s0u1
!(Op0t2u16$

$-!%& $ /$ &2 vwxywz{|}|~€‚ƒ„
†‡ ˆƒx€‰zwŠwxƒ‰€ Page 2563 of 2604
Attachment D
Existing & Existing With Project LOS Worksheets

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
4: Severin Dr & Amaya Drive AM Peak Hour
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 322 128 98 403 14 101 99 125 12 123 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 45 322 128 98 403 14 101 99 125 12 123 59 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1521 1521 1856 1856 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 398 126 114 469 15 131 129 131 14 146 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 73 474 305 319 776 25 156 409 338 19 174 75
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.43 0.43 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1195 1448 1788 57 1448 1521 1257 1448 1000 431 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 398 126 114 0 484 131 129 131 14 0 209 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1195 1448 0 1845 1448 1521 1257 1448 0 1431 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 18.5 8.0 6.1 0.0 18.3 8.1 6.2 7.7 0.9 0.0 12.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 18.5 8.0 6.1 0.0 18.3 8.1 6.2 7.7 0.9 0.0 12.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 474 305 319 0 801 156 409 338 19 0 249 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.84 0.41 0.36 0.00 0.60 0.84 0.32 0.39 0.74 0.00 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 584 817 526 319 0 801 239 409 338 255 0 315 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.1 32.1 28.1 30.0 0.0 19.7 39.7 26.5 27.1 44.7 0.0 36.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 4.1 0.9 3.1 0.0 1.3 14.4 0.4 0.7 42.4 0.0 14.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 8.5 2.3 2.3 0.0 7.6 3.4 2.2 2.3 0.5 0.0 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.4 36.1 29.0 33.1 0.0 21.0 54.2 26.9 27.8 87.1 0.0 51.0 LnGrp LOS E D C C A C D C C F A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 580 598 391 223
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.7 23.3 36.3 53.2
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 30.4 8.8 45.4 14.8 21.8 25.0 29.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 19.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 9.7 4.8 20.3 10.1 14.8 8.1 20.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
4: Severin Dr & Amaya Drive PM Peak Hour
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 351 204 66 266 21 104 106 90 14 129 48 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 351 204 66 266 21 104 106 90 14 129 48 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1521 1521 1856 1856 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 69 399 187 75 302 22 113 115 78 18 170 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.76 0.76 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 90 533 356 90 508 37 138 430 356 25 219 75
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1240 1448 1704 124 1448 1521 1261 1448 1068 365 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 399 187 75 0 324 113 115 78 18 0 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1240 1448 0 1829 1448 1521 1261 1448 0 1433 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 12.2 7.9 3.2 0.0 9.5 4.8 3.7 3.0 0.8 0.0 9.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 12.2 7.9 3.2 0.0 9.5 4.8 3.7 3.0 0.8 0.0 9.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 533 356 90 0 545 138 430 356 25 0 293 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.75 0.53 0.83 0.00 0.59 0.82 0.27 0.22 0.72 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 846 1184 792 462 0 875 347 461 382 370 0 457 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.4 20.3 18.8 29.1 0.0 18.8 27.8 17.4 17.2 30.6 0.0 23.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.7 2.1 1.2 17.7 0.0 1.0 11.2 0.3 0.3 32.5 0.0 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 5.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 3.7 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.0 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.1 22.4 20.0 46.8 0.0 19.8 39.0 17.8 17.5 63.2 0.0 28.0 LnGrp LOS D C B D A B D B B E A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 655 399 306 246
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.8 24.9 25.5 30.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 23.7 8.2 24.7 11.0 18.8 8.9 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 19.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 5.7 4.4 11.5 6.8 11.4 5.2 14.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 3.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing with Project AM 4: Severin Dr & Amaya Drive
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 323 128 103 409 14 101 99 127 12 123 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 45 323 128 103 409 14 101 99 127 12 123 59 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1521 1521 1856 1856 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 399 126 120 476 15 131 129 134 14 146 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 73 475 306 319 777 24 156 409 338 19 174 75
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.43 0.43 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1195 1448 1789 56 1448 1521 1257 1448 1000 431 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 399 126 120 0 491 131 129 134 14 0 209 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1195 1448 0 1845 1448 1521 1257 1448 0 1431 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 18.5 8.0 6.4 0.0 18.6 8.1 6.2 7.9 0.9 0.0 12.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 18.5 8.0 6.4 0.0 18.6 8.1 6.2 7.9 0.9 0.0 12.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 475 306 319 0 802 156 409 338 19 0 249 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.84 0.41 0.38 0.00 0.61 0.84 0.32 0.40 0.74 0.00 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 583 816 526 319 0 802 239 409 338 255 0 315 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.1 32.1 28.1 30.2 0.0 19.8 39.8 26.5 27.2 44.7 0.0 36.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 4.1 0.9 3.4 0.0 1.4 14.5 0.4 0.8 42.4 0.0 14.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 8.5 2.3 2.5 0.0 7.8 3.4 2.2 2.4 0.5 0.0 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.4 36.2 29.0 33.5 0.0 21.2 54.2 27.0 27.9 87.1 0.0 51.0 LnGrp LOS E D C C A C D C C F A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 581 611 394 223
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.8 23.6 36.4 53.3
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 30.5 8.8 45.5 14.8 21.8 25.0 29.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 19.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 9.9 4.9 20.6 10.1 14.8 8.4 20.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing with Project PM 4: Severin Dr & Amaya Drive
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 355 204 69 268 21 104 106 95 14 129 48 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 355 204 69 268 21 104 106 95 14 129 48 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1521 1521 1856 1856 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 69 403 187 78 305 22 113 115 83 18 170 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.76 0.76 0.76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 90 535 358 94 515 37 138 429 356 25 218 74
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1240 1448 1706 123 1448 1521 1261 1448 1068 365 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 403 187 78 0 327 113 115 83 18 0 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1240 1448 0 1829 1448 1521 1261 1448 0 1433 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 12.5 8.0 3.4 0.0 9.6 4.8 3.7 3.2 0.8 0.0 9.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 12.5 8.0 3.4 0.0 9.6 4.8 3.7 3.2 0.8 0.0 9.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 535 358 94 0 553 138 429 356 25 0 292 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.75 0.52 0.83 0.00 0.59 0.82 0.27 0.23 0.72 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 838 1173 784 458 0 867 343 456 379 366 0 453 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 20.5 18.9 29.3 0.0 18.8 28.1 17.6 17.5 31.0 0.0 23.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.7 2.2 1.2 16.7 0.0 1.0 11.2 0.3 0.3 32.7 0.0 4.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 5.2 2.2 1.5 0.0 3.8 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.0 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.3 22.7 20.1 46.0 0.0 19.8 39.3 18.0 17.8 63.6 0.0 28.5 LnGrp LOS D C C D A B D B B E A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 659 405 311 246
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.0 24.8 25.7 31.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 23.9 8.2 25.1 11.0 18.9 9.1 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 19.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 5.7 4.4 11.6 6.8 11.5 5.4 14.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 3.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

TO: Louisa Feletto – Forward Planning Manager
FROM: Jonathan Sanchez, PE, TE, PTOE; CR Associates
Cristian Belmudez; CR Associates
DATE: 11/14/2024
RE: Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project – Parking Demand Analysis

The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the parking demand analysis conducted for the Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project (the “Project”).

Background
The Project proposes to construct 73 three-story townhomes on the old Calvary Church site (approximately 3.48 acres), located at 9407 Jericho Road in the City of La Mesa. Figure 1 displays the Project’s regional location. Figure 2 displays the project site plan.

Per the City of La Mesa Municipal Code 24.04.030 – Off-Street parking requirements, dwelling units in apartments, condominium or community apartment projects require 2 parking spaces per unit.

Based on this standard, the Project is required to provide 146 parking spaces for residents (2 per each of the 73 units). Additionally, the City of La Mesa Municipal Code requires guest or visitor parking to be provided at a rate of 0.4 spaces per dwelling unit. However, California Assembly Bill 2097 prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement for residential, commercial, and other developments if the parcel is located within a 1/2-mile walking distance of a major transit stop.

The Project will provide 146 parking spaces for residents and 5 parking spaces for guests (reduced based on AB 2097). Therefore, the Project would meet the minimum parking requirements.

Parking Analysis
Parking occupancy is measured by dividing the number of parked vehicles by the total parking supply.

Parking supply was inventoried via aerial imagery and confirmed on the field. Within the study area all of the on-street parking is unmarked and a length of 20 feet per parking space was assumed. Parking occupancy was observed within ½-mile walking distance of the project site. Figure 3 displays the parking demand study area. Parking occupancy observations were conducted on one (1) weekday and one (1) weekend day as follows:
▪ Sunday, November 3, 2024: 5 AM - 7 AM
▪ Wednesday, November 6, 2024: 7 PM - 9 PM
During each period of observation, field staff collected parking occupancy by driving through the study area with high-resolution video equipment mounted on a vehicle. The videos were then manually processed to identify the number of vehicles parked along each study roadway segment. Figure 4 displays an example of video footage obtained from the parking occupancy observations. Table 1 displays the parking demand results.

City of
Santee
City of
El Cajon
City of
Lemon Grove
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
City of
San Diego
City of
La Mesa
N
Figure 1
Project Regional Location
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Parking Demand Analysis
0 0.5 1 Miles
Project Site^

Figure 2
Project Site Plan
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing
Parking Demand Analysis
7 7
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
BLDG #9
BLDG #8
%(1&+ %(1&+ %(1&+

JERICHO RD
X X
X
X

X X X X X
X
X X
X

X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X
X
X

X X X X X X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
9 OF
PREPARED BY: SHEET

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

JERICHO
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN 1

DESIGN INTENT STATEMENT

THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN INTENT OF THIS PROJECT IS TO PROVIDE PLANT

MATERIAL THAT ACCENTS AND FRAMES THE ARCHITECTURE AND ENHANCES THE PEDESTRIAN SCALE OF THE PROJECT. STREET TREES ARE CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING AREAS AND WILL BE USED TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY. PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SCREEN AND BUFFER UNSIGHTLY ELEMENTS AND PROVIDE PRIVACY. TREES HAVE BEEN PLACED TO BEAUTIFY THE SITE AND TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR THE SITE. THE PLANT

MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN SELECTED WERE DONE SO FOR THEIR LOW WATER USE QUALITIES. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED USING A RAIN

SENSING CONTROLLER AND BE ADJUSTABLE SO AS NOT TO WASTE WATER THROUGH RUNOFF OR OVERSPRAY.

MINIMUM TREE SEPARATION DISTANCE
TRAFFIC SIGNALS (STOP SIGN) - 20 FEET
UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES - 5 FEET (10' FOR SEWER)
ABOVE GROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES - 10 FEET
DRIVEWAY (ENTRIES) - 10 FEET
INTERSECTIONS (INTERSECTING CURB LINES OF TWO STREETS) - 25 FEET - NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD INHIBIT VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN OR OVER ANY SEWER ACCESS EASEMENT.
- SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED AT PROPOSED TRANSFORMERS IN FORM OF SCREEN MULCH
ALL REQUIRED PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH MULCH TO A DEPTH OF 4 INCHES, EXCLUDING SLOPES REQUIRING REVEGATION AND AREAS PLANTED WITH GROUND COVER. ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WITHOUT VEGETATION SHALL ALSO BE MULCHED TO THIS MINIMUM DEPTH.

NOTE:

TREE ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED WHERE TREES ARE PLACED WITHIN 10 FEET OF PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING WALKS, CURBS, OR STREET PAVEMENTS OR WHERE NEW PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE PLACED ADJACENT TO EXISTING TREES. THE ROOT BARRIER WILL NOT WRAP AROUND THE ROOT BALL.

IRRIGATION - AN AUTOMATIC, ELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED AS

REQUIRED FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE VEGETATION IN A HEALTHY, DISEASE-RESISTANT CONDITION. THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE VEGETATION SELECTED. ALL PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL USE AN APPROVED RAIN SENSOR SHUTOFF DEVICE. THE INTENDED IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE A DRIP SYSTEM.

ALL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROJECT HOA.

ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF LA MESA LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS, LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE; THE CORE SUB-AREA DESIGN MANUAL; AND ALL OTHER STATE STANDARDS.

GREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER

FICIENT LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE
NDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
8/15/24

GNATURE DATE
GISTRATION NO. 3503 EXP: 02-2025

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT

ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN

JERICHO
PROPOSED TOTAL LANDSCAPE : 31, 136 SQFT
33 EXISTING TREES ON SITE TO BE REMOVED
65 TOTAL PROPOSED TREES PROVIDED ON SITE
1 TREE PER EVERY 40 FEET OF STREET
FRONTAGE. STREET FRONTAGE 240 LF.
6 PROPOSED STREET TREES HAVE BEEN

PROVIDED
1642 SQFT OF HARDSCAPE AT PARKING AREA
169 SQFT OF LANDSCAPING PROVIDED FOR
ADJACENT PARKING. 10% (164SQFT REQ.)
OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS:

REQUIRED OPEN SPACE: 24,900 SF
- (10) UNITS X 500 SF = 5,000 SF - (10) UNITS X 400 SF = 4,000 SF - (53) UNITS X 300 SF = 15,900 SF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
11,489 SF - (5) PLAN 2532 X 83 SF = 415 SF
- (5) PLAN 2532X X 166 SF = 830 SF
- (32) PLAN 1633 X 107 SF = 3,424 SF
- (31) PLAN 1637 X 220 SF = 6,820 SF
COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
15,000 SF TOTAL
NOTES:

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE

ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE

EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE

DESIGN PLAN

GROUNDCOVER AND SHRUB PLANTING TO BE

PROVIDED AT SLOPE AREAS TO HELP REDUCE
POTENTIAL EROSION OF SLOPES.

BARK MULCH TO BE USED IN PLANTING AREAS AND
NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF TOTAL PLANTING AREA.
la mesa, CA
jericho road
Amenity Area A
• + 1,400 SF
• Fire feature with seating
• Decorative screen wall
• See Amenity Plan for additional details
Amenity Area D
• + 5,100 SF
• BBQ area with shade sails and seating
• Tot lot and passive grass area for lawn games
• Enhanced with landscaping and special
paving at crosswalks
Amenity Area C
• + 2,800 SF
• Gathering space with water feature
• Decorative walkways and planting
• See Amenity Plan for additional details
Typical Three-Story Townhome Building
• 3 building types
• 1 elevation styles
• ÁRRUSODQYDULDWLRQ
• Maximum height of 38.0 feet
• Oriented to provide front doors along
streetscapes and paseos
Amenity Area B
• + 2,900 SF
• BBQ counter with overhead shade structure
• Variety of seating options
• Passive grass open space area
• Walkway connection to Amenity Area D
• See Amenity Plan for additional details
Amenity Area E
• + 1,800 SF
• DG Bocce Ball court
• Gather area with seating and umbrellas
Conceptual Illustrative Plan
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 803A BLDG 803A BLDG 802A
BLDG 803A
BLDG 901A
Project
Property
No. of Un
• 10 - P
• 32 - P
• 31 - P
Density: 2
Proposed
• Front
• Side
• Rear
Parking R
• Resid
Parking P
• Resid
• Gues
Open Sp
• Total
400 S
• Priva
Open Sp
• Total
• Privat
• Com
Notes:

1. Maintai

2. Type VB

3. Guest p

4. Guest s

5. Private
decks o

6. All prop
provide

7. Existing

8. Existing

9. Existing
Front: 1

10. Propose

11. Propose

12. Assesso

13. Site Add

Figure 3 - Parking Demand Study Area

Figure 4 - Examples of Parking Occupancy Video Footage

Table 1 – Existing Parking Demand
Roadway Segment
Parking
Supply
Weekday Weekend
Demand Occupancy Demand Occupancy
Amaya Dr Amaya Ct to Primrose Dr 151 50 33% 57 38%
Primrose Dr
Amaya Dr to Broadmoor
Dr 67 17 25% 11 16%
Primrose Dr
Murray Dr to Blackbone
Ave 91 12 13% 9 10%
Murray Dr
Primrose to Grossmont
View Dr 38 8 21% 9 24%
Poppy St Primrose Dr to Jan Dr 72 16 22% 17 24%
Jan Dr
Primrose Dr to Janfred
Way 37 13 35% 12 32%
Janfred Way Jan Dr to Water St 55 14 25% 11 20%
Wolff Ct Janfred Way to Culdesac 17 7 41% 6 35%
Gregg Ct Janfred Way to Culdesac 20 9 45% 12 60%
Water St Amaya Dr to Murray Dr 63 23 37% 24 38%
Milden St Water St to Milden St 41 18 44% 19 46%
Washington St
Milden St to City Park
Entrance 29 0 0% 0 0%
Joel Ln Lakeview Dr to Culdesac 42 19 45% 17 40%
Lakeview Dr Amaya Dr to Jan Dr 38 13 34% 11 29%
Severin Dr Earl St to Loren Dr 9 0 0% 0 0%
Campina Dr Christa Dr to Severin Dr 38 9 24% 9 24%
Earl St
Nancy Dr to East of
Howell Dr 18 13 72% 16 89%
Howell St
North of Earl St to Amaya
Dr 59 25 42% 29 49%
Broadmoor Dr Amaya Dr to Primrose Dr 189 65 34% 66 35%
Jericho Road Broadmoor Dr to Amaya
Dr 18 4 22% 4 22%
Broadmoor Pl
Broadmoor Dr to
Culdesac 16 0 0% 0 0%
White
Pl/Henderson Dr
Broadmoor Dr to
Fernwood Dr 147 38 26% 36 24%
Kathy St White Pl to Amaya Dr 35 6 17% 7 20%
Gregory St Howell Dr to Amaya Dr 96 19 20% 18 19%
Source: CR Associates (2024)
Note:

Bold indicates occupancy greater than 85 percent.
85 percent occupancy is considered by the parking industry to be the threshold for when parking is being utilized most efficiently, with the number striking a balance between maximizing usage and having some spare capacity. As shown in Table 1, there are no segments where parking occupancy exceeds 85 percent during the weekday or weekend, except for the segment of Earl Street between Nancy Drive and Howell Drive. However, this segment is located along the further edge of the study area and residents of the Project would have ample opportunities to park along closer segments, such as Broadmoor Drive, Jericho Road, and Amaya Drive. Table 2 displays the parking demand along these nearby roads.

Table 2 – Existing Parking Demand Along Amaya Drive, Jericho Road, and Broadmoor Drive Roadway Segment
Parking
Supply
Weekday Weekend
Demand Occupancy Demand Occupancy
Amaya Dr Amaya Ct to Primrose Dr 151 60 40% 67 44%
Jericho Road Broadmoor Dr to Amaya
Dr 18 4 22% 4 22%
Broadmoor Dr Jericho Road to Primrose
Dr 171 71 42% 72 42%
Total 340 135 40% 143 42%
As shown, in the immediate vicinity of the Project, all of the study roadway segments are less than 50% occupied and it would take 205 vehicles to reach 100 percent occupancy in the weekday and 197 vehicles to reach 100 percent occupancy in the weekend.

Conclusion
Based on the parking analysis results, there is ample parking available within a ½-mile walking distance of the Project. Furthermore, along the segments immediately adjacent to the Project, there are nearly 200 parking spaces available. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would significantly reduce parking availability in the surrounding area.

PROPOSED PORTION OF PVT. DRIVE 'E'
(AT CURB RETURN NORTH OF PROP. STORM DRAIN CONN.)

EXISTING BROADMOR DRIVE

EXISTING JERICHO ROAD
PROPOSED PVT. DRIVES 'B' & 'D'
PROPOSED PVT. DRIVE 'A'
PROPOSED PORTION OF PVT. DRIVE 'C'
PROPOSED PORTION OF PVT. DRIVE 'E'
(WHERE ON STREET PARKING IS SHOWN)

EXISTING AMAYA DRIVE
5 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TTM-2023-2348

JERICHO ROAD
2 TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL
0" MOD. CURB
4" MOD. 'G-2' CURB & GUTTER
4" MOD. 'G-4' ROLLED CURB
4" MOD. 'G-1' CURB

STREET SECTIONS / SITE DETAILS

LAKEVIEW DR
A
MA
YA
D
R

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

BROADMOOR PL
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R

JERICHO RD
5 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TTM-2023-2348

JERICHO ROAD

EXISTING CONDITIONS
3

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R

JERICHO RD
A
MA
YA
D
R

LAKEVIEW DR

BROADMOOR PL

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "A"
PVT. DRIVE "B"
PVT. DRIVE "C"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"
E
"
PVT. DRIVE "C"
PVT. DRIVE "D"
M
M
M
M
M
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"A
"

EASEMENTS

PROPOSED

PROJECT DESIGN
4 5
OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TTM-2023-2348

JERICHO ROAD

BOUNDARIES AND ENCUMBRANCES
’
’
’
’ ”
’
’
’
’
’ ’
’ ’

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

TITLE REFERENCE

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER

TITLE EXCEPTIONS
—
5 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TTM-2023-2348

JERICHO ROAD
5

REPORT to the LA MESA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: October 14, 2024
SUBJECT: 2023-2348 (Meritage Homes)
DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 73-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT AT 9407 JERICHO
ROAD (APN 486-670-18-00) IN THE R1 (URBAN

RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:

Issue(s):

1. Does the proposed design meet the intent of the Urban Design Program policies?

2. Is the proposed design consistent with the policies and objectives of the General Plan?
Recommendation:

1. Staff recommends that the Design Review Board approve the project, subject to City Council ratification.

BACKGROUND:

The 3.49-acre project site is located at the junction of Jericho Road and Broadmoor Drive, and has frontage on the southwest side of Jericho Road, as can be seen on the vicinity map. The lot is rectangular in shape, and is currently developed with Cavalry Chapel, associated church facilities/structures, a surface parking lot, turf area, ornamental plantings, and a playground. Photos of the project site are provided as Attachment A.

Existing right-of-way improvements along Jericho Road include sidewalk, curb, gutter, above-grade utility lines, and two curb openings. The property is located just north of Amaya Drive, with the Amaya Trolley Station located to the west and less than one-half

Report to Design Review Board Project No. 2023-2348 (Meritage Homes) Date: October 14, 2024 Page: 2 of 7
mile walking distance from the site. Surrounding development includes single-family homes to the north and east, and multi-family developments to the south and west.

The project site is located in the R1 (Urban Residential) zone, as shown on the Zoning Map. The R1 zone is designed for single-family residential development, which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Urban Residential The applicant is proposing a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the Zoning from R1 to R3 (Multiple Unit Residential), and the General Plan designation from Urban Residential to Multiple Unit Residential to support a multifamily development on the site.

The minimum net lot area per dwelling unit for multifamily residential development in the R3 zone is 2,420 square feet (s.f.), except this may be reduced to no less than 1,895 s.f. if the project utilizes Density Bonus as provided by Chapter 24.05.025 of the La Mesa Municipal Code (LMMC).

Report to Design Review Board Project No. 2023-2348 (Meritage Homes) Date: October 14, 2024 Page: 3 of 7
LMMC Chapter 24.05.025 allows for residential projects to earn a reduction in the base density by earning points through the following categories:

1. Provision of Extra Recreation and Leisure Open Space

2. Provision of Extra Parking

3. Provision of Enclosed Parking

4. Provision of Family Housing

5. Housing for the Physically Handicapped
The applicant is proposing to utilize Density Bonus for the project.

Pursuant to LMMC Chapter 24.05.025, Design Review by the City’s Design Review Board (DRB) is required for all projects utilizing Density Bonus, and is subject to site design and architectural review and approval, by the DRB in accordance with the Urban Design Program and procedures. DRB decisions are ratified by the City Council. The entitlement process also includes Site Development Plan review approved by the Director of Community Development, Special Permit review by the Planning Commission, and Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, and General Plan Amendment review by the Planning Commission and City Council.

DISCUSSION:

The property owner proposes to demolish existing on-site improvements to construct 73 townhomes as shown on the project plans provided as Attachment B. Project renderings, to illustrate how the development would appear from the street, are provided as Attachment C, and a color and materials board is included as Attachment D. The project includes nine three-story buildings, two-car garages for each unit, and 27,489 s.f. of open space. It appears that the project meets underlying development standards of the R3 zone, including but not limited to setbacks, open space, and parking. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit reviewed by the Planning Commission for building height standards.

The intent of the Urban Design Program is to use the guidelines as an instrument to give direction and support to the Design Review Board and the applicant in their designs, and assure a minimum level of design quality for site design and architectural design. The project appears to meet the intent of the Urban Design Program through the project’s site design and architectural design as further discussed below.

SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Site Design
The Urban Design Program finds that grading, building location and orientation, circulation, open spaces, and lighting all contribute to a desirable site design. Since the existing site is relatively flat with a descending slope along the southern and

Report to Design Review Board Project No. 2023-2348 (Meritage Homes) Date: October 14, 2024 Page: 4 of 7
eastern project boundaries and an ascending slope at the northern boundary, the site appears to be suitable for a development with minimal grading. Some grading is proposed along the perimeter of the property, but the existing slopes and topography appear to have been maximized to the best of the applicant’s ability. Where retaining walls are required along the property’s perimeter, landscaping was considered to provide a visual buffering and adequate drainage for the surrounding properties.

The buildings are designed and spatially arranged to create a functional relationship on the site so the project operates efficiently and is pedestrian focused. Handicap accessible walkways are included on the site and provide connection from the street and throughout the entirety of the site. Each unit is designed to provide a two-car garage, and the roadways are sited and designed to provide clear vehicular access to each unit. Pedestrian pathways are separated from the roadways with curb and gutter.

The project would provide a total of 27,489 s.f. of open space area, including approximately 11,489 s.f. of private open space, and approximately 16,000 s.f. of common open space area. The common open space area amenities would include features such as decorative walkways, gathering spaces, a BBQ area with shaded seating, a bocce ball court, a tot lot and passive lawn areas for recreation. The private open space areas would consist of porches and the balconies available to each unit.

Bicycle parking would be provided in the common area located near the guest parking stalls.

Exterior lighting was considered as part of the architectural and landscape concept of the project. A combination of pole lights, bollard lights, coach lighting, and tree lights are proposed on the site to illuminate building and sight entrances, walkways, common open spaces, parking areas, and other areas of the site to enhance the building design and landscaping as well as provide for safety and security. Other than the tree uplights, the area lighting is predominantly down-directed and shielded which assists in avoiding glare or adverse spill-over of light off the site. Lighting fixture cut sheets are provided as Attachment E.

Landscape Design
A total of 31,136 s.f. of landscaping is proposed for the project. A landscape theme is provided throughout the site, and compliments the scale and proportions of the proposed buildings on the site. The intent of the project’s landscape design is to accent and frame the architecture and enhance the pedestrian scale of the project. One tree for every 500 s.f. of landscaping is required on the property. The project proposes a total of 71trees on the site, including six street trees, and 65 on-site trees. These trees include a combination of accent and broad-spreading shade trees, and are proposed together with accent plants and shrubs that were selected for low water use. The combination of trees, accent plants, and shrubs are used for screening and buffering between on-site buildings as well as

Report to Design Review Board Project No. 2023-2348 (Meritage Homes) Date: October 14, 2024 Page: 5 of 7
adjacent properties, which is consistent with the Urban Design Program. Additional groundcover and shrub planting are proposed on the perimeter slopes for erosion control.

Off-Street Parking Design
The project includes two garage spaces per unit plus five guest spaces for a total of 151 parking spaces. The project meets the Off-Street Parking Design Guidelines by providing parking within garage spaces and minimizing the visual impact of large paved areas. In addition, the small guest parking area includes landscaping around the paved area to meet the City’s Parking and Landscape Standards.

Energy Conservation
The project meets the Energy Conservation Guidelines through its site orientation, open spaces, and landscaping. The orientation and siting of structures and landscaping considers water conservation, by management of water run-off and use of plant materials appropriate to the climate. The placement of canopy trees and shade structures provide shading to open space areas throughout the site. Once operational, the project would be all electric and would include solar panels on all proposed buildings.

Safety Design
The consideration of safety when designing a development can include creating defensible spaces that clearly define physical spaces into areas of public, semi-public, semi-private, and private spaces. Along the street frontage of the project site, street trees and additional landscaping and common areas are proposed. This space between the public right-of-way and the private residences creates a transition and symbolic barrier on the site. The project meets the intent of the safety design guidelines by creating a semi-public space on the property.

ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
Architectural Design
The project includes a total of nine buildings. The variety in surface planes, forms, and textures appears to create variety and interest across all building elevations. Second story porches, projecting entry canopies, and horizontal and vertical offsets create visual relief, while an interesting variety of window sizes and types are organized into a regular pattern. These offsets and patterns contribute to the human scale, proportion, and massing of the building, which is consistent with the Urban Design Program. Although the side elevations of the buildings utilize less architectural features than the front and rear elevations, landscaping is proposed to accent side

Report to Design Review Board Project No. 2023-2348 (Meritage Homes) Date: October 14, 2024 Page: 6 of 7
elevations of the buildings.

The Urban Design Program also calls to the importance of creating a legible distinction for individual dwelling units in multi-family residential developments. The legibility can reduce the apparent scale of the building and increase the feeling of individual identity for project residents. Although the project creates this distinction for its future residents, by applying a Spanish colonial architectural style to all buildings, a sense of place is created for the development as well.

Architectural Finish and Details
The proposed development utilizes stucco for the building’s surface material, with wood, clay, decorative Spanish tile, and wrought iron accent materials. Stucco is a natural material which is prevalent in La Mesa, and keeps with the tradition of the community. In addition, the proposed design incorporates Spanish influences and traditional materials such as tile and clay. The Urban Design Program states that the colors for a building should reflect the application techniques that relate to the material’s architectural heritage. The project does this through its two distinct color schemes for the buildings, comprised of white and tan backgrounds accented by subdued and natural-toned browns, reds and blues. Front Building Elevations showing the two color themes for the site can be seen below. The use of varying neutrals and earth tones for the building colors provides visual interest and contrast, while not detracting from the surrounding neighborhood.

Report to Design Review Board Project No. 2023-2348 (Meritage Homes) Date: October 14, 2024 Page: 7 of 7
CONCLUSION:

As discussed above, the project appears to meet the site design guidelines and architectural design guidelines of the Urban Design Program. Staff recommends that the Design Review Board approve Project 2023-2348, subject to City Council ratification.

Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________
Laura Traffenstedt
Associate Planner
Reviewed by:
_____________________________
Jared Chavez
Assistant Director of Community Development
Lynnette Santos
_____________________________
Lynnette Santos
Director of Community Development
Attachments:

A. Site Photographs
B. Project Plans
C. Project Renderings
D. Color and Materials Board
E. Lighting Fixture Cut Sheets

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND COMMENTS RECEIVED
Public comments received to date include concern about increased traffic and traffic safety, on-street parking impacts, flooding, decreased property values, neighborhood compatibility of the proposed project, and waivers of development standards. Response to public comments received are provided below:

TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC SAFETY
Residents voiced concern regarding the increase of traffic in the neighborhood, and traffic safety in the neighborhood. In order to evaluate the traffic generated by the project, the applicant submitted a Traffic Assessment Letter (Attachment V) conducted by a qualified Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Assessment Letter states that the project is presumed to have a less-than-significant Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) impact, the project would have adequate internal circulation, and the project is not projected to have an adverse effect on traffic operations or safety according to the metrics identified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, May 2019.

The traffic was evaluated using data collected on April 18, 2023, during AM and PM peak hours and included calculations for average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The data found that there are an existing 342 average daily trips on Jericho Road, 6,007 average daily trips on Amaya Drive going westbound, and 5,085 average daily trips on Amaya going eastbound. Using this data, the existing Level of Service (LOS) was established and combined with trip generation projections to determine the traffic volumes under the “Existing with Project” scenario. The projected average daily traffic with the addition of the project is 780 average daily trips on Jericho Road, 6,270 on Amaya Drive going westbound, and 5,260 on Amaya going eastbound. Although there would be an increase in trips generated with the proposed project (from 342 average daily trips to 780 daily trips) the level of service would still be at LOS A, which means there would be no reduction in travel time or safety as a result of the project. All studied roadway segments are projected to continue operating at LOS D or better, and all intersections will operate at LOS B or better, even with the additional traffic generated by the project. The City of La Mesa’s roadway capacity standards, as outlined in Table 7-2 of the ITE Guidelines, only justify roadway segment improvements if traffic volumes result in LOS E or F.

After holding community meetings, the applicant heard additional concerns from the neighborhood regarding traffic and pedestrian safety. In response, the applicant completed a supplemental technical memorandum to identify any effects to existing levels of service (LOS) or traffic operations that may result in the need for off-site improvements (Attachment W). The additional traffic analysis found that marginal increases in traffic would result in the area, but did identify that the existing intersection of Broadmoor Drive and Jericho Road does not meet a recommended 200-foot stopping sight distance. The analysis recommended that the intersection be converted to an all-way stop control. To control left-turn conflicts and improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection, the applicant has redesigned their project to include an all-way stop at the intersection of Broadmoor Drive and Jericho Road and is required to install a W2-1 sign to indicate the presence of project driveways. Recently, the residents submitted a petition for additional

traffic calming measures on Broadmoor Drive through the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP).

PARKING
Residents cited concerns for the lack of guest parking provided on the project site, and the potential of spillover parking on the street. Pursuant to state Assembly Bill 2097, public agencies and cities are unable to impose a minimum parking requirement on development projects located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. In this case, the project is within ½ mile of the Amaya Street Trolley Station and therefore there is no minimum parking required. However, the project proposes to provide a total of 151 parking spaces, including five guest parking spaces. Although the on-site parking total proposed for the project exceeds what the City is allowed by state law to require, the applicant, in response to feedback received through public outreach, conducted additional studies to better understand potential impacts of parking on the surrounding neighborhood.

The applicant submitted a supplemental technical memorandum (Attachment X) to document the availability of parking within ½ mile walking distance of the project site.

The parking analysis found that there are nearly 200 on-street parking spaces available within ½ mile of the project site and therefore it is not anticipated that the project would significantly impact parking availability in the surrounding area.

FLOODING
Safety concerns related to flooding in the area, specifically about run-off down Jericho Road have been brought up by community members. A drainage study and Storm Water Quality Management Plan were submitted as part of the Initial Study that was prepared for the project to assess the potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the project. The drainage study found that the proposed project provides adequate drainage and protection against flooding, and downstream properties would not be impacted by the project. Project conditions of approval related to stormwater quality are provided in the Draft City Council Resolution approving the Site Development Plan (Attachment D). In addition, the applicant has offered to install an additional catch basin in a location adjacent to the site as determined appropriate by the City Engineer to assist with any existing run-off that may currently occur.

VIEW OBSTRUCTION
Neighbors located on Broadmoor Place shared concerns of obstructed views from their property. Due to the slight variation in topography across the building site, the project applicant had initially proposed building heights that would have exceeded the maximum height by 3 – 9 inches. After receiving feedback through community outreach, the applicant chose to lower the first-floor ceiling height in order to meet the maximum 30 ft. requirement throughout the site. No special consideration for height is requested. A Condition of Approval was included in the Site Development Plan Notice of Decision NOD-2024-07 to ensure that the applicant meets the height requirements of the R3 zone and is incorporated in the Draft City Council Resolution approving the Site Development Plan in Exhibit B (Attachment D).

In addition, the City does not have a view obstruction ordinance in place. View protection is typically obtained through the purchase of a view easement from nearby properties. There are currently no view easements in place within the surrounding area.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Neighbors have expressed that the proposed R3 zone would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The R1 zone has been designed for the more urbanized areas of the city where streets and other public facilities are generally adequate to accommodate a dwelling unit density of seven dwelling units per net acre. Seven dwelling units per acre on the 3.49-acre project site would allow for 24 new single-family lots. However, in light of state housing laws which now allow for higher densities in single-family zones, single-family lots may be allowed by right to build up to four units (two primary dwelling units and two accessory dwelling units). In this case, if the proposed project were not to be approved, a single-family residential project up to 96 units could be built by right without any public hearings.

In accordance with State Law, Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097), no parking would be required for the site since it is located within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop.

This would mean that in the existing R1 zone, the subject property could be developed with up to 96 units with no parking or guest parking.

In consideration of other housing opportunities for this site, the project as proposed is a good option for this site. It is consistent with the surrounding zoning and was designed with the surrounding neighborhood in mind. Adjacent properties to the north and west are designated Multiple Unit Residential and are zoned R3, and developed with multiple unit residential development, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning.

WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Neighbors have noted their disagreement with the request for waivers of development standards under Government Code Section 65915. In California, state law provides developers of below-market rate units the right to utilize additional density, waivers of local standards, and incentives to reduce housing costs. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, in no case may a City apply any development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development that provides a percent of the total proposed dwelling units to persons and families of moderate and/or of low/very low income.

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 13, 2025
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED
WITH PROPOSITION 218 NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC

HEARING FOR PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO

SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEARS
2026 AND 2027
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issue:

Should the City Council approve a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the notification and public hearing process required by Proposition 218 for proposed adjustments to sewer service charges for FY26 and FY27? Recommendation:

That the City Council approve a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the notification and public hearing process required by Proposition 218 for proposed adjustments to sewer service charges for FY26 and FY27.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost to print and mail public hearing notices is estimated to be $14,244.79 Funds are available in account 4141-6417 for postage and 4141-6418 for printing.

The sewer fund is an enterprise fund and therefore any rate adjustments and the associated printing and mailing costs will have no fiscal impact on the General Fund.

City’s Strategic Goals:

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 2 of 7
 Ensure a strong financial outlook through careful planning, sustainable service levels, and fiscal sustainability.
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.  Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.

BACKGROUND:

Sewer charges are calculated to meet the revenue needs of the sewer fund in compliance with Section 204(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The Act requires that each recipient of wastewater treatment services pays their proportionate share of the costs. In accordance with Section 5471 of the California Health and Safety Code, revenues derived from sewer fees are used solely for the purpose of covering program costs and expenses related to operating the City’s sewer utility, including sewer treatment and transportation; operation and maintenance activities; capital improvements; program administration; regulatory compliance; and program financing.

While the City of La Mesa operates the sewer collection system within the City limits, sewage treatment is performed by the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Treatment system for which the City of La Mesa pay fees on a quarterly basis. These sewerage treatment fees represent approximately 51% of the sewer system operation costs.

In 2022, the City Council approved rate increases of 3.4% for Fiscal Year 2023, 3.5% for Fiscal Year 2024, and 4.9% for Fiscal Year 2025 in anticipation of cost increases related to the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Treatment system, and particularly the Pure Water Program. Typically, the City proposes a two-year rate review process but because no rate increase proposal was presented in 2021, a three-year rate increase proposal was presented to re-align the timing and costs projections for Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025. In 2026, the City will go back to a 2-year rate increase proposal encompassing Fiscal Years 2026 and 2027.

Additionally, the Metro Commission and Metro Technical Advisory Committee have been meeting with the City of San Diego regularly to develop agreements for technical needs, cost sharing, and other issues.

Proposition 218 Requirements
Prior to bringing a sewer rate adjustment to the City Council for approval, the City is required to follow the notification and public hearing requirements set forth under Proposition 218. The Proposition 218 process requires that written notification be given to all affected property owners, and that those property owners be given a 45-day period in which to submit written protests if they oppose the proposed rate adjustments.

Following notification, a rate increase may be acted upon at a public hearing proposed for the City Council meeting of July 8, 2025. Specifically, to comply with Proposition 218, an agency requesting a rate increase must do the following:

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 3 of 7
 Identify the parcels upon which the fee or charge will be imposed  Calculate the fee or charge
 Provide written notice by mail to the record owner of each parcel upon which the fee or charge will be imposed
 The notice must include the amount of the fee or charge; the basis upon which the fee or charge was calculated; the reason for the fee or charge; and the date, time, and location of the public hearing on the proposed fee or charge
 Conduct a public hearing not less than 45 days after mailing the notice  At the public hearing, consider all protests against the fee or charge  If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners (50% + 1) of the identified parcels, the agency cannot impose the fee or charge  Date of Public Hearing will be included in the Notification DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this report is to request the approval of the City Council to authorize the notification and public hearing process in connection with a proposed sewer rate adjustment for Fiscal Years 2026 and 2027. Supporting data for each element of the proposed rate adjustments are provided below.

Wastewater Fund Financial Forecast
A review of the wastewater fund was recently completed by staff. This report will provide the City Council with a financial forecast for the wastewater fund. The information provided will illustrate the need for an incremental rate adjustment to keep up with anticipated costs and maintain a minimum sewer fund reserve for 75 operational days or 21% of expenditures.

The financial information provided in this report is for a five-year period with actual figures for fiscal years 2023 and 2024, estimated amounts provided for fiscal year 2025 and projected amounts for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 at the proposed sewer rates. Table 1 below shows the annual revenue and operating expenses for the wastewater fund with the proposed rate increases.

Revenue
Revenue is divided into four categories:
 Charges for Services
o Charges for Services represent the Sewer Fees and the revenue that the City receives from sewer customers and are the subject of this report. These fees constitute the vast majority and primary source of the sewer fund revenue (96%).

The revenue figures provided in Table 1 show the proposed increases for FY26 and FY27 sewer rates.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 4 of 7
 Sewer Connection Fees
o Sewer connection fees are paid by new private development as a proportional contribution to the cost of construction of the existing wastewater collection system.
 Other Operating Revenue
o Other Operating Revenue typically includes permit fees and miscellaneous charges.
 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
o Nonoperating Revenues includes investment income or losses, interest expense, intergovernmental revenue, gain or loss on disposal of assets Table 1*
* Table 1 shows the annual revenue and operating expenses for the wastewater fund with the proposed rate increases.

Expenses
The expenditure is divided into four categories:
 Metro Sewer Costs
o Metro Sewer Costs include payments to the City of San Diego for wastewater treatment services at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, debt service payments for Metro system improvements and sewer transportation costs.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 5 of 7

 Operation and Maintenance
o Operation and maintenance includes the costs associated with maintaining the City’s sewer collection system, sewer billing, personnel, capital improvement upgrades and equipment.
 Insurance and support services
o Insurance and support services include transfers out of the wastewater fund for liability insurance, sewer claims and other support services.  Debt Service
o Expenditures for debt service go toward principal and interest payments for six State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans. The budget includes additional debt service projections for the upcoming SRF funded project.

Metro Sewer Costs
Metro sewer costs paid to the City of San Diego for wastewater treatment have accounted for approximately half (51%) of the total fund expenditures in the past and are expected to increase in future years. Although these payments include costs for operations of the metropolitan treatment system, the primary reason for the large expenditure increases is due to capital construction expenses from the Pure Water San Diego Program (Pure Water) Phase 1 and Phase

2. Pure Water is a multi-year capital construction program that will, at build out in 2035, convert 83 million gallons a day of wastewater to potable drinking water. The offloading of these wastewater flows from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant will reduce the solids remaining in the ocean outfall to a level that is consistent with secondary treatment (secondary equivalency). Not only will Pure Water Program achieve secondary equivalency at Point Loma, it also creates a new, local, reliable water supply to the region. The Pure Water Program costs are apportioned to the wastewater and water customers. The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant is the last treatment plant with an ocean outfall that is not at the secondary treatment level. Point Loma is an advanced primary treatment plant and must get a waiver from secondary treatment standards requirements every five years from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Every time that the waiver has come up for renewal there has been discussion and political pressure to convert Point Loma to secondary treatment. Converting to secondary would be very expensive and there would not be a comparable environmental benefit.

The City of San Diego has actively been working with Congress to approve federal legislation titled “Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II” (OPRA II) to exempt the Point Loma Treatment Plant from future permits for secondary treatment under the Clean Water Act. This bill has been passed by Congress and is currently stalled in the Senate. The City of San Diego is hopeful that this legislation will be incorporated into a bipartisan omnibus bill in the Senate, as the resulting exemption would provide stability to the region's sewer treatment and water supply infrastructure and eliminate recurring permit-related expenses.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 6 of 7
Capital Improvement Program
Sewer infrastructure improvement projects are funded from sewer rates and programmed annually as part of the capital improvement program. The City has 150 miles of sewer mains some of which need replacement or upgrade. Staff assess the condition of sewer facilities during regular maintenance and uses an asset management approach to prioritize the improvement areas. Staff then implements smaller capital projects on an annual basis to address the most critical needs.

Funding for larger scale sewer projects has come from low-interest loans from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program. Larger projects can create greater economies of scale, generate more bidders and result in lower construction costs. The debt service for loan repayments is built into the sewer rates for improved financial planning. The long-term benefits of completing these projects include reduced treatment costs, fewer sewer backups, reduced liability claims, and reduced maintenance frequencies.

Looking ahead, two additional high-impact sewer capital improvement projects are slated to begin in the coming years: the Inflow & Infiltration (I&I) Project Phases 6 and 7. These upcoming projects will be financed through SRF loans, continuing the City’s strategic use of debt service to invest in essential sewer system upgrades.

Debt Service for Large Capital Improvement Program Projects Debt service is expected to slightly decrease in FY 2026 but will see an approximately 34% increase in 2027 when the City is expected to begin repayment of a new SRF loan obtained in FY 2021 for Phase 6 of the Inflow & Infiltration Project.

Sewer Rate Recommendation
Based on the financial projections, staff is recommending that sewer rate adjustments be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on July 8, 2025. The proposed rate increase for the average single-family customer using 14 units of water bi-monthly is 5.96% percent for FY26, and 5.04% percent for FY27. The rate adjustment would result in a $37.86 increase to the annual bill for the average single-family customer in FY26, and $33.96 in FY27.

Protest Process
Under Proposition 218, affected property owners may protest the proposed adjustments by submitting their objection in writing, for consideration by Council at the public hearing. A protest form has been included in the proposed notice that can be mailed to the City for consideration during the rate hearing on July 8, 2025. Under Proposition 218, if written protests are received by a majority of affected property owners, the proposed adjustments cannot be made.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the information provided in this report, it is recommended that the City Council approve

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 7 of 7
the resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the notification and public hearing process for the proposed adjustments to sewer service charges for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. The proposed changes to the schedule of sewer service charges would be considered by the City Council at the public hearing are described in the notice.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Jacob Martin
Senior Management Analyst
Attachments:

A: Resolution
B: Prop 218 Hearing Notice

RESOLUTION NO. 2025- _

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH PROPOSITION 218 NOTIFICATION

AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026 AND 2027
__________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City’s strategic goals include investing in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa is a participating agency in the Metropolitan Sewer System and as a participating agency, the City is required to pay its proportionate share of Metro System costs including wastewater treatment at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant; WHEREAS, in response to increasingly stringent environmental regulations, the regional Pure Water San Diego program—a multi-year capital improvement project—is being implemented to convert 83 million gallons of wastewater per day into potable drinking water, providing a costeffective, long-term solution for wastewater management and regulatory compliance; WHEREAS, the proposed sewer service charges are necessary to fund the City’s ongoing operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs for its wastewater system, as well as to meet its financial obligations to the Metropolitan Sewer System; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Article XIIID of the California State Constitution and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, the City of La Mesa must notify all affected property owners of said Public Hearing and the proposed sewer service rate increases.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Mesa approves a Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with Proposition 218 notification and setting a public hearing for proposed adjustments to sewer service charges for Fiscal Years 2026 and 2027 to occur on July 8, 2025.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 13th day of May 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)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

FOR PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
EFFECTIVE AUGUST 21, 2025, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2027
Tuesday, July 8, 2025
The City of La Mesa is hereby notifying affected property owners of a proposed sewer rate adjustment.

This mailing serves as notice to property owners of the public hearing to be held on the proposed sewer rate adjustments.

The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 8, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in the Council Chambers of La Mesa City Hall located at 8130 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, California 91942.

As part of the Metro Sewer System, the City is required by federal and state regulations to generate sufficient revenue from customer sewer service charges to fund its sewer program. The proposed sewer rate adjustments are necessary to fund La Mesa’s portion of the cost of regional sewer treatment and to maintain the City’s existing sewer infrastructure.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
If you own a parcel in the City of La Mesa that receives sewer service and you oppose the proposed adjustments, your protest must be submitted in writing to be considered. Only written protests from La Mesa property owners will be counted.

Current
Sewer Rates
Proposed
Rates
Effective 8/21/25
Proposed
Rates
Effective 7/1/26
FY 25 FY 26 FY 27
Single Family * $4.29 $4.54 $4.77
Multi Family $4.29 $4.60 $4.83
Commercial/Industrial
Low Strength $4.54 $5.08 $5.34
Medium Strength $6.49 $6.53 $6.86
High Strength $7.46 $7.69 $8.08
Extra High Strength $13.36 $13.48 $14.16
Bi-Monthly Base Charge
(applies to all customer accounts)
$45.84 $48.65 $51.09
How to calculate your sewer bill:

Water use charge times average bi-monthly water use plus base charge = bi-monthly sewer charge. To calculate the annual amount, multiply the bi-monthly sewer charge by 6.

A bi-monthly average of 14 units for a single family customer is used for calculation purposes.

Average bi-monthly single family bill effective 8/21/2025:
$4.54 x 14 units = $63.56 + $48.65 = $112.21
Average bi-monthly single family bill effective 7/1/2026:
$4.77 x 14 units = $66.78. + $51.09 = $117.87
*Note: The maximum bi-monthly billing cap is 28 units for single family customers.

Charge per 100 cubic feet (CF) of water
100 CF = 1 unit = 748 gallons

Written protests must be submitted to the Office of the City Clerk of the City of La Mesa by noon on Tuesday, July 8, 2025, or in the City Council Chambers during the public hearing so long as they are received prior to the close of the public hearing. Written protests must be made by the owner of the parcel and must include the owner’s name, Assessor Parcel Number (APN), sewer service address, a statement indicating opposition to the proposed sewer rate adjustments, and signature.

If protesting by mail, please identify on the front of the envelope that the enclosed letter of protest is for the proposed sewer rate adjustments. Owners of multiple properties must file a separate written protest for each property. Send your written protest to:

City of La Mesa
Office of the City Clerk
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
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 City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator, Gretchen Spaniol, Director of Human Resources, 48 hours prior to the meeting at 619.667.1175, fax 619.667.1163, or [email protected].

If you have questions about the proposed rate adjustments or the process for submitting a written protest, call the City of La Mesa at 619.667.1166 or visit our website at www.cityoflamesa.us/sewerservices. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROP. 218 PROTEST FORM
By signing the form below I protest the proposed sewer service charge rates and affirm under penalty of law that I am the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the below parcel.

Parcel Information
Assessor’s Parcel ID: ______________________________
Street Address:
___________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip Code:
___________________________________________________________ Statement
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Submitted By
Print Owner Name:
_______________________________________________________________ If the above is not an individual(s), e.g. and LLC, Trust, Corporation, etc.

Print Authorized Signatory:
_______________________________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________ Date: ____________

DATE: May 13, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Lauren Cazares
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SENDING A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR AND

LEGISLATIVE LEADERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED

BUDGET CUTS TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEMS - COUNCILMEMBER

CAZARES

DATE: May 13, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Lauren Cazares and Councilmember Laura Lothian SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A COUNCIL AD HOC
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR AMERICA'S 250TH BIRTHDAY -

COUNCILMEMBER CAZARES AND COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN

DATE: May 13, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Lauren Cazares
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CO-SPONSORING SENATE BILL 35 (UMBERG) - ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS, AND ASSEMBLY BILL 423
(DAVIES) - ALCOHOLISM OR DRUG ABUSE RECOVERY OR
TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES: DISCLOSURES -

COUNCILMEMBER CAZARES