Agenda packet, regular meeting — La Mesa City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 5 of 15)

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 15 of 15 ends

6. Address numbers are required to be installed or painted on the front of each unit. Numbers or letters shall be a minimum of four (4) inches in height and placed on a contrasting background.

7. Provide plans on AutoCAD for pre-fire planning use by fire department. Information shall include locations of all gas, electrical, and water control devices, fire sprinkler and fire alarm system control devices/connections, as well as access/egress.

8. Knox emergency access key box may be required at each building, with specific mounting locations approved by Heartland Fire & Rescue.

Planning

9. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an affordable housing agreement, approved by the City, shall be fully executed by all parties (to guarantee the affordability of eight affordable units to moderate income (80% – 120% Area Median Income).

10. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each unit, the applicant shall pay Parkland Dedication In-Lieu and Park Improvement Impact fees in accordance with Chapter 9.20 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, except that such fees are not required for units that are deed restricted as affordable.

11. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each unit, all applicable school facilities fees, as determined by the school districts, shall be paid.

D. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION:

Engineering

1. The applicant shall obtain final inspections and approvals from all departments for all issued permits prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

2. A final map shall be submitted and prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

3. Landscaping for trees, shrubs, walls, fences, cut/fill slopes or other structures at or near driveway and street intersections shall conform to the intersectional sight distance criteria as provided by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Highway Design Manual. Any obstructions which exceed a height of thirty-six (36) inches shall not be permitted within a distance of five (5) feet from the property line at the street.

Planning

4. The developer, contractor or landscape architect shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department stating that all landscaping, irrigation, drainage, and hardscape was installed according to City standards. A Certificate of Completion for landscape improvements shall be submitted, along with an irrigation schedule and soils management report as required by City standards and the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Page 785 of 2604 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPROVING THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROJECT 2023-2348, A 73- UNIT FOR-SALE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 9407 JERICHO ROAD, APN 486- 670-18-00 IN THE R1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2023, the Project Applicant, Meritage Homes, submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Design Review (Project 2023-2348) to construct a 73-unit forsale housing development at 9407 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-18-00) (“Project”); WHEREAS, the Project provides for eight (8) moderate income restricted units (80% - 120% Area Median Income (AMI));
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board held a public hearing, received and considered a staff report and reviewed Project 2023-2348 for consistency with the Urban Design Program and recommended approval (via Certificate of Action) of the Project on October 14, 2024; WHEREAS, a staff report and Notice of Decision for the Site Development Plan was posted for public review on November 21, 2024, and after five calendar days, the Community Development Director considered the staff report and public comments received for 2023-2348 and adopted NOD-2024-07 recommending the Planning Commission review and the City Council approve the Site Development Plan;
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment (GPA) re-designates the Project site from the “Urban Residential” (7 DU/AC) land use designation to the “Multiple Unit Residential” (18-23 DU/AC) land use designation;
WHEREAS, the Project site is appropriate for residential uses; WHEREAS, the Project Rezoning would rezone the Project site from R1 (Urban Residential) to R3 (Multiple Unit Residential);
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the City’s Housing Element, to provide safe and decent housing opportunities for all its residents, and offer a range of housing options to accommodate the diverse needs of the community and contribute to City’s state mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation;
WHEREAS, the City has not yet met its share of RHNA allocation, and the Project would not have a significant, quantifiable, direct or unavoidable impact based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety conditions, standards, or policies on the date the application was deemed complete;
WHEREAS, the Project Tentative Tract Map creates building sites suitable for construction of for-sale units for needed housing;
WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 2097, no minimum parking requirements apply to the Project since it is located within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop;

Page 786 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-xx May 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the Project design includes enhancements of extra parking, enclosed parking, and family housing to reduce the required building site area from 2,420 square feet minimum net lot area per dwelling unit to 1,895 square feet minimum net lot area per dwelling unit; WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking to apply waivers of development standards set forth in Government Code Section 65915;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and other applicable laws and regulations, the City prepared an Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project;
WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified mitigations to reduce impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils/Paleontological Resources, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources to a less than significant level, which are included in the MMRP to be adopted with the MND;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared and circulated for a 30-day public review comment period from September 12, 2024, to October 14, 2024 an Initial Study and the MND, which concluded that with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the MMRP and the Project conditions of approval, the Project would not have an adverse impact on the environment;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and considered a staff report regarding the Project;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 4, 2024 and accepted public testimony in considering Project 2023-2348; WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Initial Study and adoption of the MND (Resolution No. PC 2024-11); WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 18, 2024, and accepted public testimony in considering Project 2023-2348; WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC-2024-14 recommending Council approve the GPA, Rezoning, Site Development Plan, and Tentative Tract Map related to the Project;
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2024, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution PC-2024-14; WHEREAS, On February 24, 2025, the Applicant elected to modify their original Density Bonus Report in accordance to State Density Bonus Law in order to consolidate the previously requested special permit(s) for retaining wall height and fill limits and mechanical equipment within the setbacks, as well as requests for tandem parking and distance between buildings as waivers of development standards as allowed pursuant to State Density Bonus Law; WHEREAS, on March 7, 2025, a staff report for the substantial conformance review of the applicant’s request to modify the Site Development Plan was posted to the City’s webpage for

Page 787 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-xx May 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

public review and comment for five calendar days;
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development determined that the proposed changes were in substantial conformance with Notice of Decision NOD 2024-07 and no further action was necessary on March 13, 2025;
WHEREAS, On March 27, 2025, the applicant elected to modify their original Density Bonus Report in accordance to State Density Bonus Law in order to include additional waivers of development standards for open space and landscaping for off-street parking areas; WHEREAS, on March 27, 2025, a staff report for a substantial conformance review of the Site Development Plan amendment was posted to the City's webpage for public review and comment for five calendar days;
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development determined that the proposed changes were in substantial conformance with Notice of Decision NOD 2024-07 and no further action was necessary on April 2, 2025;
WHEREAS, the Council conducted a public hearing on May 13, 2025, and accepted public testimony in considering the appeal of Resolution PC-2024-14 and denied the appeal; and WHEREAS, the Council did hold a separate, public hearing on May 13, 2025, and accepted public testimony in considering the Project.

THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

1. Based on the record in its entirety and in its own independent judgment and analysis, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and MND and MMRP prepared for the Project and included as conditions of approval herein.

2. Tentative Tract Map Findings (La Mesa Municipal Code Section 22.02.010):
a. That the TTM is consistent with the General Plan.

With a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, the map is consistent with the General Plan Land Use & Urban Design Element and Housing Element. The proposed density of 20.92 units per acre is within the 23-unit maximum density of the proposed R3 zone and Multiple Unit Residential land use designation of the General Plan.
b. That the design or improvement of the TTM is consistent with the General Plan.

The design and improvement of the TTM is consistent with the GPA. The Project is a residential subdivision designed to conform to the City’s subdivision standards, development standards and design guidelines, including the citywide Urban Design Program. The Design Review Board reviewed the Project for consistency with the Urban Design Program, which includes

Page 788 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-xx May 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

neighborhood compatibility guidelines. As conditioned, the Project complies with safety requirements, including building and fire codes and accessibility standards, consistent with Policy LU-1.2.2. The General Plan supports infill development that reinforces neighborhood strengths, benefits neighborhood identity (Policy LU-2.1.2), and fits within the context of the neighborhood (Policy LU-2.2.2). The General Plan also cites the importance of providing opportunities for affordable housing in all residential areas to support the policies and programs for the City’s Housing Element (Policy LU-4.1.1).

By providing 8 moderate income restricted units, the Project meets the objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element.
c. That the Project site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The Project site is physically suitable for residential townhome development, due to its location within an urban neighborhood with frontage on a public street and within walking distance to the Amaya Trolley Station. The Project provides new housing with access to existing neighborhood services, nearby schools, and utility services. The Project site is currently developed, and has no physical constraints that would hinder construction of three-story residences with garages as proposed. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Project shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Building and Fire Codes. The required maintenance covenants for on-site landscape, utility and roadway ensure Project maintenance over time.
d. That the Project site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The Project site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. A density of 20.92 units per acre can be accommodated on the Project site to include adequate parking, open space and fire apparatus access. The Project site has no constraints prohibiting the proposed density and can accommodate the Project. All utilities are present for connection to new units.
e. That the design of the TTM or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or not likely to injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The design of the TTM or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. An Initial Study prepared pursuant to CEQA concluded that the Project would not have the potential to cause a significant environmental impact. As outlined in the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared for the Project, the Project site consists entirely of disturbed habitat and developed land cover type, consisting of a church, and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. No natural land covers or potential habitat is located on or adjacent to the Project site, and it does not contain any natural vegetation communities or land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special-status wildlife species or provide habitat to any special status plant species. The Project complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The Project site is also not identified as biologically significant within the Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan area. The Project site is located in an

Page 789 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-xx May 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

urban area, is fully developed, and has no environmentally significant vegetation, fish, or wildlife habitat.
f. That the design of the TTM or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the TTM or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems. Development on the Project site would connect to the public sanitary sewer and be in compliance with all regional water quality requirements for waste discharge. Building and grading permits will be required for the Project. No health problems resulting from the design of the subdivision or improvements are anticipated.
g. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the TTM.

The design of the proposed TTM and improvements do not conflict with any existing or proposed easements. All appropriate utility providers have been requested to comment, and no conflicts have been identified.

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

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

2. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are supported by the record in its entirety including the staff report, minutes, plans, and exhibits, all of which are herein incorporated by reference.

3. The Council thereby approves the Tentative Tract Map for Project 2023-2348, subject to the conditions in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B”.

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, CMC, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2025-xx, duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

Page 790 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 6 of 17 ends

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

Page 791 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 7 of 17 ends

Exhibit A
CC Resolution 2025-XX
Project No. 2023-2348 – Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, General Plan Amendment Conditions of Approval
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application, project drawings, and plat received electronically by the City, consisting of 63 sheets received on November 12, 2024 titled P-1 Project Information, P-2 Conceptual Site Plan, P-3 Conceptual Illustrative Plan, A-1 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) First Floor Plan, A-2 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Second Floor Plan, A-3 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Third Floor Plan, A-4 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Roof Plan, A-5 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Sections, A-6 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-7 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Enhanced Elevations, A-8 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) First Floor Plan, A-9 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Second Floor Plan, A-10 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Third Floor Plan, A-11 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Roof Plan, A-2 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Sections, A-13 802A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-14 803A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-15 803A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Enhanced Elevations, A-16 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) First Floor Plan, A-17 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) Second Floor Plan, A-18 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) Third Floor Plan, A-19 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) Roof Plan, A-20 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-21 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-22 Unit 2532.1 2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath Floor Plan, A-23 Unit 2532X.1 2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath Floor Plan, A-24 Unit 1633.1 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath Floor Plan, A-25 Unit 1633X.2 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath, A-26 Unit 1638.1 4 Bedroom, 4 Bath, A-27 Unit 1638X.1 4 Bedroom, 4 Bath, A-28 Site Sections, A-29 Site Sections, A-30 Written Color Schemes, A-31 Color Boards – Spanish, Sheet 1 of 11 Site Development Plan, Sheet 2 of 11 Site Development Plan – Street Sections/Site Details, Sheet 3 of 11 Site Development Plan – Site Details/Driveway Details, Sheet 4 of 11 Site Development Plan – Existing Conditions, Sheet 5 of 11 Site Development Plan – Grading Plan, Sheet 6 of 11 Site Development Plan – Open Space, Sheet 7 of 11 Site Development Plan – Accessible Route, Sheet 8 of 11 Site Development Plan – Eave Setback Dimensions, Sheet 9 of 11 Site Development Plan – Wall Sections, Sheet 10 of 11 Site Development Plan – Wall Sections, Sheet 11 of 11 Site Development Plan – Boundaries and Encumbrances, Sheet 1 of 9 Landscape Concept Illustrative Plan, Sheet 2 of 9 Landscape Concept Planting Plan, Sheet 3 of 9 Landscape Concept Enlargements, Sheet 4 of 9 Landscape Concept Enlargements, Sheet 5 of 9 Landscape Concept Irrigation Plan, Sheet 6 of 9 Landscape Concept Irrigation Details, Sheet 7 of 9 Landscape Concept Fence & Wall Plan, Sheet 8 of 9 Landscape Concept Lighting Plan, Sheet 9 of 9 Landscape Concept Existing Trees, Sheet 1 of 1 Fire Truck Turning Exhibit, Sheet 1 of 3 Trash Exhibit – Trash Truck Turning, Sheet 2 of 3 Trash Exhibit – Bins Plotting Layout, Sheet 3 of 3 Trash Exhibit – Bin Storage Detail, Sheet 1 of 5 Tentative Tract Map, Sheet 2 of 5 Tentative Tract Map – Street Sections/Site Details, Sheet 3 of 5 Tentative Tract Map – Existing Conditions, Sheet 4 of 5 Tentative Tract Map – Project Design, Sheet 5 of 5 Tentative Tract Map – Boundaries and Encumbrances; and an Affordable Homes Bonus Report received on March 27, 2025, and shall not be altered without express authorization by the Community Development Department.

Page 792 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 8 of 17 ends

2. This approval shall not waive compliance with any section of the La Mesa Municipal Code and all other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived herein.

3. Prior to any use or issuance of final occupancy of the project site pursuant to this approval, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed or secured to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

4. The applicant is responsible for coordinating civil, landscape, and architectural plans and supplemental materials at building permit submittal to ensure that all project plans and materials are internally consistent and consistent with each other. Inconsistent construction documents will not be accepted.

5. This constitutes an approval of the discretionary entitlement only. Additional permits, including but not limited to building and grading permits, may be required by the Community Development Department or other City departments prior to commencement of construction and/or use. It is the property owner and applicant’s responsibility to obtain all necessary permits required for the type of project proposed.

B. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP RELATED TO PROJECT NO. 2023-2348:

1. The applicant shall submit a Final Map prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The Final Map shall be prepared in accordance with the approved Tentative Map, the Subdivision Map Act and La Mesa Development Code titled Major Subdivisions, Chapter 22.02.030, and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer.

2. The applicant shall get the final map signed by all individuals or parties with record title interest in the property.

3. The applicant shall provide an updated Title report, Subdivision/Parcel Map Guarantee and Tax Clearance Certificate from the County of San Diego before the Final Map is released for recordation.

4. All easements of record shall be plotted on the Final Map. The applicant shall provide plat and legal descriptions to prepare any easement documents and lien agreements. The documents shall be recorded and recording information shall be shown on the Final Map.

5. The applicant shall quitclaim any existing easements in conflict with the proposed development.

6. The applicant shall grant an easement for the Fire Lane on the Final Map.

7. The applicant shall provide letters from the utility companies (SDG&E, AT&T, Cox Cable, Helix Water District, EDCO) for the availability of utilities and services for the proposed development and/or that the financial arrangements have been made to extend or install new services for the proposed development.

8. The applicant shall provide a monumentation bond for deferred monumentation. The engineer or land surveyor shall provide a letter stating the cost of monumentation.

Page 793 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 9 of 17 ends

9. The applicant shall make a cash deposit of $1,000 to be released after the applicant provides the City with a photo Mylar of the recorded map within thirty (30) days after its recordation. The City reserves the right to use the deposit to purchase a photo Mylar of the recorded map including a $100 administrative fee which will be charged against the deposit.

10. The applicant shall submit covenants or CC&R’s for review and approval by the Engineering and Planning Division. The covenants or CC&R’s shall provide the following:
a. The establishment of a homeowner’s association or similar mechanism for the joint use and maintenance, with equitable share of responsibility by all the property owners, of private common facilities throughout the project for the mutual benefit of the owners, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), on-site sanitary sewer, landscaping & irrigation, fire hydrants, private access drives, utilities, emergency access, and monument signage.
b. Provision requiring a "Declaration of Covenant and Restrictions for Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Maintenance" for the maintenance of the private drainage system, and any storm water pollution prevention facilities is required and shall include the following:
i. Storm Drain Facilities: The Owner(s) shall be responsible for operation and maintenance of the onsite storm drain, trench drains, inlet boxes, local area drains, drainage swales and water quality basins located on this property to ensure proper function and no adverse conditions are imposed on downstream properties; i.e. increased erosion, flooding, etc.
ii. Landscaping: Shall be inspected on the first of October and April of every year at a minimum. Healthy growth shall be maintained. Dead plants are to be replaced.

Irrigation systems shall operate properly.
c. A minimum of five open parking spaces shall be reserved for guest parking within the common area.
d. The garages for each dwelling unit shall be maintained for the off-street parking of two vehicles at all times, and shall not be used for storage. e. All interior and exterior common areas, parking areas, and landscape areas shall remain in place in perpetuity except as expressly authorized by the City.

11. Existing structures on the property shall be demolished prior to recordation of the final map. Prior to start of demolition, the applicant shall provide a plan and obtain demolition permits from the Community Development Department. A final inspection is required.

C. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND GRADING PERMITS:

1. All-electric appliances and end uses (including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and induction cooking) shall be required for project residential development. Residential units shall be prohibited from having wood-burning or natural gas fireplaces, stoves, or

Page 794 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 10 of 17 ends

appliances. Furthermore, the Applicant shall incorporate electric heat pumps or electric water heaters into the residential development.

D. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF

THE FINAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR THE FIRST DWELLING UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED:

1. Standard construction practices shall be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions, including watering of the active sites two times per day, depending on weather conditions.

Construction of project components shall be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust that may be generated during grading and construction activities.

Page 795 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 11 of 17 ends

Exhibit B
Notice of Decision NOD-2024-07
Project No. 2023-2348 – Site Development Plan
Conditions of Approval
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application, project drawings, and plat received electronically by the City, consisting of 58 sheets received on November 12, 2024 titled P-1 Project Information, P-2 Conceptual Site Plan, P-3 Conceptual Illustrative Plan, A-1 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) First Floor Plan, A-2 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Second Floor Plan, A-3 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Third Floor Plan, A-4 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Roof Plan, A-5 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) Sections, A-6 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-7 801A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Enhanced Elevations, A-8 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) First Floor Plan, A-9 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Second Floor Plan, A-10 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Third Floor Plan, A-11 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Roof Plan, A-2 802A/803A Building Composite (8-Plex) Sections, A-13 802A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-14 803A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-15 803A Building Composite (8-Plex) “A” Spanish Enhanced Elevations, A-16 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) First Floor Plan, A-17 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) Second Floor Plan, A-18 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) Third Floor Plan, A-19 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) Roof Plan, A-20 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-21 901A Building Composite (9-Plex) “A” Spanish Elevations, A-22 Unit 2532.1 2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath Floor Plan, A-23 Unit 2532X.1 2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath Floor Plan, A-24 Unit 1633.1 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath Floor Plan, A-25 Unit 1633X.2 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath, A-26 Unit 1638.1 4 Bedroom, 4 Bath, A-27 Unit 1638X.1 4 Bedroom, 4 Bath, A-28 Site Sections, A-29 Site Sections, A-30 Written Color Schemes, A-31 Color Boards – Spanish, Sheet 1 of 11 Site Development Plan, Sheet 2 of 11 Site Development Plan – Street Sections/Site Details, Sheet 3 of 11 Site Development Plan – Site Details/Driveway Details, Sheet 4 of 11 Site Development Plan – Existing Conditions, Sheet 5 of 11 Site Development Plan – Grading Plan, Sheet 6 of 11 Site Development Plan – Open Space, Sheet 7 of 11 Site Development Plan – Accessible Route, Sheet 8 of 11 Site Development Plan – Eave Setback Dimensions, Sheet 9 of 11 Site Development Plan – Wall Sections, Sheet 10 of 11 Site Development Plan – Wall Sections, Sheet 11 of 11 Site Development Plan – Boundaries and Encumbrances, Sheet 1 of 9 Landscape Concept Illustrative Plan, Sheet 2 of 9 Landscape Concept Planting Plan, Sheet 3 of 9 Landscape Concept Enlargements, Sheet 4 of 9 Landscape Concept Enlargements, Sheet 5 of 9 Landscape Concept Irrigation Plan, Sheet 6 of 9 Landscape Concept Irrigation Details, Sheet 7 of 9 Landscape Concept Fence & Wall Plan, Sheet 8 of 9 Landscape Concept Lighting Plan, Sheet 9 of 9 Landscape Concept Existing Trees, Sheet 1 of 1 Fire Truck Turning Exhibit, Sheet 1 of 3 Trash Exhibit – Trash Truck Turning, Sheet 2 of 3 Trash Exhibit – Bins Plotting Layout, Sheet 3 of 3 Trash Exhibit – Bin Storage Detail; and an Affordable Homes Bonus Report received on March 27, 2025, and shall not be altered without express authorization by the Community Development Department.

2. This constitutes an approval of the discretionary entitlement only. Additional permits, including but not limited to building and grading permits, may be required by the Community Development Department or other City departments prior to commencement

Page 796 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 12 of 17 ends

of construction and/or use. It is the property owner and applicant’s responsibility to obtain all necessary permits required for the type of project proposed.

3. All interior and exterior common areas, parking areas, and landscape areas shall remain in place in perpetuity except as expressly authorized by the City.

4. This approval shall not waive compliance with any section of the La Mesa Municipal Code and all other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived herein.

5. The Owner(s) shall waive any claims of liability against the City and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City and City's employees regarding any component of the City’s approval, and shall execute an indemnity agreement in substantially the form as provided by the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance, initiating use in reliance of this permit, and the Community Development Director is hereby authorized to execute the same.

6. The applicant is responsible for coordinating civil, landscape, and architectural plans and supplemental materials at building permit submittal to ensure that all project plans and materials are internally consistent and consistent with each other. Inconsistent construction documents will not be accepted.

7. Prior to any use or issuance of final occupancy of the project site pursuant to this approval, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed or secured to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

8. The applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City to guarantee the affordability of eight affordable units to moderate income (80% – 120% Area Median Income), and to ensure that a for-sale unit qualifies under Government Code Section 65915 as follows:
a. The unit is initially sold to and occupied by a person or family of very low, low, or moderate income, as required, and it is offered at an affordable housing cost, as that cost is defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code and is subject to an equity sharing agreement.
b. If the unit is not purchased by an income-qualified person or family within 180 days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the unit may be purchased by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation that meets all of the following requirements pursuant to a recorded contract that satisfies all of the requirements specified in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
i. The nonprofit corporation has a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service affirming its tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and is not a private foundation, as that term is defined in Section 509 of the Internal Revenue Code.
ii. The nonprofit corporation is based in California.
iii. All of the board members of the nonprofit corporation have their primary residence in California.

Page 797 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 13 of 17 ends

iv. The primary activity of the nonprofit corporation is the development and preservation of affordable home ownership housing in California that incorporates within their contracts for initial purchase a repurchase option that requires a subsequent purchaser of the property that desires to resell or convey the property to offer the qualified nonprofit corporation the right to repurchase the property prior to selling or conveying that property to any other purchaser pursuant to an equity sharing agreement or affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the property that ensure that the property will be preserved for lower-income housing for at least 45 years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold only to persons or families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

9. The affordable housing agreement shall identify the type, size, and location of the affordable units and shall specify phasing of the affordable units in relation to the marketrate units. The executed affordable housing agreement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits and shall include the following provisions that are required to be implemented at project construction:
a. Building permits shall not be issued for more than 50% of the market rate units until permits are issued for the affordable units.
b. Affordable units shall be comparable in exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to market-rate units in the same development. Interior finishes and amenities may differ from those provided in the market rate units, but neither the workmanship nor products may be of substandard or inferior quality as determined by the City.
c. The number of bedrooms of the affordable units shall at least equal the minimum number of bedrooms of the market rate units.

B. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND GRADING PERMITS:

Building

1. Plans must be complete and stamped by a licensed professional/s.

2. All permits (Grading, Landscape, etc.) for this development project shall be submitted and issued concurrently.

3. The project must comply with the applicable adopted Building codes at the time of building permit submittal. Chapter 11A of the California Building Code for Housing Accessibility will apply.

4. The project must comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance regulating recycling of construction materials.

Page 798 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 14 of 17 ends

Engineering

5. Public improvement and grading plans shall be complete and stamped by a licensed professional engineer.

6. All engineering permits (encroachment, grading, et cetera) for this development project shall be submitted concurrently.

7. The project shall comply with the applicable adopted City of La Mesa engineering standards and policies and San Diego County Regional Standard Drawings.

8. The project shall comply with the City’s stormwater quality and erosion control requirements.

9. A tentative map shall be submitted and prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

10. A hydrology report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be furnished to establish the adequacy of the drainage system and the base flood elevation of the 100-year storm. a. Hydrologic and Hydraulic analyses shall be based on the County of San Diego Hydrology and Drainage Design Manuals, most current editions. b. Report must clearly address pre-development and post development offsite discharge, and erosion potential. Any post-development increases in offsite discharge, and erosion potential must be minimized, justified and mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

11. The applicant shall comply with Storm Water Pollution Control Ordinance (City of La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 7.18) and (if applicable) the State's current General NPDES Storm Water Permit for Construction. If required, the applicant shall show evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been applied for and fees paid to the State Water Resources Control board prior to issuance of permit. A Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) shall accompany submittal, if required.

12. Each storm water treatment (BMP) and flow mitigation component requiring maintenance shall be perpetually maintained by the property owner and located on private property. A recorded maintenance agreement pursuant to 7.18 of the La Mesa Municipal Code is required. Compliance requires each (BMP) component requiring maintenance shall be certified annually.

13. Storm drain infrastructure exclusively serving the property shall be noted as to be maintained by building owner and/or home owners association, if applicable.

14. Design of catch basin drainage infrastructure within the public right of way shall be determined during the design phase. Any catch basins/drainage inlets in the public right of way shall be designed per regional standards and shall be maintained by City of La Mesa.

Page 799 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 15 of 17 ends

15. If the finished floor elevation of the proposed buildings are less than 2 feet above the elevation of the closest upstream manhole cover of the public sewer, a sewer backflow preventer shall be installed on the sewer lateral of the applicable building.

Fire

16. Building Plans shall comply with currently adopted California Fire Code and all approved city ordinances.

17. Deferred submittals are required for Fire Alarm System, Fire Sprinkler System, Underground Fire Service, and Emergency Responder Radio Communications System (if required pending testing results in accordance with 2022 CFC Sec. 510).

18. All Fire Dept. access roadway corner radii shall be 28’ or greater. All portions of Fire Dept. access roadways shall be a minimum of 26ft. wide with a cross-slope of 5% or less and a slope of 10% (up to 20% with specific Fire Code Official approval), as well as vertical clearance of 13’6. Please provide a fully detailed and dimensioned site plan including fire hydrant spacing dimensions.

19. No speed bumps or other traffic calming devices are permitted in or on fire dept. access roadways, please clarify that none will be present.

20. All fire apparatus access roadways must be maintained unobstructed and drivable by fire apparatus throughout the construction process. Fire Department access and water supply shall be installed as directed and shall be inspected and approved prior to delivery of combustible material to the site. Access roadways shall be paved (base layer at minimum) and be capable of sustaining an imposed load of 75,000 pounds, including during adverse weather conditions.

21. Please provide Fire Flow dated within 365 days of formal Building Permit submittal.

22. Fire lane designation shall be clearly identified at building and/or grading plan submittal.

23. A construction phasing plan is required at Building Permit submittal. Occupancy phasing is separate from construction phasing and requires an approved occupancy phasing plan.

Planning

24. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a construction phasing plan, for review and approval by the Community Development Director, for the proposed development and related temporary improvements such as street trees and street improvements, temporary parking lot areas, fencing, signs, and sales offices/trailers.

25. The applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans with application fee or deposit prepared by a registered landscape architect in accordance with City standards and the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

26. The project shall provide for organic waste recycling services in accordance with State law (see PRC 42649.81(a)(2). Adequate area(s) for organic waste storage and recycling pickup shall be shown on the project plans.

Page 800 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 16 of 17 ends

27. The applicant shall provide a letter from the US Postal Service approving the mailbox location. The letter shall state whether or not dedicated parking for mail delivery will be required. Guest parking shall not be reduced to meet a Postal Service parking requirement.

28. The applicant shall prepare and submit plans in conformance with the approved exhibits and conditions of approval for Project No. 2023-2348, approved by City Council. A note shall be placed on the building plans stating that prior to final inspection sign off and release of electrical service, the site and buildings shall be inspected for substantial conformance to the approved exhibits and conditions. The exact materials and colors of all proposed structures shall be prominently noted on all plans and exhibits.

29. The maximum height of all buildings shall be no more than 30 feet, measured from the average point of the finished grade to the top plate.

30. All trees, shrubs, lawns and other planting shall be maintained, including regular irrigation, pruning of trees, trimming of shrubs and cutting of lawns. A note to this effect shall be added to the building plans.

C. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF

THE FINAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR THE FIRST DWELLING UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED:

Building

1. The applicant shall obtain finals from all departments for all issued permits: Building, Fire, Housing, Planning, and Engineering prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Engineering

2. All engineering bonds shall be secured and fees paid prior to issuance of engineering permits.

Fire

3. If any gate or barrier across a fire access roadway is to be installed (whether manual or automatic) it must meet the Heartland Fire & Rescue requirements and have specific plans and permits approved prior to installation. Gates serving multi-family structures must be automatic and meet UL 325 and ASTM F 2200 standards. Knox brand key-operated electric key switch keyed to Heartland Fire & rescue specification are required. The Knox switch shall override all gate functions and open the gate. Opticom device is required for all electronic vehicle gates.

4. Prior to Fire Department Clearance for occupancy all fire and life safety systems shall be inspected, tested, and approved.

5. Permanent building three-dimensional street numbers, minimum 8 inches in height with a ½ inch stroke, shall be provided on the addressed side of the building at the highest point and furthest projection of the structure. The address shall be visible form the street and shall not be obstructed in any manner.

Page 801 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 17 of 17 ends

6. Address numbers are required to be installed or painted on the front of each unit. Numbers or letters shall be a minimum of four (4) inches in height and placed on a contrasting background.

8. Knox emergency access key box may be required at each building, with specific mounting locations approved by Heartland Fire & Rescue.

Planning

11. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each unit, all applicable school facilities fees, as determined by the school districts, shall be paid.

D. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION:

Engineering

1. The applicant shall obtain final inspections and approvals from all departments for all issued permits prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

2. A final map shall be submitted and prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

Planning

Page 802 of 2604 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA RATIFYING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL FOR PROJECT 2023-2348, A 73-UNIT FOR-SALE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 9407 JERICHO ROAD (APN 486-670-18-00) IN THE R1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2023, the Project Applicant, Meritage Homes, submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Development Plan, Special Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Design Review (Project 2023-2348) to construct a 73-unit for-sale housing development at 9407 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-18-00) (“Project”); WHEREAS, the Project provides for eight (8) moderate income restricted units (80% - 120% Area Median Income (AMI));
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did receive and consider a staff report on the Project;
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did hold a duly noticed public meeting on October 14, 2024, and accepted public testimony in considering Project 2023-2348; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2024, the Design Review Board issued a Certificate of Action recommending approval of the Project;
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Initial Study and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Resolution No.

PC 2024-11);
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 18, 2024, and accepted public testimony in considering Project 2023-2348; WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC-2024-14 recommending Council approve the GPA, Rezoning, Site Development Plan, and Tentative Tract Map related to the Project;
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2024, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution PC-2024-14; WHEREAS, the Council conducted a public hearing on May 13, 2025, and accepted public testimony in considering the appeal of Resolution PC-2024-14 and denied the appeal; and WHEREAS, the Council did hold a separate, public hearing on May 13, 2025, and accepted public testimony in considering the Project.

THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

Page 803 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-xx May 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

Reporting Program prepared for the Project and included as conditions of approval herein.

2. The Project design meets the purpose and intent of the Urban Design Program.

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

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

3. The Council thereby ratifies the Design Review Board Certificate of Action (Exhibit “A”).

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:

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

Page 804 of 2604 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX May 13, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

Exhibit A

Page 805 of 2604 ends

Page 806 of 2604 ends

Page 807 of 2604 ends

Page 808 of 2604 ends

Page 809 of 2604 ends

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

Location:

May 23, 2023, 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California

Present: Mayor Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Parent
Councilmember Dillard
Councilmember Lothian
Councilmember Shu
Staff: City Manager Humora
City Attorney Sabine
City Clerk Wiegelman
Assistant City Manager Lee
_____________________________________________________________________

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

The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.

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

1.1 INVOCATION - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.

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

Page 810 of 2604 ends

2 4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 PROCLAIMING JUNE 19, 2023 AS LA MESA JUNETEENTH AND

FRIENDS DAY
Councilmember Dillard read the proclamation proclaiming June 19, 2023 as La Mesa Juneteenth and Friends Day.

5.2 PROCLAIMING JUNE 2023 AS LGBTQ+ PRIDE MONTH
Mayor Araposathis read the proclamation proclaiming June 2023 as LGBTQ+ Pride Month.

Andrea Beth Damsky spoke in support of the proclamation.

Seth L. spoke in support of the proclamation.

Samantha Schwimmer submitted a comment in support of the proclamation.

Dave Palmer submitted a comment in support of the proclamation.

Heather D. submitted a comment in support of the proclamation.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Mike Werner spoke regarding a San Miguel Fire & Rescue fire engine almost hitting him while he was walking in La Mesa.

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

8. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEW

8.1 INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES ON

THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
City Clerk Wiegelman explained that the three applicants were not able to attend the City Council meeting due to prior commitments. Luke Martin had provided a written statement expressing their interest in being considered for appointment to the Community Police Oversight Board as the Police Beat 3 representative. City Clerk Wiegelman said the appointments would be made at the June 13, 2023, City Council meeting.

Page 811 of 2604 ends

3 9. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

9.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL AN UNSCHEDULED

VACANCY ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
Mayor Arapostathis nominated Lauren Farace to the Youth Advisory Commission.

Resolution No. 2023-054
Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Vice Mayor Parent
Approve the appointment of Lauren Farace to the Youth Advisory Commission and adopt Resolution confirming the appointment.

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

9.2 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL THE

UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND

VETERANS COMMISSION
Mayor Arapostathis nominated Megan O'Dowd to the Community Relations and Veterans Commission.

Resolution No. 2023-055
Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Vice Mayor Parent
Approve the appointment of Megan O'Dowd to the Community Relations and Veterans Commission as the general population representative and adopt Resolution confirming the appointment.

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

10. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
Bonnie Baranoff spoke on Item 11.8.

Dawn Marie-Tol spoke on Item 11.8.

Page 812 of 2604 ends

4 11. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 11.1 through 11.11)
Moved By Vice Mayor Parent
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
Approve Consent Calendar Items 11.1 through 11.11.

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

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

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.

11.2 RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY

SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMUNITY

SERVICES COMMISSION
Resolution No. 2023-056
Adopt Resolution.

11.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA AND THE LA MESA
COMMUNITY WELFARE ASSOCIATION, INC.

Resolution No. 2023-057
Adopt Resolution.

11.4 CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FACADE AND

PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Approve.

11.5 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED
COMPENSATION PLANS FOR FY 2022-2023, FY 2023-2024, AND FY 2024-2025 TO UPDATE THE SALARIES FOR THE POSITIONS OF

DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF AND ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN -

CONFIDENTIAL
Resolution No. 2023-058

Page 813 of 2604 ends

5 Adopt Resolution.

11.6 ERRATA RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2022-126 APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2022, FOR THE PURPOSE OF

INCLUDING ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FISCAL YEARS THAT WERE
INADVERTANTLY EXCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.

Resolution No. 2023-059
Adopt Resolution.

11.7 INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR REPORT FOR THE QUARTER
ENDING MARCH 31, 2023
Receive and file.

11.8 HOMELESS OUTREACH AND MOBILE ENGAGEMENT (HOME)
PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT (JANUARY 2023 - MARCH 2023)
Receive and file.

11.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION

TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD FOR A

STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN FOR THE INFLOW AND
INFILTRATION MITIGATION PROJECT PHASE 6 FOR A NOT-TOEXCEED AMOUNT OF $7,000,000 Resolution No. 2023-060
Adopt Resolution.

11.10 RESOLUTIONS TO INCREASE THE BUILDING DIVISION

PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES ACCOUNT BY
$200,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 AND TO AMEND THE

AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT BUILDING SERVICES WITH

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP
Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR BUILDING

DIVISION PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES
ACCOUNT BY $200,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023, FOR A
TOTAL OF $783,200 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
Resolution No. 2023-061
Adopt Resolution.

Page 814 of 2604 ends

6 b. RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT WITH

INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP FOR PROFESSIONAL

CONSULTANT SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING

DIVISION TO INCREASE THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT BY
$200,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023, FOR A TOTAL OF
$550,000
Resolution No. 2023-062
Adopt Resolution.

11.11 RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR THE LA MESA

SUCCESSOR AGENCY AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWSUIT

PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES ACCOUNT BY
$30,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023, FOR A TOTAL OF $70,000

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
Resolution No. 2023-063
Adopt Resolution.

12. STAFF REPORT

12.1 CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE A GENERAL

PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR 9407 JERICHO ROAD FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO

MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
Assistant Director of Community Development Hazlewood provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the property at 9407 Jericho Road, highlighting the current land use designation, the proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning change, the process for General Plan Amendments, and the proposed project application.

Aaron Talarico, Vice President of Acquisitions and Entitlements, Meritage Homes, provided a PowerPoint presentation on Meritage Homes and MLC Holdings and the conceptual site plan for 9407 Jericho Road.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Page 815 of 2604 ends

7 Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Dillard
Authorize submittal of the application for a General Plan Amendment.

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

13. COUNCIL INITIATED

13.1 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO AMEND THE POLICY

FOR THE DISPLAY OF FLAGS AT CITY FACILITIES TO ONLY ALLOW

THE DISPLAY OF GOVERNMENT FLAGS AT CITY HALL -

COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN
Councilmember Lothian explained the purpose for directing staff to amend the policy for the display of flags at City facilities to only allow the display of government flags at City Hall.

The following members of the public spoke in opposition to amending the policy:

Athena Mora
David Myers
Rebecca Littlejohn
Max Coston
Martin Campos
Brandon Duran
Raul Campillo
Amanda Webber
Rob Tol
Dawn-Marie Tol
Rev. Marcus Lohrmann
Janet Castanos
Janessa Goldbeck

Page 816 of 2604 ends

8 Andy Trimlett
Mejgan Afshan
Lauren Cazares
Eunice Ventura
Rev. Cheri Metier
Fran Knori
Chevelle Newell-Tate on behalf of Assemblymember Akilah Weber Robert Hicks
Jen Lothspeich
Jen LaBarbera
Jessie Schmitte on behalf of Senator Steve Padilla
Chrissy Wood
Teri Andre
Isabella Clifford
Manuel Gomez
Vicki Sutherland
Ryn Corbeil
Melissa Weiss
Fabienne Perlov
Bonnie Baranoff
Craig Reed
Brianna Coston
Dr. Melissa James
Mick Rabin
Andrea Beth Damsky
Steve Yang
Mary Joe Wilson

Page 817 of 2604 ends

9 Nadia Farjood
Sheira Stein
Evan Strawn
The following members of the public submitted comments in opposition to amending the policy:

Veronica S.

Samantha Schwimmer
Cindy Lopez
Felicia House
Dr. Hannah Miyamoto
Erin Mulligan
Emily Lynch
Christopher Glenn submitted a comment regarding the responsibility of the government to promote equality and justice and to take a stand on social issues.

Mary Davis spoke on flag neutrality and in support of amending the policy to only allow the display of government flags at City Hall.

Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.

14. 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.

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

16. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.

17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk

Page 818 of 2604 ends

Page 819 of 2604 ends

T
T
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
BLDG #9
BLDG #8

BENCH BENCH BENCH

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

ILL BE USED TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT

PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SCREEN
MENTS AND PROVIDE PRIVACY. TREES HAVE BEEN
E AND TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR THE SITE. THE PLANT

SELECTED WERE DONE SO FOR THEIR LOW WATER

ON SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED USING A RAIN

E ADJUSTABLE SO AS NOT TO WASTE WATER
SPRAY.

DISTANCE
) - 20 FEET
S - 5 FEET (10' FOR SEWER)
UCTURES - 10 FEET
T
NG CURB LINES OF TWO STREETS) - 25 FEET
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.

ATER
PLETE

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT

ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN

JERICHO
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:
16,000 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.
10/24/2024
A-1
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road
North
0 30 60
1” = 30’
Typical Three-Story Townhome Building
• 3 building types
• 1 elevation styles
• 3 floor plan variation
• Maximum height of 38.0 feet
• Oriented to provide front doors along
streetscapes and paseos
11/12/2024
Affordable Unit Site Plan
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 803A BLDG 803A BLDG 802A
BLDG 803A
BLDG 901A
Project Summary
Property Size1: 3.49 Acres
No. of Units: 73 Three-Story Townhomes2
• 10 - Plan 2532: 1210 SF, 2 bed., 2.5 baths, 2-car garage • 32 - Plan 1633: 1497 SF, 3 bed., 3 baths, 2-car garage • 31 - Plan 1638: 1781 SF, 4 bed., 4 baths, 2-car garage Density: 20.92 du/ac
Proposed Setbacks (per R3 zone):
• Front (To Jericho Road): 15’ to building
• Side (N and S Bndy): 15’ to building minimum
• Rear (W Bndy): 15’ to building minimum
Parking Required3:
• Resident: 2 Spaces per Unit (1 covered)
Parking Provided:
• Resident: Private 2-car garage per unit
• Guest Spaces4
: 5 spaces
Open Space Required:
• Total: 24,900 SF (341 SF per unit; 500 SF per du for units 1-10, 400 SF per du for units 11- 20, 300 SF pre du remaining) • Private Open Space minimum dimension of 6 feet
Open Space Provided:
• Total: 27,489 SF (376 SF per unit)
• Private Open Space5
(6’ min. dim., 72 SF min area): 11,489 SF
• Common Open Space: 16,000 SF
Notes:

1. Maintains existing knuckle geometry and location.

2. Type VB construction with NFPA 13D automatic sprinkler system.

3. Guest parking reduced per AB 2097.

4. Guest spaces are 9’ x 19’.

5. Private Open Space includes all areas within private patios or decks of a unit that meet the minimum area of 72 SF.

6. All proposed utilities shall be underground with easements provided.

7. Existing General Plan: Urban Residential

8. Existing Land Use: Institutional

9. Existing Zoning: R1; existing R1 zone setback requirements are Front: 15’/20’, Side: 5’, Rear: 15’

10. Proposed General Plan: Multiple Unit Residential

11. Proposed Zoning: R3

12. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 486-670-18-00

13. Site Address: 9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa, CA 91942
* **
*
* *
*
*
* Proposed Affordable Units
• (4) Plan 2532 - 1210 SF, 2 Bed, 2.5 Bath
• (4) Plan 1633 - 1497 SF, 3 Bed, 3 Bath
• Homes proposed at a Moderate Affordability Rate
• Location of units subject to change

Page 820 of 2604 ends

Page 821 of 2604 ends

Page 822 of 2604 ends

Page 823 of 2604 ends

Page 824 of 2604 ends

Page 825 of 2604 ends

Page 826 of 2604 ends

Page 827 of 2604 ends

Page 828 of 2604 ends

Page 829 of 2604 ends

Page 830 of 2604 ends

Page 831 of 2604 ends

Page 832 of 2604 ends

Page 833 of 2604 ends

Page 834 of 2604 ends

Page 835 of 2604 ends

Page 836 of 2604 ends

Page 837 of 2604 ends

Page 838 of 2604 ends

Page 839 of 2604 ends

Page 840 of 2604 ends

Page 841 of 2604 ends

Page 842 of 2604 ends

Page 843 of 2604 ends

Page 844 of 2604 ends

Page 845 of 2604 ends

Page 846 of 2604 ends

Page 847 of 2604 ends

Page 848 of 2604 ends

Page 849 of 2604 ends

Page 850 of 2604 ends

Page 851 of 2604 ends

Page 852 of 2604 ends

5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 310 | Irvine, CA
February 24, 2025
Laura Traffenstedt, Associate Planner
City of La Mesa, Community Development Department
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Re: Affordable Homes Bonus Program Report
Dear Ms. Traffenstedt,
Meritage Homes is pleased to submit Jericho Road, a proposed for-sale residential community located in the City’s Northmont neighborhood. Meritage Homes has entered into a contract with Calvary Chapel of El Cajon to purchase approximately 3.49 acres of land located at 9407 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-18-00).

The proposed project consists of 73 three-story for-sale townhomes with a density of 20.92 dwelling units per acre. Proposed homes range from approximately 1,200 – 1,800 square feet with two to four bedrooms.

The proposed project would also include grading of the site, installation of water, sewer, and water quality infrastructure, as well as private drives and amenities.

Per the City of La Mesa Municipal Code 24.053, an Affordable Homes Bonus Program report is required to specify how compliance with Government Code Section 65915 (“State Density Bonus Law”) will be implemented. Below are the required findings.

1. Requested Density Bonus.
• No density bonus is sought through the State Density Bonus Law. The project does utilize an increase in density through LMMC 24.05.025. The points analysis table is included below for reference.

Page 853 of 2604 ends

5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 310 | Irvine, CA
• Of the 73 homes proposed, the project will include eight homes (10.9%) at a “moderate” affordability level. These homes will be spread throughout the project. A copy of the projects affordable unit site plan and tentative map are included for reference. • The existing General Plan designation is Urban Residential. The existing zoning designation is R1. The proposed General Plan designation is Multiple Unit Residential. The proposed zoning designation is R3. The assessor parcel number for the property is 486-670-18-00. • There are no existing units on the property, nor are there any recorded covenants, ordinances, or laws that restrict rents on the property.

2. Requested Incentive(s).
• No incentive is requested for the proposed project.

3. Requested Waiver(s).
• Waiver 1: Chapter 24.04.030(A) Off-street parking requirements for residential uses. This code item prohibits tandem parking unless it is specifically permitted. The project proposes to include tandem parking for one of the plan types as it is needed for the development to achieve the proposed density on site.
• Waiver 2: Chapter 24.05.030(C) Development standards – Minimum Court Width or Distance Between Buildings. This code item requires that the minimum distance between building walls on the same site shall be one-half the total height of both buildings – approximately 30’ minimum for this project. The court condition between buildings 2 and 3 on site ranges from 21’ – 23’.

Additionally, there are side to side building conditions that are 12’. While these separation distances are permitted in the Uniform Building Code, they are less than the required amount per the LMMC provision. This reduction is width is necessary to achieve the proposed density on site. • Waiver 3: Chapter 24.05.030(I)(1) and (6) Development standards – Fences and Retaining Walls. This code item requires that the maximum height of a retaining wall shall not exceed 6’ in height, and within required setbacks the maximum of 3’ for a fill condition or 6’ for a cut condition. The project proposes new retaining walls within the setbacks that range in height from 2’ – 12’. Walls over 6’ in height will include vine planting to help soften the appearance of the wall. These walls are necessary to create the usable development pad required to achieve the proposed density on site. • Waiver 4: Chapter 24.05.030(J) Development standards – Enclosures for equipment required. This code item requires that equipment for operation of a building, including heating and air conditioning equipment be subject to the same front, side, and rear setbacks and spacing requirements for principal buildings. There are three buildings who’s mechanical equipment encroaches into the 15’ side setback requirement. The mechanical equipment will be screened and will not impact adjacent properties, however the reduces setback is necessary to achieve the proposed density on site.

4. Requested Parking Reduction.
• The project does not seek to utilize parking provisions pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(p).

Page 854 of 2604 ends

Page 855 of 2604 ends

T
T
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
BLDG #9
BLDG #8

BENCH BENCH BENCH

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

ILL BE USED TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT

PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SCREEN
MENTS AND PROVIDE PRIVACY. TREES HAVE BEEN
E AND TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR THE SITE. THE PLANT

SELECTED WERE DONE SO FOR THEIR LOW WATER

ON SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED USING A RAIN

E ADJUSTABLE SO AS NOT TO WASTE WATER
SPRAY.

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

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

ATER
PLETE

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT

ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN

JERICHO
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:
16,000 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.

1. Maintains existing knuckle geometry and location.

2. Type VB construction with NFPA 13D automatic sprinkler system.

3. Guest parking reduced per AB 2097.

4. Guest spaces are 9’ x 19’.

5. Private Open Space includes all areas within private patios or decks of a unit that meet the minimum area of 72 SF.

6. All proposed utilities shall be underground with easements provided.

7. Existing General Plan: Urban Residential

8. Existing Land Use: Institutional

9. Existing Zoning: R1; existing R1 zone setback requirements are Front: 15’/20’, Side: 5’, Rear: 15’

10. Proposed General Plan: Multiple Unit Residential

11. Proposed Zoning: R3

12. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 486-670-18-00

Page 856 of 2604 ends

Page 857 of 2604 ends

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

Page 858 of 2604 ends

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

Page 859 of 2604 ends

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

Page 860 of 2604 ends

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

Page 861 of 2604 ends

Page 862 of 2604 ends

The proposed project would also include grading of the site, installation of water, sewer, and water quality infrastructure, as well as private drives and amenities.

Page 863 of 2604 ends

2. Requested Incentive(s).
• No incentive is requested for the proposed project.

4. Requested Parking Reduction.
• The project does not seek to utilize parking provisions pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(p).

Page 864 of 2604 ends

Page 865 of 2604 ends

T
T
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
BLDG #9
BLDG #8

BENCH BENCH BENCH

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

ILL BE USED TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT

PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SCREEN
MENTS AND PROVIDE PRIVACY. TREES HAVE BEEN
E AND TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR THE SITE. THE PLANT

SELECTED WERE DONE SO FOR THEIR LOW WATER

ON SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED USING A RAIN

E ADJUSTABLE SO AS NOT TO WASTE WATER
SPRAY.

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

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

ATER
PLETE

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT

ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN

JERICHO
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:
16,000 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.

1. Maintains existing knuckle geometry and location.

2. Type VB construction with NFPA 13D automatic sprinkler system.

3. Guest parking reduced per AB 2097.

4. Guest spaces are 9’ x 19’.

5. Private Open Space includes all areas within private patios or decks of a unit that meet the minimum area of 72 SF.

6. All proposed utilities shall be underground with easements provided.

7. Existing General Plan: Urban Residential

8. Existing Land Use: Institutional

9. Existing Zoning: R1; existing R1 zone setback requirements are Front: 15’/20’, Side: 5’, Rear: 15’

10. Proposed General Plan: Multiple Unit Residential

11. Proposed Zoning: R3

12. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 486-670-18-00

Page 866 of 2604 ends

Page 867 of 2604 ends

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

Page 868 of 2604 ends

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

Page 869 of 2604 ends

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

Page 870 of 2604 ends

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

Page 871 of 2604 ends

From: Roger Parrott
To: Laura Traffenstedt
Subject: Jerecho Road project
Date: Friday, November 22, 2024 10:46:20 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Greetings Laura,
As a property owner on Broadmoor Place I object to the condo project on Jerecho Rd It will increase traffic in the area and will block my view of Mt. Helix. There is not enough open parking on subject property.

Regards,
Roger and Debbie Parrott

Page 872 of 2604 ends

From: MaryAnn Fowler
To: Laura Traffenstedt
Subject: Jericho Road Church Project into townhouses
Date: Monday, November 25, 2024 5:46:56 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Traffenstedt,
I am writing to express my extreme opposition to the proposed construction of 73 townhouses on the site that is currently occupied by Calvary Chapel. First, why has a Mitigated Negative Declaration been requested? Is the city not mandated to conduct an environmental impact study? Does the city not care to take into account the environmental impact on the neighborhood? Second, the proposal that was presented to the existing residents, shows only the ONE driveway for entrance/exit into this development. How does the city propose this SFH neighborhood will be able to successfully evacuate, should an emergency, such as a fire/earthquake/etc. occur, with persons occupying 73 addition housing units, trying to exit from one entrance/exit onto a two lane residential street? Third, there are only five parking spaces designated for guest parking. I understand that street parking is first come, first served, but parking and trash collection need to be a consideration. This neighborhood already has a number of apartment/condo/townhouse complexes. Our streets cannot withstand the additional, constant traffic. The streets are a mess as it is. Fourth, the noise, debris and inconvenience of such large scale construction will impact this area negatively, especially for those of us in direct proximity to the site. Fifth, the reason many of us own here is we wanted to live in a single family home, suburban neighborhood, with community tempered by privacy.

From all the paperwork I’ve been able to find on this project, the area is now listed as ‘urban’ and all that urban areas entail, e.g. building up, with heavy population in confined areas. I particularly like having a church in this neighborhood. With this development, we are losing a valued neighbor (the church) and many of my neighbors are losing their beautiful views of Mount Helix Cross, private enjoyment of their homes and yards, street parking for our visitors/trash pick up and the quiet charm of a quiet, family neighborhood. I implore you to reconsider this project.

I plan to attend the meeting on December 4, 2024. Please add this opposition comment to the project record.

Thank you for your time,
MaryAnn Fowler
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Page 873 of 2604 ends

From: Cheryl Potocki
To: Laura Traffenstedt
Subject: Jericho Road project 2023-2348
Date: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:23:31 AM
Attachments: Jericho Road Project Objection document for City.docx CAUTION: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning Laura,
Attached please find our comments in objection to the Jericho Road Project 2023-2348. Please confirm receipt of these comments.

We plan on attending the hearing on Dec 4 at 6PM for the project. We understand that the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Nov, 26th will not address this.

Thank you again for meeting with us and for accepting and considering our comments, Bruce and Cheryl Potocki

Page 874 of 2604 ends

November 25, 2024
TO: Laura Traffenstedt, Associate Planner
FROM: Bruce and Cheryl Potocki
RE: Jericho Road Project No. 2023-2348
9407 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-18-00)
Objection to Approval of Jericho Road Project
The following are objections to approval of the Jericho Road Project (the “Project”):

First, the Project is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Second, the entrance and exit from the Project is insufficient.

Third, the Project affects the safety of the community related to traffic.

Fourth, there are significant concerns regarding storm water control and flooding as a result of the Project.
1) First objection:

We have lived in our property on Jericho Road for over 25 years. This is currently a nice, quiet residential neighborhood. During this period, the property above us on Jericho Road has always been owned by a church, and a substantial portion of the church property is an unimproved lot. Although a portion of the existing church property abuts a multifamily property, over 50 percent of the properties that abut the church lot are single family residences on Jericho Road, Amaya Drive, Broadmoor Drive and Broadmoor Place. The single-family properties are all one- and two-story dwellings, and a three-story high-density Townhouse Project is not consistent with the existing neighborhood of one and two story detached residences. La Mesa Policy from the City of La Mesa General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design, LU-2.2.2 states that all new development within residential neighborhoods shall be constructed to fit within the context of its neighborhood. We contend that this Project does not meet this policy. Planned Residential developments regulations require that projects be compatible with the surrounding uses and a key stated goal of the La Mesa General plan is to ensure that a new development fits within the context of the existing development. We contend that the proposed 3 story high density Project on this parcel off Jericho Road does not meet this goal.
2) Second objection:

The builder’s brochure provides that the vehicular entry/exit for the Project is from Jericho Road. Note however, Item 7, LD30 of Land Use & Urban Design Element Multiple Unit Residential plan (La Mesa General Plan, Land Use & Urban Design Element, page 32) states that areas assigned this multi-unit designation shall be (generally) located adjacent to streets which are shown as major collector arterial, or arterial parkways. Jericho Road does not meet these criteria and is adequate for the existing local traffic only. Further, Jericho Road intersects Amaya Drive which already has heavy traffic. The speed limit on Amaya Drive where it intersects with Jericho Road, is 30 miles per hour, which by definition, does not qualify Amaya Drive as an arterial street.
3) Third objection:

The Project affects the safety of the neighborhood due to the increase in vehicular traffic. Jericho Road already services Broadmoor Drive, Broadmoor Place, Henderson, and other feeder streets. Jericho Road is not an arterial but a very small feeder street. The builder’s flyer provides that the Project will have up

Page 875 of 2604 ends

to 73 units with 2 car garages for each home, with only an additional 5 guest parking spaces. Jericho Road is not adequate for the potential 146+ vehicles added to existing daily vehicle traffic. Further, it is expected that a total of 5 guest parking spaces will not be sufficient for the Project, even though the Project is located about one half mile from a trolley stop. It is realistic to assume most guests visiting the Project will drive to it, and that overflow parking from the Project would use existing streets, limiting parking for current residents of those streets. The existing residential streets are not meant to provide overflow parking for the Project. The increased traffic in a confined space could interfere with emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances and the police. 4) Objection Four.

We have significant concerns regarding storm water control, flooding, maintenance and water management. The builder’s flyer shows that a majority of the Project will be covered with buildings and concrete. We are concerned that water from the Project will flow down to our property and the additional properties on Amaya Drive, resulting in flooding and potential damage to our property and others.

Page 876 of 2604 ends

From: Cindy Maina
To: Laura Traffenstedt
Subject: Jericho Road Project
Date: Sunday, November 24, 2024 7:15:23 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Traffenstedt, I left you a message on Nov 22 with regard to the Jericho Road Project. When we spoke last, I was under the impression that the public would be able to comment and voice concerns about the project at the planning commission meeting and at the city council meeting.

I heard about the planning commission meeting on Dec 4 from another neighbor. I plan to be there with the following concerns about the project.

Seventy three new units will cause major traffic issues. I believe that the area is too small to accommodate all these units. In addition, there will be issues with noise and privacy. I live on an adjacent property and will lose about 75% of my view. This will lower my property value. I also am concerned of the effects on quality of life for those of us who live in close proximity to this proposed project.

I hope that the city will carefully consider the concerns of all the residents living in this area I, personally, am not opposed to development. Of course, we would rather see the church remain or another church take over the property. However, if this doesn't happen, we hope that any development will be done responsibly with a smaller number of units built.

Sincerely,
Cindy Maina

Page 877 of 2604 ends

From: debandrickbushore
To: Laura Traffenstedt
Subject: Jericho Road townhome project
Date: Friday, November 22, 2024 7:48:13 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

My wife and I live on Broadmoor Drive about 400 yards from the proposed project. We are concerned that traffic from this development will overwhelm our quiet neighborhood streets.

Since there's only one point of access to the property, traffic on Broadmoor Drive, Kathy Street and Jericho Road will increase by at least 600 trips per day. Traffic to and from Northmont Elementary will turn our sleepy neighborhood street into a major thoroughfare twice a day. We would support this project if there was a second point of vehicular access to the proposed project, but unfortunately there isn't. On-street parking will also be impacted negatively.

It's already a dicy proposition to walk across the street on Amaya Drive because of the lack of traffic signals and crosswalks, and this project will make it even more dangerous. If the project is approved, at least this issue should be addressed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ira and Deborah Bushore
6135 Broadmoor Drive
La Mesa
(619)805-5008

Page 878 of 2604 ends

Meeting Type Meeting Date Agenda Item Name Email Comment Planning
Commission
12/4/2024 2023-2348 (Meritage
Homes)
Tina Lu Atkinson Jericho Rd development is poorly planned without adequate parking. 73 units and 5 guest spots is
absurd. Fewer units and more parking is a
minimum ask for this drastic change to our quiet
neighborhood. The neighbor will become
congested with extra traffic and limited parking.

Their idea of "requiring" residents to park in their
garages is ridiculous and unenforceable. The
excessive height will block resident's views. This
should stay zoned for a church as always. I
believe if this development continues, it will
negatively impact property values and quality of
life for all near.

Planning
Commission
12/4/2024 2023-2348 (Meritage
Homes)
Betty S. Atkinson betty.atkinson@
gmail.com
I have lived in this neighborhood for over 50 years.

It is a wonderful place to live. Now, I am truly
worried for its future.

From the maps provided, the size of the project
being suggested is beyond the capacity of our
neighborhood.

Undoubtedly, this project will create parking
shortages, and lower property values with the
congestion.

The variances will create mega structures,
obscuring views. We have a lovely single family
home community that cannot take on a project of
this size. The plans need radical changing. As
they stand now, I am against this development.

Betty S. Atkinson
Planning
Commission
12/4/2024 PUBLIC COMMENT -
(TOTAL TIME - 15

MINUTES)
Eugene Strand quakesci@gmail
.com
Considering Jericho project:

Our single family neighborhood has been here
since 1960 and before. It has always been zoned
R1. We want it to remain so.
1: The project site is not in a Transit Priority area,
and requires more than 5 guest parking spots. The
distance to the Amaya trolley station is 50% more
than claimed by Meritage, 0.75 miles rather than

0.5 miles. Combined with a very steep Jericho
street, it is no easy walk to the trolley.
2: Many of the project's guests will prefer to park
on our streets, taking away our own spaces. Will
you be putting in special parking regs?
3: There will be substantial adverse visual effects,
along with increase in lights and glare, and light
projected onto neighboring properties.
4: BBQ and totlot areas will contribute to excess
smoke and noise levels.
5:Will extra rainfall runoff contribute to flash
flooding downstream?
6: The site is zoned R1, with ten units per acre.

Why not put in single family units?
7: An internet research of reviews on Meritage
shows negative ratings, along with many negative
reviews of their customers.
8: I and many of my neighbors, mostly
homeowners, strongly reject the proposed
project.

Page 879 of 2604 ends

Page 880 of 2604 ends

Page 881 of 2604 ends

Page 882 of 2604 ends

Page 883 of 2604 ends

Meeting Type Meeting Date Agenda Item Name Email Comment Planning
Commission
12/18/2024 PUBLIC COMMENT -
(TOTAL TIME - 15

MINUTES)
James Corcoran jimirishcharm@ya
hoo.com
I am against the construction of this development
on the site of 9407 Jericho rd. The result will be
increased traffic, noise, and all of the negative
outcomes that over-building brings to a
neighborhood. This area is quiet and peaceful at
the moment, but this will be forever disturbed
with all the negative issues that will result with the
addition of this development.

James Corcoran 5750 Amaya dr. La Mesa Ca
91942

Page 884 of 2604 ends

1 March 12, 2025
TO: Lynette Santos, Director of Community Development
FROM: Bruce and Cheryl Potocki
RE: Jericho Road Project No. 2023-2348
9407 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-18-00)
Objection to the following proposed Amendment of Application for Site Development Plan, Project 2023-2348.

Amendment of Application for Site Development Plan, Project 2023-2348 to revise the Affordable Home Bonus Program Report to consolidate the previously requested special permit(s) for retaining wall height and fill limits and mechanical equipment within the setbacks, as well as requests for tandem parking and distance between buildings as waivers of development standards pursuant to State Law Government Code Section 65915.

We are objecting to the Amendment of Application for Site Development Plan, Project 2023- 2348 (the “Project”) to revise the Affordable Homes Bonus Program Report to consolidate any bonuses, special permits, incentives, waivers or concessions of any kind contemplated by the Amendment of Application for Site Development Plan for the Applicant, referenced above, based on the Affordable Home Bonus Program. All requested zoning changes, waivers and parking reduction requests should be considered individually and not consolidated.

The Project is located in excess of one-half mile walking distance from the Amaya Trolley Station. Further, the entrance/exit to the Project property is on Jericho Road, with the only way to reach the Trolley Station being Jericho Road and Amaya Drive. As such, we believe the Project should not qualify for any zoning changes, bonuses, waivers, concessions or incentives pursuant to State Law Government Code Section 65915, AB-2334 which are dependent upon distance to a major Transit station. Note that the Reports to the La Mesa Planning Commission

Page 885 of 2604 ends

2 on December 4, 2024, December 18, 2024, and the Report posted on March 7, 2025, for the Amendment of Application for Site Development plan, all incorrectly state that the Amaya Trolley Station is located to the west and less than one-half mile walking distance from the site.

The actual distance to walk from the Project to the Amaya Trolley Station stop is seven tenths of a mile. The property located to the West of the Project is fully built out, and does not provide public pedestrian or vehicular access. There is only one entrance/exit to the Project. The only way to reach the trolley stop from the Project is using Jericho Road to Amaya Drive.

In the Affordable Homes Bonus Program Report, dated February 24, 2025, the developer seeks an increase in project density utilizing LMM 24.05.025 which is applicable for properties with R3 zoning. The property is currently zoned R1, not zoned R3. As a result, the density bonus does not apply at this time. The zoning should remain as R1, and avoid the zoning creep to multi-family developments in our single-family neighborhood.

Waiver 1 is the Developer’s proposal to include tandem parking for one of the project housing plans to increase the proposed density for the Project. Parking is already a disputed item for this project, and tandem parking only creates additional parking concerns for the project and neighborhood. With tandem parking, one of the vehicles is blocked in by the other vehicle in your tandem garage, and there’s no escape until the other vehicle is moved. By making a narrower driveway and unit, this allows the housing units to be closer together thereby increasing the building population density. This waiver is being requested to support the higher density project. We disagree with this waiver.

In Waiver 2, the Developer is requesting that the required minimum distance between buildings be reduced to again support a higher density Project. Development standards require

Page 886 of 2604 ends

3 approximately 30 feet between building walls. Waiver 2 would reduce this distance to as little as 12 feet, less than half of the required standard distance, without a waiver. This reduction is significant and could affect safety issues and evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Waiver 3 addresses allowing a change in the height of retaining walls in excess of the currently allowed 6 feet. Some of the retaining walls will be up to 12 feet in height, double the current development standard, with up to 10 feet of soil infill behind the retaining walls. If retaining walls of up to 12 feet are required for the Project, to increase the usable pad for development and building to achieve the density bonus, this waiver should not be approved.

This raises the issue of soil stability as well as aesthetics that would be inconsistent with the context of the current neighborhood. Even placing landscaping in front of 12 feet high retaining walls would not change the, and still be inconsistent with the current neighborhood. In addition, these retaining walls are to be placed within the set back area. The retaining walls of the Jericho Road project, varying from 3 to 12 feet in height, with up to 10 feet of soil infill are excessive and should not be permitted in the set-back areas. Set back areas are to be free from obstructions in case of emergencies and evacuations.

Waiver 4 would allow mechanical equipment for the operation of a building, including heating and air conditioning equipment, to be placed in setbacks. The development standards require that the equipment for operation of a building be subject to the same setback requirements as the principal buildings. Setbacks are to be free of obstructions in case of emergencies and evacuations.

The Requested Parking Reduction section of the February 24, 2025 Affordable Homes Bonus Program Report states that the Project does not seek to utilize parking provisions under Code

Page 887 of 2604 ends

4 65915(p). While parking is not required for the Project, parking is an issue that has been raised by the neighborhood. The Project does make provision for 2 parking spaces per each of the 73 proposed units; however, only a total of 5 guest parking spaces are proposed. Many families have more than 2 vehicles, and it is expected that the proposed parking will be insufficient.

Overflow parking from the residents and guests will need to use existing streets, limiting parking for current residents. The existing residential streets are not meant to provide overflow parking for the Project, nor are they adequate to accommodate the additional street parking necessary.

The Report to the La Mesa Planning Commission from December 18, 2024, on page 9, in the parking analysis incorrectly states “there is ample parking available within one-half mile walking distance of the project, and along segments immediately adjacent to the Project, there are nearly 200 parking spaces available.” The report does not address how many of those 200 parking spaces are already utilized by the current neighborhood residents. It is unreasonable to expect people to walk one-half mile from a parking space to their home.

The Notice of Posting from the City of La Mesa advised that if the decision is appealed or challenged, you are limited to raising only the issues that we or another party raise regarding the matter. We wish to raise additional objections to the Project, including but not limited to zoning change, traffic, safety issues, ingress and egress from the Project, storm water control and flooding, and parking.

The Project property is currently zoned R1. In order to approve this Project, the zoning would need to change to R3. The Project and zoning change are inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. We oppose this change due to the extreme density and the negative impact this project will have on the existing residences in the area.

Page 888 of 2604 ends

5 The Developer’s brochure identifies Jericho Road as the only vehicle entrance and exit for the 73 unit, three story townhome project that would become our next door neighbor. Having only one vehicle entry/exit is insufficient access. The proposed Jericho Road project is inconsistent with La Mesa’s Multiple Unit Residential plan, which provides that areas assigned the multi-unit designation shall be (generally) located adjacent to streets which are shown as major collector arterial, or arterial parkways. Jericho Road is not an arterial, but rather a small feeder street. It is adequate for the existing local traffic only, which includes Jericho Road, Broadmoor Dr., Broadmoor Pl, Henderson and White Place. The additional traffic created by having only one way in and out of the Jericho Road Project will create the potential for an additional 146 plus vehicles using Jericho Road, resulting in more congestion, noise and exhaust pollution, and could affect safety by interfering with emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances and police vehicles. The increased traffic and parking on either side of Jericho Road will also affect visibility and make it difficult to safely exit our driveway.

Other significant issues are the environmental concerns regarding water treatment, storm water control, and flooding. Increased water runoff from excessively graded and what will become paved surfaces of the Jericho Road project, risks flooding to our residential property on Jericho Road, and to the homes on Amaya Drive which are also downhill from the project.

In conclusion, a 73 three story, high density attached townhome project on 3.49 acres is not consistent with the existing immediate neighborhood of detached one and two-story singlefamily residences. The City of La Mesa General Plan and Land Use and Urban Design plan for Planned Unit Developments provides that all new development within residential neighborhoods shall be constructed to fit within the context of its existing neighborhood, and

Page 889 of 2604 ends

6 be compatible with the surrounding uses. If the city is required to make the following changes to allow the Project, this Project does not fit the context of the existing neighborhood:
-a zoning change
-requiring a special permit/waiver to allow retaining walls from 3 to 12 feet in height within the setbacks and infill greater than 3 feet up to 10 feet -requiring a special permit/waiver to allow mechanical equipment in the setbacks -approval of a site development plan for the increased high density -approval of a general amendment plan to Multiple Use Residential land use with higher density
-approval of a waiver to allow tandem parking for some unit plans and reduce distance between buildings
The December 18, 2025, Report to the La Mesa Planning Commission states, “the redevelopment of the lot into a multifamily housing development would preserve and enhance the residential character of the neighborhood”. The Project would have the exact opposite effect on the neighborhood. The incentives provided for this Project are inconsistent with the context of the neighborhood, and will damage the single-family community character.

We are not opposed to development of the property, however; we would prefer singlefamily homes in our single-family neighborhood rather than extreme high-density projects that impact safety, traffic, lack parking and would have a negative impact on our community.

Page 890 of 2604 ends

Page 891 of 2604 ends

#23024
11/07/2024
la mesa, CA

Page 892 of 2604 ends

P-1
P-2
P-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
Project Information
Conceptual Site Plan
Conceptual Illustrative Plan
801A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - First Floor Plan
801A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Second Floor Plan
801A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Third Floor Plan
801A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Roof Plan
801A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Sections
801A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Spanish Elevations 801A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Spanish Enhanced Elevations 802A/803A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - First Floor Plan 802A/803A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Second Floor Plan 802A/803A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Third Floor Plan 802A/803A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Roof Plan
802A/803A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Sections
802A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Spanish Elevations 803A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Spanish Elevations 803A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Spanish Enhanced Elevations 901A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - First Floor Plan
901A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Second Floor Plan
901A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Third Floor Plan
901A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Roof Plan
901A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Sections
901A Building Composite (8 -Plex ) - Spanish Elevations Architect: Kevin L. Crook Architect
1360 Reynolds Ave. Suite 110
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact: Aric Coffee
Business: (949) 660-1587
www.klcarch.com
Civil Engineer: Hunsaker & Associates
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
Landscape Engineer: GMP
3176 Lionshead Ave. Suite 102
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Contact: Ryan Martin
Business: (858) 558-4500
www.hunsakersd.com
Contact: John Patterson
Business: (858) 558-8977
www.gmplandarch.com
Developer: MLC Holdings Inc.
5 Peters Canyon Road Suite 310
Irvine, CA 92606
Contact: Johanna Crooker
Business: (949) 299-3824
www.mlcholdings.net
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
Plan 2532.1 - Floor Plan
Plan 2532X.1 - Floor Plan
Plan 1633.1 - Floor Plan
Plan 1633X.1 - Floor Plan
Plan 1638.1 - Floor Plan
Plan 1638Y.1 - Floor Plan
Site Sections A-A
Site Sections B-B & C-C
Written Color Schemes
Color Boards - Spanish
SDP 1
SDP 2
SDP 3
SDP 4
SDP 5
SDP 6
SDP 7
SDP 8
SDP 9
SDP 10
SDP 11
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-8
Site Development Plan
Site Development Plan - Street Sections/ Site Details
Site Development Plan - Site Details/ Driveway Details
Site Development Plan - Existing Conditions
Site Development Plan - Grading Plan
Site Development Plan - Open Space
Site Development Plan - Accessible Route
Site Development Plan - Eave Setback Dimensions
Site Development Plan - Wall Sections
Site Development Plan - Wall Sections
Site Development Plan - Boundaries and Encumbrances
Landscape Concept Illustrative Plan
Landscape Concept Planting Plan
Landscape Concept Enlargements
Landscape Concept Enlargements
Landscape Concept Irrigation Plan
Landscape Concept Irrigation Details
Landscape Concept Fence & Wall Plan
Landscape Concept Lighting Plan
Landscape Concept Existing Trees
la mesa, CA
jericho road
L-7
L-9

Page 893 of 2604 ends

10/24/2024
A-1
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road 10/28/2024
P-1
Project Information
Property Owner
Calvary Chapel of El Cajon
9407 Jericho Road
La Mesa, CA 91942
Ph: 619.633.9956
Design Team
Applicant
MLC Holdings
5 Peters Canyon Rd, Suite 310
Irvine, CA 92606
Ph: 949.299.3824
Contact: Johanna Crooker
Architect
Kevin L Crook Architects, Inc.
1360 Reynolds Ave., Suite 110
Irvine, CA 92614
Ph: 949.660.1587
Contact: Aric Coffee
Civil Engineer
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, CA 92121
Ph: 858.558.4500
Contact: Ryan Martin
Landscape Architect
GMP
3176 Lionshead Ave., Suite 102
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Ph: 858.558.8977
Contact: John Patterson
Legal Description
LOT 11, BLOCK 30 OF EL CAJON HEIGHTS, IN THE CITY OF LA MESA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO LICENSED SURVEYOR’S MAP NO. 50 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 20, 1894. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 110.00 FEET.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF LAND FIRST DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF LA MESA, RECORDED JANUARY 12, 1961, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 6087 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE NORTH 55°28’15” WEST ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 11, A DISTANCE OF 3.75

FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF PROPERTY DEEDED TO THE CITY OF LA MESA, RECORDED IN BOOK 7502, PAGE 21, DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1959; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEAST LINE SOUTH 37°41’43” WEST A DISTANCE OF 75.11 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PROPERTY SO DEEDED, TO THE END OF A TANGENT 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY (RECORD EASTERLY) THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 93°09’58” A DISTANCE OF 40.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 55°28’15” WEST A DISTANCE OF 147.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, HEREINAFTER CALLED POINT “A”, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY (RECORD NORTHERLY); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 41°24’35” A DISTANCE OF 36.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF A REVERSE 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE SOUTH 55°28’15” EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 11 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT SAID POINT “A” THENCE SOUTH 55°28’15” EAST 2.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34°31’45” WEST 5.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55°28’15” WEST 5.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34°31’43” EAST 5.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55°28’15” EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 19, 1965 AS FILE NO. 150926 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

THE NORTHWEST 30.00 FEET OF LOT 11 IN BLOCK 30 OF EL CAJON HEIGHTS, IN THE

CITY OF LA MESA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO LICENSE SURVEY MAP NO. 50, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 20, 1894, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF

THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 180.00 FEET OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 30 OF SAID EL CAJON HEIGHTS.

Proposed Development Standards
Gross Area: 3.49 Acres (152,024 SF)
Net Area: 3.49 Acres (152,024 SF)
* No deductions of the site area apply per “area of lot” definition found in LMMC 24.01.100 Total Dwelling Units: 73 Homes
Total Conditioned Square Footage: 115,215 SF
(excludes garages, porches, and decks)
Total Building Square Footage: 167,244 SF
(includes garages, porches, and decks)
Provided Parking: 151 Spaces Total
- Resident: 2 spaces per unit in a garage
- Guest: 5 spaces open on site
- Guest parking reduced per AB 2097
Property Setbacks:

Required per R1: Proposed per R3:
- Front: 15’/20’ - Front: 15’
- Side: 5’ - Side: 15’
- Rear: 15’ - Rear: 15’
Building Constrcution Information:
- Occupancy Type: R3 Townhome / U
- Sprinkler System: NFPA 13D
- Construction Type: R3
Project Description
Redevelopment of a 3.49-acre church site with up to 73 three story townhomes. Square footage ranging from approximately 1200 - 1800 square feet and 2 - 4 bedrooms. The site is located within one half-mile of a major transit stop and parking minimums do not apply; however, the project includes two garage spaces per unit plus approximately 5 guest spaces. The proposed project also includes the development of necessary private drives and utilities for the proposed development, as well as common open space amenities including a tot lot, barbecue area with seating and shade structure, turf lawn areas, bocce court, and seating areas.

Site Information
Address
9407 Jericho Road
La Mesa, CA 91942
Assesor Parcel Number
486-670-18-00
General Plan Designation
Existing: Urban Residential
Proposed: Multiple Unit Residential
Land Use
Existing: Institutional
Proposed: Multiple Unit Residential
Zoning Classification
Existing: R1
Proposed: R3
Density Bonus Points Analysis (338 points needed)
Total Site Area: 152,024 SF Units allowed per area/home in the R3 zone: 62 units - 17.76 du/ac (152,024/2,420 SF) Area per home: 2,082 SF (73 units - 20.92 du/ac) Max units allowed per points project earns: 80 units - 22.92 du/ac (152,024/1,895 SF) Bonus Category Point Value Maximum Points
Allowed
9407 Jericho
Road Points Explanation
Extra Recreation/Leisure
Open Space
21 points per each 1% of
extra open space
105 points for extra
common open space,
and 105 points for
extra private space
Extra Off-street Parking
21 points per each 1% of
extra number of spaces/
stalls
105 points 71.4
Required spaces = 146 (2 spaces per unit).

Provided spaces = 151. 151/146 = 103.4%.

3.4 x 21pts = 71.4 pts
Enclosed Parking
3 points per each 1%
of spaces completely
enclosed
240 points 140.1
151 spaces on site total (146 garage, 5
head in). 50% of spaces = 75.5. 146 - 75.5 =

70.5 spaces. 70.5/151 = 46.7%. 46.7 x 3pts
= 140.1 pts
Family Housing

10.5 points per each
1% of project units of
3+ bedrooms and 1,000
square feet each
315 points 315
73 homes. 10 - 2 bed, 32 - 3 bed, 31 - 4
bed. 63/73 = 86.3%. 86.3 x 10.5pts = 906.1
pts
Handicap Housing
210 points for following
C.A.C., Title 24 Handicap
Requirements
Total Points Earned 526.5*
*Max points allowed to be earned per 24.05.025 - Density Bonus is 525 points.

Page 894 of 2604 ends

ROJECT
UNDARY

BROADMOOR
DR

AMAYA DR

LAKEVIEW DR

BROADMOOR PL

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "B"
PVT. DRIVE "E"
T
T
PVT. DRIVE "D"

JERICHO RD
PVT. DRIVE "C" PVT. DRIVE "C"
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
P=652.2
P=651.3
P=651.3 P=649.0
P=646.3
P=652.2 P=651.2
P=651.7
P=650.3
P=650.3 P=648.0 P=646.4
P=645.3
BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3 FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9 FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF=647.0
FF=646.0
FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7 FF=648.7 FF=647.1
FF=645.5
P=644.8
PVT. DRIVE "A"
10/24/2024
A-1
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road 10/28/2024
P-2
Conceptual Site Plan
Project Summary
Property Size1: 3.49 Acres
No. of Units: 73 Three-Story Townhomes2
• 10 - Plan 2532: 1210 SF, 2 bed., 2.5 baths, 2-car garage • 32 - Plan 1633: 1497 SF, 3 bed., 3 baths, 2-car garage • 31 - Plan 1638: 1781 SF, 4 bed., 4 baths, 2-car garage Density: 20.92 du/ac
Proposed Setbacks (per R3 zone):
• Front (To Jericho Road): 15’ to building
• Side (N and S Bndy): 15’ to building minimum
• Rear (W Bndy): 15’ to building minimum
Parking Required3:
• Resident: 2 Spaces per Unit (1 covered)
Parking Provided:
• Resident: Private 2-car garage per unit
• Guest Spaces4
: 5 spaces
Open Space Required:
• Total: 24,900 SF (341 SF per unit; 500 SF per du for units 1-10, 400 SF per du for units 11- 20, 300 SF pre du remaining) • Private Open Space minimum dimension of 6 feet
Open Space Provided:
• Total: 27,489 SF (376 SF per unit)
• Private Open Space5
(6’ min. dim., 72 SF min area): 11,489 SF
• Common Open Space: 16,000 SF
Notes:

1. Maintains existing knuckle geometry and location.

2. Type VB construction with NFPA 13D automatic sprinkler system.

3. Guest parking reduced per AB 2097.

4. Guest spaces are 9’ x 19’.

5. Private Open Space includes all areas within private patios or decks of a unit that meet the minimum area of 72 SF.

6. All proposed utilities shall be underground with easements provided.

7. Existing General Plan: Urban Residential

8. Existing Land Use: Institutional

9. Existing Zoning: R1; existing R1 zone setback requirements are Front: 15’/20’, Side: 5’, Rear: 15’

10. Proposed General Plan: Multiple Unit Residential

11. Proposed Zoning: R3

12. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 486-670-18-00

13. Site Address: 9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa, CA 91942
North
0 30 60
1” = 30’
#6
B
L
D
G
#
7 P
=646.3
P
=64

5.3 FF
=64

7.0 FF
=646.0
P
=64

4.8 FF
=64

5.5 A
MA
YA
D
R

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

JERICHO RD
DRIVE "C"
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 801A
BLDG 803A BLDG 803A BLDG 802A
BLDG 803A
BLDG 901A
Additional Information found later in package including:
• Additional dimensions - SDP sheet 8
• Parking Details - SDP sheet 2
• Wall/fence details and materials - Conceptual Wall/Fence Plan sheet L-7 • Utility size, locaation, and elevations- SDP sheet 4. • Storm drain facilities - SDP sheet 4
• Existing easement information - SDP sheet 11
• Proposed easement information - SDP sheet 5
• Existing, proposed, and future street improvements - SDP sheets 4, 5, and 6 • Existing trees - SDP sheet 4, existing conditions sheet L-9

Page 895 of 2604 ends

T
T
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
BLDG #9
BLDG #8

BENCH BENCH BENCH

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

ILL BE USED TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT

PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SCREEN
MENTS AND PROVIDE PRIVACY. TREES HAVE BEEN
E AND TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR THE SITE. THE PLANT

SELECTED WERE DONE SO FOR THEIR LOW WATER

ON SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED USING A RAIN

E ADJUSTABLE SO AS NOT TO WASTE WATER
SPRAY.

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

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

ATER
PLETE

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT

ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN

JERICHO
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.
10/24/2024
A-1
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road
North
0 30 60
1” = 30’
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
• 3 floor plan variation
• Maximum height of 38.0 feet
• Oriented to provide front doors along
streetscapes and paseos
10/28/2024
P-3
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 Summary
Property Size1: 3.49 Acres
No. of Units: 73 Three-Story Townhomes2
• 10 - Plan 2532: 1210 SF, 2 bed., 2.5 baths, 2-car garage • 32 - Plan 1633: 1497 SF, 3 bed., 3 baths, 2-car garage • 31 - Plan 1638: 1781 SF, 4 bed., 4 baths, 2-car garage Density: 20.92 du/ac
Proposed Setbacks (per R3 zone):
• Front (To Jericho Road): 15’ to building
• Side (N and S Bndy): 15’ to building minimum
• Rear (W Bndy): 15’ to building minimum
Parking Required3:
• Resident: 2 Spaces per Unit (1 covered)
Parking Provided:
• Resident: Private 2-car garage per unit
• Guest Spaces4
: 5 spaces
Open Space Required:
• Total: 24,900 SF (341 SF per unit; 500 SF per du for units 1-10, 400 SF per du for units 11- 20, 300 SF pre du remaining) • Private Open Space minimum dimension of 6 feet
Open Space Provided:
• Total: 27,489 SF (376 SF per unit)
• Private Open Space5
(6’ min. dim., 72 SF min area): 11,489 SF
• Common Open Space: 16,000 SF
Notes:

1. Maintains existing knuckle geometry and location.

2. Type VB construction with NFPA 13D automatic sprinkler system.

3. Guest parking reduced per AB 2097.

4. Guest spaces are 9’ x 19’.

5. Private Open Space includes all areas within private patios or decks of a unit that meet the minimum area of 72 SF.

6. All proposed utilities shall be underground with easements provided.

7. Existing General Plan: Urban Residential

8. Existing Land Use: Institutional

9. Existing Zoning: R1; existing R1 zone setback requirements are Front: 15’/20’, Side: 5’, Rear: 15’

10. Proposed General Plan: Multiple Unit Residential

11. Proposed Zoning: R3

12. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 486-670-18-00

13. Site Address: 9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa, CA 91942

Page 896 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-1
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 897 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-2
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 898 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-3
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 899 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-4
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 900 of 2604 ends

UNIT 2532.1R UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638X.1 UNIT 1633.1
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 2 4 8
11/07/2024
A-5
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 901 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-6
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 902 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-7
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 903 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-8
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 904 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-9
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 905 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-10
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 906 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-11
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 907 of 2604 ends

UNIT 1638X.1R UNIT 1633.2R UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638X.2 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638X.1R UNIT 1633.2R UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638X.1 JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 2 4 8
11/07/2024
A-12
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 908 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-13
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 909 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-14
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 910 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-15
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 911 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-16
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 912 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-17
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 913 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-18
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 914 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-19
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 915 of 2604 ends

UNIT 2532.1R UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633.1 UNIT 1638.1 UNIT 1633X.2 BATH 4

KITCHEN
PRIM. BATH
ENTRY BATH 4

KITCHEN
PRIM. BATH
ENTRY
UNIT 1633.1
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 2 4 8
11/07/2024
A-20
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 916 of 2604 ends

11/07/2024
A-21
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 917 of 2604 ends

UNCONDITIONED SPACE

CONDITIONED SPACE

AREA TABULATION
UNIT 2532.1
11'-8" x 6'-0"
DECK
PWDR.

KITCHEN
12'-4" x 9'-6"
DINING
12'-10"x 13'-8"
GREAT RM.

COATS
83 SQ. FT.
20'-2" x 21'-1"
GARAGE
PORCH
ENTRY
11'-10"x 4'-0"

STORAGE

UTILITY CLOSET
27'-8"
25'-8"
12'-2" x 11'-9"
PRIM. BEDRM.
10'-3" x 10'-0"
BEDRM. 2
HALL
BATH 2
PRIM. BATH
W.I.C.
12'-0" L.F.

LINEN
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE

THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
0 2 4 8
11/07/2024
A-22
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 918 of 2604 ends

PWDR.

KITCHEN
12'-4" x 9'-6"
DINING
12'-10"x 13'-8"
GREAT RM.

COATS
11'-10"x 6'-3"
DECK
83 SQ. FT.
20'-2" x 21'-1"
GARAGE
PORCH
ENTRY
24'-8"
25'-8"
12'-2" x 11'-9"
PRIM. BEDRM.
10'-3" x 10'-0"
BEDRM. 2
HALL
BATH 2
PRIM. BATH
W.I.C.
12'-0" L.F.

LINEN
11'-10"x 6'-3"
DECK
83 SQ. FT.

UNCONDITIONED SPACE

CONDITIONED SPACE

AREA TABULATION
UNIT 2532X.1
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE

THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
0 2 4 8
11/07/2024
A-23
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 919 of 2604 ends

12'-5" x 7'-6"
DINING
15'-11"x 6'-0"
DECK

KITCHEN
BATH 3
15'-11"x 9'-11"
GREAT RM.
107 SQ. FT.

WORK/
STUDY
11'-5" x 10'-3"
BEDRM. 3
11'-5" x 40'-4"
GARAGE
ENTRY
PORCH
COATS
9'x40' CLEAR

STORAGE
5'-2" x 11'-2"
53'-6"
16'-6"
11'-5" x 10'-2"
BEDRM. 2
BATH 2
PRIM.

BATH
HALL
12'-4" x 14'-4"
PRIM. BEDRM.

LAU.
10'-10" L.F.

W.I.C.

WORK/
STUDY

UNCONDITIONED SPACE

CONDITIONED SPACE

AREA TABULATION
UNIT1633.1
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE

THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
0 2 4 8
11/07/2024
A-24
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 920 of 2604 ends

12'-5" x 7'-6"
DINING
15'-11"x 6'-0"
DECK

KITCHEN
11'-5" x 10'-3"
BEDRM. 3
BATH 3
15'-11"x 9'-11"
GREAT RM.
107 SQ. FT.
11'-5" x 40'-4"
GARAGE
ENTRY
PORCH
COATS
4'-6" x 10'-4"

STORAGE

STORAGE
5'-2" x 11'-2"
53'-6"
16'-6"
11'-5" x 10'-2"
BEDRM. 2
10'-10" L.F.

BATH 2
PRIM.

BATH
HALL
11'-4" x 14'-4"
PRIM. BEDRM.

LAU.

W.I.C.

JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE

THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
0 2 4 8
11/07/2024
A-25
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 921 of 2604 ends

15'-11"x10'-10"
GREAT RM.
15'-11"x 6'-3"
DECK
12'-4" x 7'-2"
DINING

KITCHEN
BATH 3
10'-0" x 10'-0"
BEDRM. 3
10'-2" x 10'-2"
OFFICE
20'-5" x 20'-2"
GARAGE
PORCH
ENTRY
BATH 4
10'-1" x 11'-2"
BEDRM. 4
51'-6"
21'-0"
LAU.

BATH 2
HALL
W.I.C.
15'-0" L.F.

PRIM. BATH
12'-0" x10'-10"
BEDRM. 2
15'-11"x 11'-8"
PRIM. BEDRM.

WORK/
STUDY

AREA TABULATION
UNIT 1638.1

UNCONDITIONED SPACE

CONDITIONED SPACE
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 2 4 8

THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ADAPTABLE OPTION
110 SQ. FT 110 SQ. FT
11/07/2024
A-26
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 922 of 2604 ends

15'-11"x10'-10"
GREAT RM.
15'-11"x 6'-3"
DECK
12'-4" x 7'-2"
DINING

KITCHEN
BATH 3
10'-0" x 10'-0"
BEDRM. 3
10'-2" x 10'-2"
OFFICE
20'-5" x 20'-2"
GARAGE
PORCH
ENTRY
BATH 4
10'-1" x 11'-2"
BEDRM. 4
51'-6"
21'-0"
LAU.

BATH 2
HALL
W.I.C.
15'-0" L.F.

PRIM. BATH
12'-0" x10'-10"
BEDRM. 2
15'-11"x 11'-8"
PRIM. BEDRM.

WORK/
STUDY
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 2 4 8

THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
11/07/2024
A-27
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 923 of 2604 ends

±30'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±30'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO HIGHEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
BLDG. #3 (801)
FF: 652.0
PAD: 651.3
BLDG. #8 (801)
FF: 653.3
PAD: 652.6
BLDG. #8 (801)
FF: 652.3
PAD: 651.6
BLDG. #3 (801)
FF: 651.0
PAD: 650.3
±29'-9"

TO AVERAGE POINT PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO HIGHEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-9"

TO AVERAGE POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
BATH 4

KITCHEN
PRIM. BATH
ENTRY BATH 4

KITCHEN
PRIM. BATH
ENTRY
±30'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±30'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO HIGHEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO HIGHEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"
BLDG. #8 (801)

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
FF: 653.3
PAD: 652.6
BLDG. #8 (801)
FF: 652.3
PAD: 651.6
BLDG. #7 (901)
FF: 647.0
PAD: 646.3
±29'-9"

TO AVERAGE POINT PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO AVERAGE POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 4 8 16

KEY MAP
11/07/2024
A-28
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 924 of 2604 ends

±29'-3"

TO HIGHEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
BLDG. #1 (803)
FF: 652.9
PAD: 652.2
BLDG. #2 (801)
FF: 652.9
PAD: 652.2
BLDG. #3 (801)
FF: 652.0
PAD: 651.3
BLDG. #4 (803)
FF: 652.0
PAD: 651.3 ±29'-3" TO AVERAGE POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO AVERAGE POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO AVERAGE OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO AVERAGE OF PROPOSED GRADE
BATH 4

KITCHEN
PRIM. BATH
ENTRY BATH 4

KITCHEN
PRIM. BATH
ENTRY
±29'-3"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±30'-9"

TO LOWEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
BLDG. #6 (802)
FF: 647.1
PAD: 646.4
BLDG. #7 (901)
FF: 647.0
AD: 646.3
BLDG. #7 (901)
FF: 646.0
PAD: 645.3
BLDG. #7 (901)
FF: 645.5
PAD: 644.8
±29'-3"

TO HIGHEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-3"

TO AVERAGE POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±28'-9"

TO HIGHEST POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
±29'-9"

TO AVERAGE POINT OF PROPOSED GRADE
JOB #: 23024
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 4 8 16

KEY MAP
11/07/2024
A-29
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 925 of 2604 ends

WRITTEN COLOR SCHEMES
PROJECT 23024
CREATED 7/7/2023
Client Revisions 8/20/2024
SPANISH SCHEME 1 SCHEME 2
STUCCO 1 1503 1572
STUCCO PAINT MATCH*** SW 7028 INCREDIBLE WHITE RGB 255/255/255 STUCCO 2
(WAINSCOT / 1ST FLOOR

STUCCO ENTRIES)
SW9084

COCOA WHIP
SW9169
CHATURA GRAY STUCCO: OMEGA

FASCIA / TRIM /

GARAGE DOOR
SW6083
SABLE
SW6075
GARRET GRAY PAINT:

SHERWIN

WILLIAMS

FRONT DOORS /

SHUTTERS
SW2839

RYCRFT COPPER RED
SW0032

NEEDLEPOINT NAVY

CONCRETE
ROOF:

EAGLE /

WESTLAKE

CLAY PIPES
SW6061

TANBARK
SW6061
TANBARK GUTTERS: RGS

WROUGHT IRON
SW7675

SEALSKIN
SW7675

SEALSKIN

DECORATIVE
TILES:

TIERRA Y
FUEGO
EAGLE ROOF: LOW
PROF. "S" MALIBU
2636

PIEDMONT BLEND
2606
VALLEJO RANGE CERAMIC TILE: DALTILE
BORAL ROOF: LOW
PROF. "S" VILLA
1VICS3182

GARNET BLEND
1VICS6464

CA MISSION BLEND
DECORATIVE TILE:
6" x 6"

SANTA BARBARA
ITEM #30984

SANTA BARBARA
ITEM #30798

CERAMIC SOLID TILE
6" x 6"

KEYSTONES
FIRE BRICK Q093

KEYSTONES
SEA BREEZE Q174

CERAMIC SOLID TILE
6" x 6"

KEYSTONES
BLACK K111

KEYSTONES
BLACK K111
GUTTERS: RUSTIC BROWN RUSTIC BROWN
ALL FLASHING, GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE. *** For photoshop renderings only, do NOT use in the field

JERICHO ROAD

LA MESA, CA
11/07/2024
A-30
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 926 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD
LA MESA, CA AUG. 20, 2024
#23024

SPANISH
SCHEME #1 WALL
SEMI-GLOSS™ & MATTE™

GLAZED CERAMIC
(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) indicate price groups, (1) being the least expensive.

SEMI-GLOSS WALL TILE
ALMOND
0135 (1)

ARCTIC WHITE
0190 (1)
ALMOND
K165 (2)
WHITE
0100 (1)

URBAN PUTTY
0161 (1)
WHITE
K101 (2)

ARCHITECTURAL
GRAY 0109 (2)
GOLDEN
GRANITE 0138 (1)

UPTOWN TAUPE
0132 (2)

PEPPER WHITE
0147 (1)

ELEMENTAL TAN
0166 (1)

ARTISAN BROWN
0144 (2) ◆

BISCUIT
K175 (2)

CRISP LINEN
0139 (1)

KEY LIME
Q098 (4) ✚

ICE GREY
K176 (2)

DESERT GRAY
X114 (1)

SUEDE GRAY
0182 (2)

PLUM CRAZY
Q178 (4) ✚

CORAL BEAD
Q092 (4) ✚

ORANGE BURST
Q097 (4) ✚

FIRE BRICK
Q093 (4) ✚

CHAMPAGNE
TOAST Q150 (4) ✚

CITRIC BLOOM
Q140 (4) ✚

GO GREEN
Q170 (4) ✚

CHALK BOARD
Q180 (4) ✚
SPA
0148 (1)

AQUA GLOW
0197 (2) ◆
AEGEAN
Q192 (4) ✚

SEA BREEZE
Q174 (4) ✚

ELECTRIC BLUE
Q194 (4) ✚

OCEAN BLUE
Q049 (4) ✚
BLACK
K111 (2)

GARDEN SPOT
0141 (2) ◆

WOOD VIOLET
Q467 (4) ✚

MOON BEAM
Q091 (4) ✚

CORNSILK
0160 (1)

LUMINARY GOLD
0142 (2)

SUNFLOWER
DH50 (3) ◆

MUSTARD
Q012 (4) ✚

TOTALLY TANGERINE
Q151 (4) ✚

CARNATION
PINK Q095 (4) ✚

PUMPKIN SPICE
Q090 (4) ✚
NAVY
K189 (2) ★ ◆

WATERFALL
0169 (1)
COBALT
DM14 (3) ★ ◆
GALAXY
1469 (1) ◆

CHIANTI
Q094 (4) ✚

VERMILLION
0DM1 (5) ★
(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) indicate price groups, (1) being the least expensive. ✚ “Q” colors are special order. Please allow 1-2 weeks lead time from the date of order. ★ Subject to crazing; black grout not recommended.
◆ Made to order and requires 6-8 weeks delivery from date of order.

See the Rittenhouse Square™ Collection for colors available in 3 x 6 sizes.

See the Modern Dimensions™ Collection for colors available in 4-1/4 x 8-1/2 and 4-1/4 x 12-3/4 sizes.

ALMOND
0135 (1)

ARCTIC WHITE
0190 (1)
ALMOND
K165 (2)
WHITE
0100 (1)

URBAN PUTTY
0161 (1)
WHITE
K101 (2)

ARCHITECTURAL
GRAY 0109 (2)
GOLDEN
GRANITE 0138 (1)

UPTOWN TAUPE
0132 (2)

PEPPER WHITE
0147 (1)

ELEMENTAL TAN
0166 (1)

ARTISAN BROWN
0144 (2) ◆

BISCUIT
K175 (2)

CRISP LINEN
0139 (1)

KEY LIME
Q098 (4) ✚

ICE GREY
K176 (2)

DESERT GRAY
X114 (1)

SUEDE GRAY
0182 (2)

PLUM CRAZY
Q178 (4) ✚

CORAL BEAD
Q092 (4) ✚

ORANGE BURST
Q097 (4) ✚

FIRE BRICK
Q093 (4) ✚

CHAMPAGNE
TOAST Q150 (4) ✚

CITRIC BLOOM
Q140 (4) ✚

GO GREEN
Q170 (4) ✚

CHALK BOARD
Q180 (4) ✚
SPA
0148 (1)

AQUA GLOW
0197 (2) ◆
AEGEAN
Q192 (4) ✚

SEA BREEZE
Q174 (4) ✚

ELECTRIC BLUE
Q194 (4) ✚

OCEAN BLUE
Q049 (4) ✚
BLACK
K111 (2)

GARDEN SPOT
0141 (2) ◆

WOOD VIOLET
Q467 (4) ✚

MOON BEAM
Q091 (4) ✚

CORNSILK
0160 (1)

LUMINARY GOLD
0142 (2)

SUNFLOWER
DH50 (3) ◆

MUSTARD
Q012 (4) ✚

TOTALLY TANGERINE
Q151 (4) ✚

CARNATION
PINK Q095 (4) ✚

PUMPKIN SPICE
Q090 (4) ✚
NAVY
K189 (2) ★ ◆

WATERFALL
0169 (1)
COBALT
DM14 (3) ★ ◆
GALAXY
1469 (1) ◆

CHIANTI
Q094 (4) ✚

VERMILLION
0DM1 (5) ★

FRONT DOORS /

SHUTTERS

FASCIA / TRIM /

GARAGE DOOR

CLAY PIPES

STUCCO BODY
ROOF
STUCCO 2

WROUGHT IRON

DECORATIVE & SOLID CERAMIC TILE

OR SIMILAR

JERICHO ROAD
LA MESA, CA AUG. 20, 2024
#23024

SPANISH
SCHEME #2
(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) indicate price groups, (1) being the least expensive. ✚ “Q” colors are special order. Please allow 1-2 weeks lead time from the date of order. ★ Subject to crazing; black grout not recommended.
◆ Made to order and requires 6-8 weeks delivery from date of order.

See the Rittenhouse Square™ Collection for colors available in 3 x 6 sizes.

See the Modern Dimensions™ Collection for colors available in 4-1/4 x 8-1/2 and 4-1/4 x 12-3/4 sizes.

SEMI-GLOSS WALL TILE

ARCTIC WHITE
0190 (1)
ALMOND
K165 (2)
WHITE
0100 (1)

URBAN PUTTY
0161 (1)
WHITE
K101 (2)

ARCHITECTURAL
GRAY 0109 (2)
GOLDEN
GRANITE 0138 (1)

UPTOWN TAUPE
0132 (2)

PEPPER WHITE
0147 (1)

ELEMENTAL TAN
0166 (1)

ARTISAN B
0144 (2) ◆

BISCUIT
K175 (2)

KEY LIME
Q098 (4) ✚

ICE GREY
K176 (2)

DESERT GRAY
X114 (1)

SUEDE GRAY
0182 (2)

PLUM CRAZY
Q178 (4) ✚

CORAL BEAD
Q092 (4) ✚

ORANGE BURST
Q097 (4) ✚

CITRIC BLOOM
Q140 (4) ✚

GO GREEN
Q170 (4) ✚

CHALK BO
Q180 (4) ✚
SPA
0148 (1)
AEGEAN
Q192 (4) ✚

SEA BREEZE
Q174 (4) ✚

ELECTRIC BLUE
Q194 (4) ✚

OCEAN BLUE
Q049 (4) ✚

GARDEN SPOT
0141 (2) ◆

WOOD VIOLET
Q467 (4) ✚

MOON BEAM
Q091 (4) ✚

CORNSILK
0160 (1)

LUMINARY GOLD
0142 (2)

SUNFLOWER
DH50 (3) ◆

MUSTARD
Q012 (4) ✚

TOTALLY TANGERINE
Q151 (4) ✚

CARNATION
PINK Q095 (4) ✚

PUMPKIN S
Q090 (4) ✚

WATERFALL
0169 (1)
COBALT
DM14 (3) ★ ◆
GALAXY
1469 (1) ◆

CHIANTI
Q094 (4) ✚

See the Rittenhouse Square™ Collection for colors available in 3 x 6 sizes.

See the Modern Dimensions™ Collection for colors available in 4-1/4 x 8-1/2 and 4-1/4 x 12-3/4 sizes.

ALMOND
0135 (1)

ARCTIC WHITE
0190 (1)
ALMOND
K165 (2)
WHITE
0100 (1)

URBAN PUTTY
0161 (1)
WHITE
K101 (2)

ARCHITECTURAL
GRAY 0109 (2)
GOLDEN
GRANITE 0138 (1)

UPTOWN TAUPE
0132 (2)

PEPPER WHITE
0147 (1)

ELEMENTAL TAN
0166 (1)

ARTISAN BROWN
0144 (2) ◆

BISCUIT
K175 (2)

CRISP LINEN
0139 (1)

KEY LIME
Q098 (4) ✚

ICE GREY
K176 (2)

DESERT GRAY
X114 (1)

SUEDE GRAY
0182 (2)

PLUM CRAZY
Q178 (4) ✚

CORAL BEAD
Q092 (4) ✚

ORANGE BURST
Q097 (4) ✚

FIRE BRICK
Q093 (4) ✚

CHAMPAGNE
TOAST Q150 (4) ✚

CITRIC BLOOM
Q140 (4) ✚

GO GREEN
Q170 (4) ✚

CHALK BOARD
Q180 (4) ✚
SPA
0148 (1)

AQUA GLOW
0197 (2) ◆
AEGEAN
Q192 (4) ✚

SEA BREEZE
Q174 (4) ✚

ELECTRIC BLUE
Q194 (4) ✚

OCEAN BLUE
Q049 (4) ✚
BLACK
K111 (2)

GARDEN SPOT
0141 (2) ◆

WOOD VIOLET
Q467 (4) ✚

MOON BEAM
Q091 (4) ✚

CORNSILK
0160 (1)

LUMINARY GOLD
0142 (2)

SUNFLOWER
DH50 (3) ◆

MUSTARD
Q012 (4) ✚

TOTALLY TANGERINE
Q151 (4) ✚

CARNATION
PINK Q095 (4) ✚

PUMPKIN SPICE
Q090 (4) ✚
NAVY
K189 (2) ★ ◆

WATERFALL
0169 (1)
COBALT
DM14 (3) ★ ◆
GALAXY
1469 (1) ◆

CHIANTI
Q094 (4) ✚

VERMILLION
0DM1 (5) ★

STUCCO BODY
ROOF
STUCCO 2

FRONT DOORS /

SHUTTERS

FASCIA / TRIM /

GARAGE DOOR

CLAY PIPES

WROUGHT IRON

DECORATIVE & SOLID CERAMIC TILE

OR SIMILAR
*COLORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER CALIBRATION. COLOR BOARDS - SPANISH REFER TO PAINT CHIPS AND MATERIALS BOARDS FOR ACTUAL COLORS. 11/07/2024
A-31
#23024
la mesa, CA
jericho road

Page 927 of 2604 ends

Page 928 of 2604 ends

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
11 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
JERICHO ROAD RMB24061
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

Page 929 of 2604 ends

DRIVEWAY/GARAGE DETAIL ON CROWNED DRIVE
TYPICAL 8-PLEX & 8-PLEX WITH TURN-IN

DETAIL ON CROWNED DRIVE
TYPICAL 9-PLEX WITH TURN-IN DRIVEWAY/GARAGE

DRIVEWAY/GARAGE DETAIL ON INVERTED DRIVE
TYPICAL 8-PLEX & 8-PLEX WITH TURN-IN
11 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
JERICHO ROAD RMB24061
3 SITE DETAILS / DRIVEWAY DETAILS

APPLICABLE TO ALL BUILDING TYPES

TYPICAL BUILDING

DRAINAGE SWALE DETAIL

Page 930 of 2604 ends

LAKEVIEW DR
A
MA
YA
D
R

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

BROADMOOR PL

JERICHO RD
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
11 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
JERICHO ROAD RMB24061

EXISTING CONDITIONS
4

Page 931 of 2604 ends

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
A
MA
YA
D
R

LAKEVIEW DR

BROADMOOR PL

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "B"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"
E
"
T
T
M
M
M
M
M
PVT. DRIVE "D"

JERICHO RD
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
PVT PVT. DRIVE "C"
. DRIVE "C"
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
B
L
D
G
#
7 BLDG #1
P=652.2
P=651.3
P=651.3 P=649.0
P
=646.3
P=652.2 P=651.2
P=651.7
P=650.3
P=650.3
P=648.0 P=646.4
P
=64

5.3 BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9
FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF=64

7.0 FF=646.0
FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7
FF=648.7
FF=647.1
P
=64

4.8 FF=64

5.5 PVT. DRIVE "A"

EASEMENTS

PROPOSED
11 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
JERICHO ROAD RMB24061
5 GRADING PLAN

Page 932 of 2604 ends

O
PENSPACECALCULATIONS:

REQUIREDOPENSPACE:24,900SF
-(10)UNITSX500SF=5,000SF
-(10)UNITSX400SF=4,000SF
-(53)UNITSX300SF=15,900SF
PRIVATEOPENSPACEPROVIDED:11,489SF
(5)PLAN2532X83SF=415SF
-(5)PLAN2532XX166SF=830SF
-(32)PLAN1633X107SF=3,424SF
-(31)PLAN1637X220SF=6,820SF
COMMONOPENSPACEPROVIDED:16,000SF
TOTALOPENSPACEPROVIDED:27,489SF

Page 933 of 2604 ends

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
A
MA
YA
D
R

LAKEVIEW DR

BROADMOOR PL

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "B"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"
E
"
T
T
PVT. DRIVE "D"

JERICHO RD
PVT PVT. DRIVE "C"
. DRIVE "C"
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
B
L
D
G
#
7 BLDG #1
P=652.2
P=651.3
P=651.3 P=649.0
P
=646.3
P=652.2 P=651.2
P=651.7
P=650.3
P=650.3
P=648.0 P=646.4
P
=64

5.3 BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9
FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF=64

7.0 FF=646.0
FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7
FF=648.7
FF=647.1
P
=64

4.8 FF=64

5.5 PVT. DRIVE "A"
11 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
JERICHO ROAD RMB24061
7 ACCESSIBILE ROUTE
LEGEND

PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE UNIT

Page 934 of 2604 ends

A
MA
YA
D
R

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

JERICHO RD
PVT. DRIVE "A"
PVT. DRIVE "B"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"
E
"
PVT. DRIVE "D"
PVT. DRIVE "C" PVT. DRIVE "C"
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
B
L
D
G
#
7 BLDG #1
P=652.2
P=651.3
P=651.3 P=649.0
P
=
6 4

6.3 P=652.2
P=651.2
P=651.7
P=650.3
P=650.3
P=648.0 P=646.4
P
=
6 4

5.3 BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9
FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF=
6 4

7.0 FF=
6 4

6.0 FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7
FF=648.7
FF=647.1
P
=
6 4

4.8 FF=
6 4

5.5 11
OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
JERICHO ROAD RMB24061
8 EAVE SETBACK DIMENSIONS
LEGEND
NOTE:

Page 935 of 2604 ends

Page 936 of 2604 ends

Page 937 of 2604 ends

11 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

JERICHO ROAD
RMB24061
JERICHO ROAD RMB24061
11 BOUNDARIES AND ENCUMBRANCES
’
’
’
’ ”
’
’
’
’
’ ’
’ ’

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

TITLE REFERENCE

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER

TITLE EXCEPTIONS
—

Page 938 of 2604 ends

T T BLDG #2 BLDG #3 BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7 BLDG #1 BLDG #9 BLDG #8
BENCH BENCH BENCH JERICHO RD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 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 9OF 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 NOTES: - 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. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT 8/15/24 SIGNATURE DATE REGISTRATION 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: 16,000 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. Page 939 of 2604 X X X

BROADMOOR DR JERICHO RD T T M M M M M MW MW
BF
BF
BF
BF BF
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 )) )) )) )) ))
)) )) ))
))
3 %/'* ))
3 %/'* %/'*
%/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 ))
3
)) 3 )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 BENCH BENCH BENCH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 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 37'-8" 20'-3" 22'-9" 27'-9" 42'-3" SS SYM. QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS TREES 5 PARKINSONIA X 'DESERT MUSEUM' DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 24" BOX L 12 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L COLUMNAR 45 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS 'STRICTA' COLUMNAR ITALIAN CYPRESS 15 GAL L 35 PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE 15 GAL M COMMON AREAS / ACCENT ( 24" BOX, MAX SPREAD 20` / MAX H 2 CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 24" BOX L COURTYARD TREES ( 24" BOX, MAX SPREAD 16`/MAX HT 20`) 2 CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'ART'S SEEDLESS' ART'S SEEDLESS DESERT WILLOW 24" BOX L 3 RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'MAGNIFICENT' MAGNIFICENT INDIAN HAWTHORN 24" BOX M 1 UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA BAY LAUREL 24" BOX M PALMS 2 SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA QUEEN PALM 12` BTH M SLOPE ( 50% 15 GAL, 50% 24" BOX) 14 ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNK 15 GAL L 14 MELALEUCA LINARIIFOLIA FLAXLEAF PAPERBARK 15 GAL L 5 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 15 GAL L 5 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC MULTI-TRUNK 15 GAL L STREET TREES6 KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA CHINESE FLAME TREE 24" BOX M ACCENT GRASSES 18 CAREX PRAEGRACILIS CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGE 1 GAL M 47 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH 1 GAL L 69 FESTUCA X 'SISKIYOU BLUE' SISKIYOU BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL L 85 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MUHLY GRASS 1 GAL M ACCENT SHRUB9 AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE 5 GAL L 3 ANIGOZANTHOS X 'BUSH GOLD' BUSH GOLD KANGAROO PAW 5 GAL L 3 PHORMIUM X 'DARK DELIGHT' DARK DELIGHT PURPLE FLAX 5 GAL M SHRUB (SMALL, 50% 1 GAL, 50% 5 GAL.) 60 DIANELLA TASMANICA 'VARIEGATA' VARIEGATED FLAX LILY 5 GAL M 138 DIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILY 5 GAL L 5 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA MAT RUSH 5 GAL L SHRUBS - (MEDIUM, 50% 1 GAL, 50% 5 GAL.) 28 BOUGAINVILLEA X 'TEMPLE FIRE' TEMPLE FIRE BOUGAINVILLEA 5 GAL L 49 CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GAL L 16 CARISSA MACROCARPA NATAL PLUM 5 GAL L 22 LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' TEXAS JAPANESE PRIVET 5 GAL M 12 MYRTUS COMMUNIS COMMON MYRTLE 5 GAL L 7 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L SLOPE SHRUBS (50% 1 GAL., 50% 5 GAL.) 22 CISTUS X PURPUREUS ORCHID ROCKROSE 5 GAL L 16 LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA 5 GAL L 7 RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRY 5 GAL L VINES 22 DOLICHANDRA UNGUIS-CATI CAT'S CLAW CREEPER 5 GAL SYM. QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS SPACING GROUND COVERS2,749 SF ARTIFICIAL TURF ARTIFICIAL TURF FLAT 7,733 BACCHARIS PILULARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH FLAT L 12" o.c. 2,819 SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKS FLAT L 24" o.c. S*pd CMLMLMRH1 PLANT SCHEDULE 2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 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. DESIGN INTENT STATEMENT 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 NOTES: - 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. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT 10/24/24 SIGNATURE DATE REGISTRATION NO. 3503 EXP: 02-2025 TOT LOT AMENITY AREA: SEE SHEET L-2 COURTYARD AMENITY AREA: SEE SHEET L-2 COLUMNAR TREE/SHRUB TO ACCENT ARCHITECTURE, TYP. ENHANCED PAVING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, TYP. ENHANCED PAVING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, TYP. COLUMNAR TREE/SHRUB TO ACCENT ARCHITECTURE, TYP. BOCCE COURT W/ GATHERING AREA 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: 16,000 SF TOTAL SITE DISTANCE TRIANGLES PROPOSED MAILBOX & USPS PARKING STALL RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER PEDESTRIAN WALK, TYP. PEDESTRIAN WALK, TYP. PEDESTRIAN WALK, TYP. PEDESTRIAN WALK, TYP. PEDESTRIAN WALK, TYP. PEDESTRIAN WALK, TYP. RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER *ALL PLANTING IS CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PLANT SELECTION AND QUANTITIES TO BE FINALIZED DURING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE* /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 3/$17,1*3/$1 -(5,&+2 BIKE STORAGE AREA BIKE STORAGE AREA DENOTES DISTANCE BETWEEN STREET TREES, TYP. 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. AMENITY AREAS AT ENTRY: SEE SHEET L-2 (6) STREET TREES *STREET TREES TO BE ON SITE AS EXISTING R.O.W DOES NOT ALLOW FOR TREES TO BE PLANTED* Page 940 of 2604 X X X %/'* X X X X X X X X X X X X L L L L L L L L L L LL L L ** * ** CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CMCMSS T MW MW X ************ *********** **** LM LM LM LM LM LM LMLM RH RH RH RH RH RH RH LM LM LM LMLM LM LM LM * * * * * * * ** T X X X X X X X X ******** pd pd pd 1 1 1 1 1 MW MW 2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 (1/$5*(M(176 AMENITY AREA AT ENTRY COURTYARD AMENITY AREA TOT LOT AMENITY AREA PLANTER AREA, TYP. TURF OPEN SPACE AREA BBQ COUNTER W/ OVERHEAD AND GATHERING SPACE ACCENT TREE, TYP. PLANTER AREA, TYP. FIRE FEATURE & GATHERING SPACE AT ENTRY PEDESTRIAN WALK, TYP. TURF AREA, TYP. PALMS TO FRAME ENTRY INTO AMENITY COURTYARD PLANTER AREA, TYP. PLANTER AREA, TYP. COLUMNAR TREE/SHRUB TO ACCENT ARCHITECTURE, TYP. GATHERING SPACE WITH WATER FEATURE PEDESTRIAN WALK W/ DECORATIVE CONCRETE BANDING, TYP. CONCRETE MOW CURB AT TURF AREA, TYP. CANOPY TREES, TYP. MULTI-AGE TOT LOT EQUIPMENT DOUBLE BBQ COUNTER & GATHERING AREA TURF OPEN SPACE AREA PLANTER AREA, TYP. ACCENT TREE, TYP. CANOPY TREE, TYP. 42" HT TUBULAR STEEL FENCING TO HELP SCREEN TOT LOT AREA DECORATIVE PANELS TO ACCENT AREA ENTRY MONUMENT WALL STREET TREES (6) TOTAL HATCH DELINEATES PLANTING SPECIFIED FOR PARKING AREAS PARKING PLANTING AREA 6" CURB TO PROVIDE SEPARATION BETWEEN LANDSCAPING AND PARKING PAVEMENT PEDESTRIAN WALK TREE DOUBLE STAKING DETAIL LEGEND 2341 TREE TRUNK SEE TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS VINYL TREE TIE (4 REQUIRED) (2) 2" DIA. x 10' LODGE POLE PINE STAKES. TIE TREE TRUNK 6" ABOVE BENDING MOMENT OF TREE. TIE SHOULD PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY OF TRUNK, BUT NOT ALLOW RUBBING OF TRUNK AGAINST STAKE. CUT STAKES OFF 6" ABOVE TIES. FINISHED GRADE 4" HIGH WATERING BASIN (IF REQUIRED) INSTALL ARBOR GUARD AT THE BASE OF TREE IF IN LAWN AREA PLANT TABLET, SEE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR QUANTITY PLAN SECTION 567 1235 476 4 1 3 8 8 A TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL LEGEND 2341 ROOTBALL CROWN 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE AT SLOPE BACKFILL MIX, SEE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS PLANT TABLETS, SEE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR QUANTITY FINISH SURFACE OF PAVED AREA 4" HIGH WATERING BASIN (IF REQUIRED) 3"-4" LAYER OF 2"-MINUS SHREDDED ORGANIC BARK MULCH NOTE: WHERE TREES ARE PLANTED IN TURF AREAS, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TURF A MIN. OF 12" DIA. AT THE BASE OF THE TREE. INSTALL AN ARBOR GUARD AT THE BASE OF THE TRUNK. 56789 7 8 5 6 2 1 9 3 4 B GROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL LEGEND 2341 PREPARED SOIL FINISHED GRADE CONCRETE CURB OR HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AS INDICATED ON PLAN CONCRETE MOW STRIP OR HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AS INDICATED ON PLAN PLANT PER PLANT FULL O.C. PER PLANT LEGEND 12 x O.C. SPACING PER PLANT LEGEND AT EDGE OF PLANTING AREA PLANTING TABLET, SEE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR QUANTITY 3"-4" LAYER OF 2"-MINUS SHREDDED ORGANIC BARK MULCH SECTION PLAN 2" 56789 3 1 8 5 2 9 4 3 5 4 3 6 7 6 7 6 C ROOT BARRIER DETAIL LEGEND 2341 CONCRETE SIDE WALK OR HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AS INDICATED ON PLAN DEEPROOT #UB24-2 (OR APPROVED EQUAL) INSTALL IN 10' LENGTHS, TYP. SUBGRADE PLANTS PER PLAN CONCRETE CURB OR HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AS INDICATED ON PLAN NOTE: ALL TREES WITH 10' OF ANY WALK, CURB, DRIVE, BUILDING, UTILITY OR HARDSCAPE ELEMENT SHALL RECEIVE 10' OF ROOT BARRIER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT SPECIFICATION FOR EQUAL TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND CLIENT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHAING MATERIALS 5' 5' OF TREE CL 1 2425 123 SECTION PLAN 5 D HATCH DELINEATES PARKING AREA PARKING LOT AREA = 1642 SQFT 10% OF AREA (REQUIRED) = 164 SQFT LANDSCAPING PROVIDED = 169SQFT Page 941 of 2604 3 )) %/'* ))
3
X X X X X X X X X LLLLLLLL CMCMCMCMCMCMCMMMM MM M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M M M M M ********** ******** ******** ********* SYM. QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS TREES 5 PARKINSONIA X 'DESERT MUSEUM' DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 24" BOX L 12 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L COLUMNAR 45 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS 'STRICTA' COLUMNAR ITALIAN CYPRESS 15 GAL L 35 PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE 15 GAL M COMMON AREAS / ACCENT ( 24" BOX, MAX SPREAD 20` / MAX H 2 CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 24" BOX L COURTYARD TREES ( 24" BOX, MAX SPREAD 16`/MAX HT 20`) 2 CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'ART'S SEEDLESS' ART'S SEEDLESS DESERT WILLOW 24" BOX L 3 RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'MAGNIFICENT' MAGNIFICENT INDIAN HAWTHORN 24" BOX M 1 UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA BAY LAUREL 24" BOX M PALMS 2 SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA QUEEN PALM 12` BTH M SLOPE ( 50% 15 GAL, 50% 24" BOX) 14 ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNK 15 GAL L 14 MELALEUCA LINARIIFOLIA FLAXLEAF PAPERBARK 15 GAL L 5 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 15 GAL L 5 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC MULTI-TRUNK 15 GAL L STREET TREES6 KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA CHINESE FLAME TREE 24" BOX M ACCENT GRASSES 18 CAREX PRAEGRACILIS CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGE 1 GAL M 47 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH 1 GAL L 69 FESTUCA X 'SISKIYOU BLUE' SISKIYOU BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL L 85 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MUHLY GRASS 1 GAL M ACCENT SHRUB9 AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE 5 GAL L 3 ANIGOZANTHOS X 'BUSH GOLD' BUSH GOLD KANGAROO PAW 5 GAL L 3 PHORMIUM X 'DARK DELIGHT' DARK DELIGHT PURPLE FLAX 5 GAL M SHRUB (SMALL, 50% 1 GAL, 50% 5 GAL.) 60 DIANELLA TASMANICA 'VARIEGATA' VARIEGATED FLAX LILY 5 GAL M 138 DIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILY 5 GAL L 5 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA MAT RUSH 5 GAL L SHRUBS - (MEDIUM, 50% 1 GAL, 50% 5 GAL.) 28 BOUGAINVILLEA X 'TEMPLE FIRE' TEMPLE FIRE BOUGAINVILLEA 5 GAL L 49 CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GAL L 16 CARISSA MACROCARPA NATAL PLUM 5 GAL L 22 LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' TEXAS JAPANESE PRIVET 5 GAL M 12 MYRTUS COMMUNIS COMMON MYRTLE 5 GAL L 7 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L SLOPE SHRUBS (50% 1 GAL., 50% 5 GAL.) 22 CISTUS X PURPUREUS ORCHID ROCKROSE 5 GAL L 16 LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA 5 GAL L 7 RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRY 5 GAL L VINES 22 DOLICHANDRA UNGUIS-CATI CAT'S CLAW CREEPER 5 GAL SYM. QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS SPACING GROUND COVERS2,749 SF ARTIFICIAL TURF ARTIFICIAL TURF FLAT 7,733 BACCHARIS PILULARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH FLAT L 12" o.c. 2,819 SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKS FLAT L 24" o.c. 21,284 SF GROUNDCOVER 726 SF SLOPE PLANTING S*pd CMLMLMRH1 PLANT SCHEDULE BF M BENCH BENCH BENCH X RH RH RH RH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMRHRH RHRH RHRH LM LM LM LMLM LM LMLM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -(5,&+2 2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 TYPICAL BUILDING PLANTING /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 (1/$5*(M(176 SHRUB PLANTING TO SOFTEN ARCHITECTURE, TYP. PLANTING TO HELP SCREEN AND SOFTEN RETAINING WALL, TYP. TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING TO SOFTEN ARCHITECTURE RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER SHRUB PLANTING TO SOFTEN ARCHITECTURE AT ENTRIES, TYP. TYPICAL WALL PLANTING ELEVATION VINE PLANTING DETAIL LEGEND 2341 VINE ATTACHED TO TRELLIS W/ VINYL PLANT TIES NURSERY STAKES TO BE REMOVED BUILDING SURFACE CROWN - 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE 4" HIGH WATERING BASIN (IF REQUIRED) PLANT TABLETS FINISH GRADE BACKFILL MIX (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL ROOTBALL NOTE: ALTERNATE METHOD OF ATTACHMENT, VINE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO SURFACE OF FREESTANDING MASONRY WALLS W/ CLEAR EPOXY VINE TIES, DO NOT ATTACH VINES TO BUILDING VINES W/ NURSERY ESPALIER STAKE TO BE MOVED OUT OF ROOTBALL AND INSTALLED 6" FROM BUILDING TOP OF WATERING BASING TO BE MIN. 6" BELOW FINISHED FLOOR OF BUILDING 1234 5 6 7 10 2xROOTBALL DIAMETER 9 8 5678910 E RETAINING WALL PLANTING AT HIGHEST EXPOSED PORTION OF WALL BUILDING 6 PLAN VIEW OF PLANTING AT PERIMETER RETAINING WALL A4 A4 A4 A4 Page 942 of 2604 X X X

BROADMOOR DR JERICHO RD T T M M M M M MW MW
BF
BF
BF
BF BF
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 )) )) )) )) ))
)) )) ))
))
3 %/'* ))
3 %/'* %/'*
%/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 ))
3
)) 3 )) 3 )) 3 )) 3

BENCH BENCH BENCH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 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 MPRMVFSFZ E C SS 37'-8" 20'-3" 22'-9" 27'-9" 42'-3" RH RH RH RH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMRHRH RHRH RHRH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMLM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION PSI HUNTER RZWS-SLEEVE-18-CV 18" LONG RZWS WITH FILTER FABRIC SLEEVE, .25GPM OR .50GPM BUBBLER OPTIONS, CHECK VALVE, 1/2" SWING JOINT FOR CONNECTION TO 1/2" PIPE SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION HUNTER ICZ-101-40 (DRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT) 1" ICV GLOBE VALVE W/ 1" HY100 FILTER SYSTEM. PRESSURE REG.: 40PSI. FLOW: 2-20 GPM. USE ICZ-101-LF-40 FOR LESS THAN 2 GPM. INSTALL ONE VALVE PER JUMBO RECT. VALVE BOX W/ LOCKING GREEN COVER AND `RCV` HEAT BRANDED ON COVER. VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN MANIFOLDS ISOLATED FROM THE MAINLINE BY A BALL VALVE, LINE SIZE. HUNTER ICZ-151-40 (DRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT) 1-1/2" ICV GLOBE VALVE W/ 1" HY100 FILTER SYSTEM. PRESSURE REG.: 40PSI. FLOW: 20-60 GPM. INSTALL ONE VALVE PER JUMBO RECT. VALVE BOX W/ LOCKING GREEN COVER AND `RCV` HEAT BRANDED ON COVER. VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN MANIFOLDS ISOLATED FROM THE MAINLINE BY A BALL VALVE, LINE SIZE. PIPE TRANSITION POINT ABOVE GRADE PIPE TRANSITION POINT FROM PVC LATERAL TO DRIP TUBING WITH RISER TO ABOVE GRADE INSTALLATION. FLUSH VALVE PROVIDE A PLD-LOC CAP AT END OF DRIP DISCHARGE HEADER, INSTALL FLUSH VALVE INSIDE A SEPARATE VALVE BOX, ONE AT EACH END OF THE TUBING RUNS IN EACH DIRECTION, INSTALL 18" FROM PAVING. ALSO PROVIDE ECO-INDICATOR ALONG EXHAUST MANIFOLD OF EACH DRIP IRRIGATION END LINE, CONNECT TO PVC EXHAUST LATERAL WITH TEE AND USE SWING JOINT HUNTER PLD-AVR (DRIP AIR RELIEF VALVE) AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE, PLD-AVR, INSTALLED WITH A COMBINATION TEE. INSTALL AIR RELIEF ASSEMBLY INSIDE A 6" ROUND VALVE BOX AT THE HIGH POINT OF EACH PLANTER, MULTIPLE ARV`S SHALL BE REQUIRED PER RCV, VERIFY QUANTITY PRIOR TO STARTING WORK, INSTALL VALVE BOX 18" FROM PAVING AND AT HIGH POINT OF PLANTER AREA AREA TO RECEIVE DRIPLINE HUNTER HDL-04-12-CV HDL-04-12-CV: HUNTER DRIPLINE W/ 0.4 GPH EMITTERS AT 12" O.C. CHECK VALVE, DARK BROWN TUBING WITH TAN STRIPING. DRIPLINE LATERALS SPACED AT 16" APART, WITH EMITTERS OFFSET FOR TRIANGULAR PATTERN. INSTALL WITH HUNTER PLD BARBED OR PLD-LOC FITTINGS. ALL TUBING SHALL BE INSTALLED 3" BELOW MULCH GRADE W/ 9" WIRE STAKES FIVE (5) FEET ON CENTER; VERIFY THE LAYOUT AND SPACING IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO STARTING WORK SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION HUNTER ICV-G-FS-AS-ADJ (RCV) 1", 1-1/2", 2", AND 3" PLASTIC ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVES, GLOBE CONFIGURATION, WITH NPT THREADED INLET/OUTLET, WITH FILTER SENTRY. INSTALL ONE VALVE PER STD. RECT. VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING GREEN COVER AND `RCV` HEAT BRANDED ON COVER. VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN MANIFOLDS ISOLATED FROM THE MAINLINE BY A BALL VALVE LINE SIZE. HUNTER HQ-44LRC (QCV) QUICK COUPLER VALVE, YELLOW RUBBER LOCKING COVER, RED BRASS AND STAINLESS STEEL, WITH 1" NPT INLET, 2-PIECE BODY. INSTALL IN A 10" ROUND VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING GREEN COVER HEAT BRANDED WITH 'QCV'. INSTALL EACH QCV ON A 1 1/2" STUB-OUT OFF MAINLINE ISOLATED WITH A 1 1/2" BALL VALVE AND INSTALLED AT 200` O.C LASCO FITTINGS TUBV-SC (BALL VALVE) 1", 1-1/2", 2", AND 3" PLASTIC FULL BLOCK TRUE UNION BALL VALVE. SHUT OFF/ISOLATION VALVE TO ELIMINATE WATER HAMMER. INSTALL SAME SIZE AS MAINLINE. INSTALL IN VALVE BOX WITH GREEN LID, HEAT BRAND LID WITH "BV". HUNTER IBV-FS (MASTER VALVE) 1", 1-1/2", 2", AND 3" BRASS ELECTRIC MASTER VALVE, GLOBE CONFIGURATION, WITH NPT THREADED INLET/OUTLET, FOR COMMERCIAL/MUNICIPAL USE. WITH FILTER SENTRY FACTORY INSTALLED OPTION. INSTALL IN A `JUMBO` SIZED VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING GREEN COVER AND `MV` HEAT BRANDED ON COVER. ZURN 975XL (BACKFLOW) REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE W/ MODEL `YBP` WYE STRAINER. ALL PIPING BETWEEN METER AND BACKFLOW DEVICE SHALL BE `K` COPPER OR RED BRASS. INSTALL IN A VIT STRONGBOX STAINLESS STEEL BACKFLOW ENCLOSURE #SBBC-XXSS, SIZED TO FIT BACKFLOW. ITS CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY IRRIGATION CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY IN STAINLESS STEEL ENCLOSURE, SEE TABLES FOR MODEL AND STATION COUNT. CONTROLLER SHALL HAVE A DESIGNATED RECTANGULAR PULL BOX INSTALLED AT PEDESTAL BASE. CONTACT DARYL GREEN AT IMPERIAL TECHNICAL SERVICES (ITS) PHONE: (949) 584-7311 HUNTER SOLAR-SYNC SOLAR, RAIN FREEZE SENSOR WITH OUTDOOR INTERFACE, INSTALL AS NOTED. WIRED. FLOMEC QS200-15 (FLOW SENSOR PROVIDED BY ITS) 1-1/2" INSERTION ULTRASONIC FLOWMETER, SCH. 80 PVC HOUSING, IS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY. 0.55-82 GPM RANGE, MAX. PRESSURE 150 PSI. 2-WIRE CONNECTOR W/ LED INDICATORS FOR POWER AND PULSE. WIRE TO CONTROLLER USING P7171D CABLE IN 1" CONDUIT, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER`S RECOMMENDATIONS. MULTIPLE FLOW SENSORS REQUIRE SEPARATE CONDUIT RUNS. EZ-FLO FERTILIZING SYSTEMS EZ010-FX ONE SYSTEM FEEDS ALL ZONES, DRIP OR SPRINKLER. INSTALL DIRECTLY IN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAIN LINE AFTER THE BACK FLOW PREVENTER. COUPLING CONNECTION PER MAINLINE SIZE, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER`S RECOMMENDATIONS IN CARSON #1730-24 HDPE SUPER JUMBO RECTANGULAR XL VALVE BOX. CONTRACTOR TO FILL TANK WITH #GRM 102030 AT BEGINNING OF PLANT INSTALLATION AND SHALL PROVIDE A FULL TANK UPON MAINTENANCE TURNOVER. TANK CAPACITY: 9.4 G 2-WIRE CONTROL WIRE HUNTER IDWIRE1-BLU IRRIGATION CONTROL CABLE. RED AND BLUE 14 AWG TWISTED PAIR IN BLUE JACKET (U.L. APPROVED), PAIGE #170801BU. CONNECT WITH APPROVED WATERPROOF CONNECTORS AND INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. ROUTE WIRES TO EACH VALVE MANIFOLD AND PROVIDE SEPARATE 1 1/4" CONDUIT FOR WIRE ADJACENT TO MAINLINE. FOR SERVICEABILITY, DO NOT INTERCONNECT INDIVIDUAL CABLE PATHS. TERMINATE EACH PATH ON CONTROLLER TERMINAL BLOCK. INSTALL GROUNDING PLATE OR 8` GROUNDING ROD WITH HUNTER DUAL-S SURGE ARRESTOR. INSTALL AT CONTROLLER AND AT THE END OF EACH 2-WIRE PATH PERPENDICULAR TO PATH IN 6" ROUND BOX. COPPER WIRE SHALL BE CAD WELDED TO PLATE OR ROD. GROUND EVERY 12TH DECODER OR EVERY 1,000 FEET FROM CONTROLLER, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. INSTALL PER ASIC GENERAL GROUNDING GUIDELINES. INSTALL ICD-XXX DECODER WITH SURGE SUPPRESSION AND GROUND WIRE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DECODER SIZE NECESSARY TO HANDLE VALVES AT MANIFOLD. 3M DBR/Y-6 PRE-FILLED WIRE CONNECTORS, USE ON ALL WIRE CONNECTIONS IN VALVE OR PULL BOXES ONLY CARSON VALVE BOXES SIZE PER EQUIPMENT LEGEND, WITH T-COVER LIDS AND CAPTIVE BOLT AND LOC-KIT. FOR ROUND DRIP EMITTERS USE MODEL 510, 7" ECONO SHALL BE MODEL 708, 10" ROUND SHALL BE MODEL 910, 12" STANDARD RECT. SHALL BE MODEL 1419, 12" JUMBO RECT. SHALL BE MODEL 1220, SUPER JUMBO SHALL BE MODEL 1324, AND SUPER JUMBO XL SHALL BE MODEL 1730. VALVE BOXES SHALL HAVE GREEN HDPE BODY AND GREEN LIDS IN TURF AND SHRUB BEDS, AND TAN LIDS IN ROCK MULCH. USE PURPLE FOR RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMS. FOR USE IN NON-VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SITUATIONS ONLY. DO NOT INSTALL IN CONCRETE OR ASPHALT. ELECTRICAL SERVICE 120 VOLT ELECTRICAL POWER, PROVIDED BY ELECTRICIAN, VERIFY LOCATION IN THE FIELD. 0.25 0.50 FAMVCSSFSFZ NO SYMBOL NO SYMBOL NO SYMBOL E IRRIGATION SCHEDULE HUNTER SJ SWING JOINTS FOR 1/2" THREADS USE SJ-512, 3/4" THREADS USE SJ-712, 1" THREADS USE LASCO G132-412, 1" QUICK COUPLER VALVES USE LASCO G132S-212 WITH MALE BRASS STABILIZER ELBOW, 3/4" QUICK COUPLER VALVES USE LASCO G132T-212 WITH MALE BRASS STABILIZER ELBOW. PULL BOX PULL BOXES FOR WIRE SPLICES SHALL BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 500` O.C. AND AT THE ENDS OF ALL SLEEVES UNDER PAVING. PULL BOXES SHALL BE 10" ROUND WITH LOCKING LID VALCON 5000 SERIES ANTI DRAIN VALVE USED ON ALL SPRINKLERS WITH LOW HEAD DRAINAGE UNCONTROLLABLE BY FACTORY INTEGRAL SPRINKLER HEAD CHECK VALVE. WILKINS #500-HLR PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE 500-HLR SERIES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE WITH 10 TO 125 PSI SPRING RANGE, SIZE AND PRESSURE SETTING AS NOTED. WILKINS BR-4 PRESSURE REGULATING VALVE TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL LATERAL LINES WHERE SPRINKLER HEADS ARE LOCATED AT AN ELEVATION MORE THAN 50` LOWER THAN THE RCV. SET PRESSURE TO CONTROL PRESSURE DUE TO THIS ELEVATION CHANGE, SIZE PER LATERAL LINE SERVING SYSTEM. INSTALL IN A 10" ROUND VALVE BOX BELOW GRADE. CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL SUCH PRV`S IN THE FIELD AND SHOW LOCATIONS ON RECORD DRAWINGS. WATER METER 1-1/2" IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: CRESLINE WEST - PVC SCHEDULE 40 1 1/2" & SMALLER - SCH.40 W/ SCH.40 SOLVENT WELD FITTINGS IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: CRESLINE WEST - PVC CLASS 315 SDR 13.5 2"-3" - CL. 315 W/ SCH.80 SOLVENT WELD FITTINGS, 2 1/2"-3" FITTINGS SHALL BE THRUST BLOCKED IRRIGATION MAINLINE: CRESLINE WEST - PVC SCHEDULE 40 1 1/2" & SMALLER - SCH.40 W/ SCH.40 SOLVENT WELD FITTINGS IRRIGATION MAINLINE: CRESLINE WEST - PVC CLASS 315 SDR 13.5 2"-3" - CL. 315 W/ SCH.80 SOLVENT WELD FITTINGS, 2 1/2"-3" FITTINGS SHALL BE THRUST BLOCKED NO SYMBOL PB NO SYMBOL PR NO SYMBOL M 2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 IRRIGATION NOTES: -MOISTURE SENSING DEVICES AND RAIN SENSOR OVERRIDE SYSTEMS TO BE USED ON SITE IRRIGATION SYSTESMS. - THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED AND ADJUSTED TO AVOID OVERSPRAY, LOW HEAD DRAINAGE, AND RUNOFF INTO NON-IRRIGATED AREAS. -THE SPRINKLER DESIGN UTILIZES MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES WITHIN EACH CIRCUIT AND SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR 100% COVERAGE (SPACING OF HEADS AT 50% OF THE SPRAY DIAMETER). -THE SPRINKLER DESIGN SHALL BE CIRCUITED INTO SEPARATE “HYDROZONES” WHICH SERVICE PLANTS WITH SIMILAR WATER REQUIREMENTS AND WHICH ARE LOCATED IN SIMILAR SOLAR EXPOSURES. -DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IS UTILIZED WHEREVER FEASIBLE. -ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED BELOW GRADE (EXCEPT FOR APPROVED DRIP SYSTEMS) AND SHALL UTILIZE AN AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER WITH DUAL OR MULTIPLE PROGRAMMING AND MULTIPLE START CYCLES. *IRRIGATION PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL IRRIGATION PLANS AND CALCULATIONS TO BE FINALIZED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE* /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 ,55,*$7,213/$1 -(5,&+2 Page 943 of 2604

2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 ,55,*$7,21'(7$,/6 MASTER VALVE DETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS PLASTIC RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWN COVER, USE STAINLESS BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER. BOX TO BE PLACED AT RIGHT ANGLE TO HARDSCAPE EDGE. HEAT BRAND "MV" ONTO LID. MASTER CONTROL VALVE, SEE LEGEND FOR SPEC. 24" WIRE LOOP FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS BRASS CLOSE NIPPLE (3 REQ'D). PVC SCH 80 FEMALE ADAPTER (2 REQ'D) PVC MAINLINE TO FLOW SENSOR, PIPE PER SPECS. BRASS UNION (4) BRICK SUPPORTS LANDSCAPE FABRIC 3 4" ROCK, 2 CUBIC FT. PVC MAINLINE PIPE FROM BACKFLOW PER SPECS. NOTE: - USE 45 DEGREE ELLS TO ACHIEVE MAINLINE DEPTH FROM SUPPLY SIDE OF THE MASTER VALVE ASSEMBLY. ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. 2 3 5678910 13 111213 4 6 5 7 11 6 12 6 9 10 7 8 A REMOTE CONTROL VALVE DETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS LATERAL PLASTIC RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWN COVER, USE STAINLESS BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER. BOX TO BE PLACED AT RIGHT ANGLE TO HARDSCAPE EDGE. HEAT BRAND "RCV" AND CONTROL STATION # ONTO LID. FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS 24" WIRE LOOP VALVE ID TAG SCH. 80 PVC THREADED ELL OR TEE CONTROL VALVE, SEE LEGEND FOR SPECS SCH 80 PVC NIPPLES (TYP)., LENGTH AS REQUIRED (4) BRICK SUPPORTS IRRIGATION MAINLINE OR MANIFOLD SUB-MAIN 3 4" ROCK GRAVEL, 2 CUBIC FEET LANDSCAPE FABRIC SCH. 80 UNION SCH. 80 FEMALE ADAPTER NOTES: - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. - IF MAINLINE OR MANIFOLD SUB-MAIN IS AT VALVE DEPTH, TEE INTO VALVE WITH SCH.80 NIPPLE, LENGTH AS REQUIRED. 2 3 4 7 6 5 5678910 8 91011 14 13 12 11121314 15 15 B BALL VALVE - TRUE UNION DETAIL LEGEND 2341 FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS PLASTIC RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWN COVER, USE STAINLESS BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER. BOX TO BE PLACED AT RIGHT ANGLE TO HARDSCAPE EDGE. HEAT BRAND "BV" ONTO LID. DUAL UNION CONNECTIONS AS PART OF BALL VALVE, THREADED IF SPECIFIED IN LEGEND FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS MAINLINE, DEPTH PER SPECS. (4) BRICK SUPPORTS 3 4" ROCK, 2 CUBIC FT. LANDSCAPE FABRIC PVC SCH 80 FEMALE ADAPTER PVC SCH 80 THREADED NIPPLE FLOW NOTES: - BOX TO BE INSTALLED TO ALLOW FOR PROPER OPERATION OF BALL VALVE HANDLE. - INSTALL AT RIGHT ANGLE TO HARDSCAPE EDGE. - INSTALL VALVE BOX EXTENSIONS AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PROPER VALVE INSTALLATION AT MAINLINE DEPTH. - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS SHALL HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. 1 2 3 5 4 5 6 6 8 7 78910 9 10 10 9 C VALVE MANIFOLD INSTALLATION DETAIL LEGEND 2341 IRRIGATION MAINLINE INSTALLED 18" OFF HARDSCAPE EDGE QUICK COUPLER VALVE ON SWING JOINT IN ROUND VALVE BOX HARDSCAPE EDGE SCH. 80 PVC UNION BALL TYPE ISOLATION VALVE, IF SPECIFIED SCH. 80 PVC TEE, SxSxS MAINLINE X MANIFOLD SIZE SCH. 80 PVC TEE, SxSxS, SIZE PER LARGEST VALVE MINIMUM 12" SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL VALVE BOXES IRRIGATION SUB-MAINLINE, SIZE PER LARGEST VALVE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE LATERAL LINE TO SPRINKLERS NOTE: - IF MANIFOLD SUB-MAIN IS AT VALVE DEPTH, TEE INTO VALVE WITH SCH.80 NIPPLE, LENGTH AS REQUIRED. - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE 1245 5 548 67 10 8 411 9 9 10 63 11 7 D B B B NOTES: - INSTALLATION MUST CONFORM TO LOCAL CODES - CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE BACKFLOW CERTIFICATION. - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. - ALL BRASS OR COPPER BELOW GRADE SHALL HAVE AWWA C209 APPROVED PIPE TAPE. BACKFLOW DEVICE WITH PRESSURE REGULATORDETAIL LEGEND 2341 REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW PREVENTER, PER LEGEND WYE STRAINER BRASS NIPPLES (LENGTH AS REQ.) FINISHED GRADE SCH.80 PVC FEMALE ADAPTER. PVC PRESSURE SUPPLY LINE, SEE SPECIFICATIONS. 12"X12"X12" CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS BRASS TXT ELL, LINE SIZE COPPER SXT ELL, LINE SIZE TYPE 'K' COPPER TUBING FROM WATER METER. V.I.T. STRONGBOX QP-30BF QUICK PAD, IF ENCLOSURE IS SPECIFIED, SET 2" ABOVE GRADE FILL BASE OF QUICKPAD WITH 3 4" ROCK TO TOP OF BASE OF UNIT STAINLESS STEEL ENCLOSURE (IF SPECIFIED) PRESSURE REGULATOR 567891011121314 1 2311 13 1445 10 9 12 8 7 6 E DETAIL LEGEND 2341 FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS EZ-FLO SHUT OFF VALVES PROPORTIONING CAP WITH FEED ADJUSTMENT KNOB AIR VENT VALVE VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING LID 36"Lx24"Wx24"H FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS WATER IN - CONNECT BLACK TUBE TO BLUE CONNECTIONS ON PROPORTIONING CAP AND COUPLING PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE MAIN LINE FROM BACKFLOW (4) BRICK SUPPORTS 3 4" ROCK, 3 CUBIC FEET 14" TUBING CLAMP - GREEN AND BLUE COUPLING TUBING CONNECTIONS EZ BALL VALVE COUPLING CONNECTOR - INSTALL ACCORDING TO WATER FLOW DIRECTION ARROW LANDSCAPE FABRIC EZ-FLO FERTIGATION UNIT PER PLAN PVC MAIN LINE TO VALVE MANIFOLD FERTILIZER OUT - CONNECT CLEAR TUBE TO GREEN CONNECTIONS ON PROPORTIONING CAP AND COUPLING FILL VALVE (DRAIN VALVE INCLUDED BUT NOT SHOWN) 3" 2" MIN. NOTES: - USE 45 DEGREE ELLS TO ACHIEVE MAINLINE DEPTH FROM DISCHARGE SIDE OF ASSEMBLY. - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. - FOLLOW ALL MANUFACTURER DIRECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. - USE ONLY APPROVED FERTIGATION FORMULAS. DO NOT USE ANY PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES OR FUNGICIDES IN UNIT. - USE VALVE BOX EXTENSIONS AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PROPER DEPTH. FLOW 1 2 3 2 4 5 56 7 8 6 78 9 910 11 10 1112 12 13 15 14 13 1415 16 1617 17 18 18 F FLOW SENSOR DETAIL LEGEND 2341 PVC MAINLINE FROM MASTER VALVE FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS 24" WIRE LOOP PLASTIC RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWN COVER, USE STAINLESS BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER. BOX TO BE PLACED AT RIGHT ANGLE TO HARDSCAPE EDGE. HEAT BRAND "FS" ONTO LID. FLOW SENSOR, SEE LEGEND FOR SPECIFICATION FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS PVC MAINLINE TO RCV'S (4) BRICK SUPPORTS 3 4" ROCK, 2 CUBIC FEET LANDSCAPE FABRIC 1" ELECTRICAL CONDUIT TO CONTROLLER FLOW NOTES: - NO FITTINGS 10x PIPE O.D. UPSTREAM OF SENSOR, NO FITTINGS 5x PIPE O.D. DOWNSTREAM OF SENSOR. - INSTALL FLOW SENSOR PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, ROUTE WIRES THROUGH CONDUIT TO IRRIGATION CONTROLLER. - USE 45 DEGREE ELLS TO ACHIEVE MAINLINE DEPTH ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE FLOW SENSOR. FLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5678910 11 10 9 11 G DECODER - FLOW SENSOR CONNECTIONDETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 WIRE FROM SENSOR DECODER TO GROUNDING ROD USING CAD WELD (1 OF 2) GROUNDING ROD PER ASIC SPECIFICATIONS SENSOR DECODER PER LEGEND COMMUNICATION CABLE PER LEGEND TO/FROM DEVICES (FIELD DECODER, SENSOR DECODER, OR CONTROLLER) WIRE FROM SENSOR DECODER TO FLOW SENSOR WATERPROOF CONNECTION PER LEGEND (1 OF 4) FLOW SENSOR PER LEGEND AND DETAILS SEE FLOW SENSOR DETAIL FOR INSTALLATION METHOD NOTES: - SEE FLOW SENSOR DETAIL AND LEGEND FOR FLOW SENSOR INSTALLATION METHODS AND MATERIALS. - SECONDARY WIRE RUN BETWEEN SENSOR DECODER AND FLOW METER NOT TO EXCEED 150' WITH 14 GAUGE WIRE. - PLACE 5' OF EXTRA WIRE IN VALVE BOX FOR SERVICING. - INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. WIRE SPLICE STEPS 1. STRIP WIRES 12" TO 5 8". USING LINEMANS PLIERS OR OTHER STYLE TOOL, TWIST ENDS TOGETHER MIN 3 TIMES. INSERT INTO SCOTCHLOK ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR AND ROTATE CLOCKWISE UNTIL ADDITIONAL FORCE IS REQUIRED. 2. INSERT THE SPLICE INTO THE GEL-FILLED INSULATOR TUBE. PUSH PAST THE LOCKING FINGERS TO HOLD THE SCOTHLOK CONNECTOR IN PLACE. 3. POSITION WIRE CHANNELS AND SNAP INSULATOR TUBE COVER CLOSED. 2 3 4 5 6 567 7 8 8 H SOLAR SYNC MOUNTED TO EAVE DETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 EAVE OF BUILDING PLASTIC TIE DOWN STRAP SENSOR, SEE LEGEND FOR SPECS MOUNTING BRACKET, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS IF WIRED MODEL IS SPECIFIED, PROVIDE WIRE BACK TO CONTROLLER SECURE WIRE WITH CABLE TIE BRACKET, 3' O.C. MIN. 2345 5 6 6NOTE: - MOUNT SENSOR PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS - MOUNT SENSOR IN A LOCATION WITH EXPOSURE TO THE SUN AND RAINFALL WHICH IS UNOBSTRUCTED I DRIPLINE PROFILE DETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 TEE TOP OF MULCH PRESSURE-COMPENSATING IN-LINE EMITTER TUBING PER LEGEND TIE DOWN STAKE 5 FINISHED GRADE 2 3 4 5 J DRIP LAYOUT - CENTER FEED DETAIL LEGEND 2341 DRIP VALVE ASSEMBLY (SEE LEGEND) DRIP TUBING START CONNECTION PVC SUPPLY HEADER HUNTER ECO INDICATOR DRIP TUBING, PER LEGEND, NOT TO EXCEED 200 LINEAR FEET BETWEEN HEADERS AIR RELIEF VALVE, PER LEGEND, INSTALL AT HIGHEST POINT ON ZONE AREA PERIMETER PERIMETER LATERALS 2" TO 4" FROM EDGE FLUSH VALVE, PER LEGEND, PLUMB TO EXHAUST HEADER PVC EXHAUST HEADER NOTE: - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. 5678910 FF AR I I 123456784991010 N DRIP LAYOUT - MULTIPLE BEDS DETAIL LEGEND 2341 DRIP VALVE ASSEMBLY (SEE LEGEND) DRIP TUBING START CONNECTION PVC SUPPLY HEADER HUNTER ECO INDICATOR DRIP TUBING, PER LEGEND, NOT TO EXCEED 200 LINEAR FEET BETWEEN HEADERS AIR RELIEF VALVE, PER LEGEND, INSTALL AT HIGHEST POINT ON ZONE AREA PERIMETER PERIMETER LATERALS 2" TO 4" FROM EDGE FLUSH VALVE, PER LEGEND, PLUMB TO EXHAUST HEADER NOTE: - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. FFFAR III 1234495 56789 678 L DRIP LAYOUT - ODD CURVES DETAIL LEGEND 2341 DRIP VALVE ASSEMBLY (SEE LEGEND) DRIP TUBING START CONNECTION PVC SUPPLY HEADER HUNTER ECO INDICATOR DRIP TUBING, PER LEGEND, NOT TO EXCEED 200 LINEAR FEET BETWEEN HEADERS AIR RELIEF VALVE, PER LEGEND, INSTALL AT HIGHEST POINT ON ZONE AREA PERIMETER PERIMETER LATERALS 2" TO 4" FROM EDGE FLUSH VALVE, PER LEGEND, PLUMB TO EXHAUST HEADER PVC EXHAUST HEADER BLANK TUBING HEADER CENTERED ON MOUND OR BERM NOTE: - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. 56789 F AR I I 1234 5 6 7 8 4 10 10 11 11 9 M DRIP LAYOUT - END FEED DETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 DRIP VALVE ASSEMBLY (SEE LEGEND) HUNTER ECO INDICATOR PVC SUPPLY HEADER DRIP TUBING START CONNECTION DRIP TUBING, PER LEGEND, NOT TO EXCEED 200 LINEAR FEET BETWEEN HEADERS AIR RELIEF VALVE, PER LEGEND, INSTALL AT HIGHEST POINT ON ZONE AREA PERIMETER PERIMETER LATERALS 2" TO 4" FROM EDGE PVC EXHAUST HEADER FLUSH VALVE, PER LEGEND, PLUMB TO EXHAUST HEADER F NOTE: - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. AR I I 23456789210 5678910 K DRIP VALVE ASSEMBLY WITH BASKET STRAINER DETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS PRESSURE REGULATOR, SEE LEGEND FOR SPECS. BASKET STRAINER, SEE LEGEND FOR SPECS. PLASTIC RECTANGULAR 'JUMBO' VALVE BOX(S) WITH BOLT DOWN COVER, USE STAINLESS BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER. BOX TO BE PLACED AT RIGHT ANGLE TO HARDSCAPE EDGE. HEAT BRAND "RCV" AND CONTROL STATION # ONTO LID. REMOTE CONTROL VALVE, SEE LEGEND FOR SPECS. 24" WIRE LOOP WITH DRI-SPLICE CONNECTORS (1 OF 2) VALVE ID TAG FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS SCH. 80 PVC TxT ELL SCH 80 PVC NIPPLES LENGTH AS REQ., (1 OF 2) (4) BRICK SUPPORTS IRRIGATION MAINLINE OR MANIFOLD SUPPLY 3 4" ROCK, 2 CUBIC FEET LANDSCAPE FABRIC 3" TO DRIP SYSTEM NOTES: - INSTALL VALVE BOX EXTENSIONS AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PROPER VALVE INSTALLATION AT MAIN LINE DEPTH. - ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS TO HAVE TEFLON TAPE OR PASTE. 2 3 4 5 6 56 7 8 78 910 910 11 1112 14 13 12 1314 O TREE ROOT ZONE WATERING SYSTEM DETAIL LEGEND 234 1 1 FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS GRATED CAP FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS HUNTER 0.25 or 0.50 GPM PCB BUBBLER HUNTER HCV CHECK VALVE (OPTIONAL) 3 4" GRAVEL PATENTED STRATA ROOT SYSTEM HUNTER SWING JOINT MODEL #SJ-5XX-X LATERAL PIPE PVC SCH 40 TEE OR EL ROOT INTRUSION BARRIER HUNTER FILTER FABRIC SLEEVE #RZWS SLEEVE 2 3 4 5 56 6 7 7 8 8 910 910 1112 1112 P FINISHED GRADE IN TURF HUNTER ECO INDICATOR - ECOID 1/2" FPT CONNECTION FROM LATERAL LATERAL PIPE PER PLAN SWING JOINT - SJ 5XX FINISHED GRADE IN PLANTER BED ADJACENT MULCH, DEPTH PER PLAN ECO INDICATOR Q Page 944 of 2604

X X X X
BROA

JERICHO RD T T M M M M M MW MW
BF
BF
BF
BF BF
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 )) )) )) )) ))
)) )) ))
))
3 %/'* ))
3 %/'* %/'*
%/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 ))
3
)) 3 )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 BENCH BENCH BENCH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 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 XX 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 RH RH RH RH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMRHRH RHRH RHRH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMLM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FENCING LEGEND 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 42" TUBULAR STEEL FENCING 42" CABLE RAIL FENCING 42" VINYL FENCING RETAINING WALL 2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 )(1&( W$//3/$1 3'-6" CABLE GUARDRAIL ATOP RETAINING WALL
VARIES
3'-6" GALVANIZED STEEL ROUND END POST WITH CABLE ENDER GALVANIZED STEEL SQUARE POST WITH CABLE HOLDERS GALVANIZED STEEL CABLE TENSIONER ADJUSTABLE GALVANIZED STEEL CABLE WIRE ROPE RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER COMBO RETAINING WALL / T.S. FENCE DECORATIVE MASONRY WALL 3'-6" TUBE STEEL FENCING
3'-6" TUBULAR STEEL FENCE TUBULAR STEEL FENCE POST TUBULAR STEEL FENCE PICKET TUBULAR STEEL TOP RAIL TUBULAR STEEL BOTTOM RAIL CONCRETE FOOTING COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOTE: FINISH AND COLOR T.B.D. VINYL FENCING FINISHED GRADE A.C. CONDENSER 3' -6" ADJACENT BUILDING A.C. CONDENSER SCREEN FENCING AND PLANTING FINISHED NOTE: FINISH AND COLOR T.B.D. GRADE 18" - 24" WHERE APPLICABLE A B C D Page 945 of 2604 X X X

BROADMOOR DR JERICHO RD T T M M M M M MW MW
BF
BF
BF
BF BF
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 )) )) )) )) ))
)) )) ))
))
3 %/'* ))
3 %/'* %/'*
%/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 ))
3
)) 3 )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 BENCH BENCH BENCH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 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 RH RH RH RH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMRHRH RHRH RHRH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMLM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 POLE LIGHT BOLLARD LIGHT COACH LIGHT TREE LIGHT CONCEPT LIGHTING LEGEND 2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 LIGHTING NOTES: ALL LIGHTING SHALL BE PERMANENT FIXTURES THAT ARE UL TESTED AND APPROVED. THE DESIGN OF THE LIGHTING SHALL BE DONE SO THAT MAIN ENTRANCES, FOCAL POINTS AND GATHERING AREAS ARE ILLUMINATED TO ENHANCE EACH SPACE. FIXTURES LOCATED ON THE BUILDINGS AND WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE ARE INTENDED TO ILLUMINATE EMERGENCY EGRESS PATHWAYS TO MEET ALL LOCATE CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. LIGHT POLLUTION IS A MAJOR CONCERN AND APPROPRIATE WATTAGES AND ACCESSORIES SUCH AS CUT-OFF SHIELDS WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE LIGHT TRESPASS INTO UNWANTED AREAS. ALL LIGHTING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LA MESA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OTHER APPLICABLE GUIDELINES. BBQ LIGHTS POLE MOUNTED SITE LIGHT SIGNAGE LIGHT POLE MOUNTED SITE LIGHT C:\Users\ccrum\Desktop\8283-A61-03.jpg BUILDING COACH LIGHT TREE UPLIGHT /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 /,*+7,1*3/$1 -(5,&+2 Page 946 of 2604 X X X

BROADMOOR D

JERICHO RD T T M M M M M MW MW
BF
BF
BF
BF BF
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 )) )) )) )) ))
)) )) ))
))
3 %/'* ))
3 %/'* %/'*
%/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* %/'* )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 ))
3
)) 3 )) 3 )) 3 )) 3 BENCH BENCH BENCH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 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 RH RH RH RH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMRHRH RHRH RHRH LM LM LM LMLM LMLM LMLM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2) 35(3$5('%<
6+((7 &,7<2)/$M(6$&$/,)251,$ -(5,&+2 /$1'6&$3(&21&(373/$1 /$1'6&$3(&21&(37 (;,67,1*75((6 DENOTES EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED 33 TOTAL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED Page 947 of 2604

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
A
MA
YA
D
R

LAKEVIEW DR

BROADMOOR PL

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "B"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"
E
"
T
T
M
M
M
M
M
PVT. DRIVE "D"

5.3 BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9
FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF=64

7.0 FF=646.0
FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7
FF=648.7
FF=647.1
P
=64

4.8 FF=64

5.5 PVT. DRIVE "A"
1 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

FIRE TRUCK TURNING EXHIBIT

JERICHO ROAD
1 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT

PROPOSED WATER LINE
PATH

FRONT TIRES

VEHICLE BODY

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
105' PIERCE LADDER TRUCK
LEGEND

Page 948 of 2604 ends

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

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
A
MA
YA
D
R

LAKEVIEW DR

BROADMOOR PL

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "B"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"
E
"
T
T
PVT. DRIVE "D"

5.3 BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9
FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF=64

7.0 FF=646.0
FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7
FF=648.7
FF=647.1
P
=64

4.8 FF=64

5.5 PVT. DRIVE "A"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 63 62 61 60 59 58
64 65
66 67
68 69 70 71 72 73
9 10
16 15 14 13 12 11
3 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

TRASH EXHIBIT

JERICHO ROAD
1 TRASH TRUCK TURNING
PATH

FRONT TIRES

VEHICLE BODY

REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE
LEGEND

Page 949 of 2604 ends

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

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R
A
MA
YA
D
R

LAKEVIEW DR

BROADMOOR PL

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "B"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"
E
"
T
T
PVT. DRIVE "D"

5.3 BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9
FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF=64

7.0 FF=646.0
FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7
FF=648.7
FF=647.1
P
=64

4.8 FF=64

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

TRASH EXHIBIT

JERICHO ROAD
2 BINS PLOTTING LAYOUT
LEGEND

UNIT NUMBER
2 - 64 GAL. WASTE/RECYCLE

PER UNIT

WASTE RECYCLE COMPOST
1 - 32 GAL. COMPOST CART

PER UNIT

Page 950 of 2604 ends

T
R
C
T
R
C
T
R
C

T R C T R C T R C
T R C
T
R
C
3 OF
SHEET
PREPARED BY:

HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

TRASH EXHIBIT

JERICHO ROAD
3 BIN STORAGE DETAIL
LEGEND
2 - 64 GAL. WASTE/RECYCLE

CART PER UNIT
1 - 32 GAL. COMPOST

TRASH BIN

RECYCLE BIN
32"
25"
R
T
25" C COMPOST BIN
20"

CART PER UNIT

BIN STORAGE DETAIL

Page 951 of 2604 ends

Page 952 of 2604 ends

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

Page 953 of 2604 ends

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

Page 954 of 2604 ends

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

Page 955 of 2604 ends

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

Page 956 of 2604 ends

Page 957 of 2604 ends

Page 958 of 2604 ends

Page 959 of 2604 ends

FINAL
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Jericho Road Residential Project
NOVEMBER 2024
Prepared for:

CITY OF LA MESA
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Contact: Laura Traffenstedt
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Vanessa Scheidel

Page 960 of 2604 ends

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Page 961 of 2604 ends

15823 i
NOVEMBER 2024
Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE
Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Overview.....................................................................................................................................1

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................2

1.3 Public Review Process ...........................................................................................................................2

1.4 Initial Study Checklist.............................................................................................................................3 2 Initial Study Checklist...........................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Aesthetics ...............................................................................................................................................9

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 13

2.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 24

2.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 28

2.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 32

2.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 35

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................................ 40

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 45

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................................... 50

2.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 55

2.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 56

2.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 57

2.14 Population and Housing...................................................................................................................... 64

2.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 65

2.16 Recreation............................................................................................................................................ 69

2.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 70

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................... 75

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................................. 77

2.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................. 83

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................... 85 3 References and Preparers................................................................................................................................ 89

3.1 References........................................................................................................................................... 89

3.2 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 93

APPENDICES
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report
B Biological Resources Memorandum

Page 962 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 ii
NOVEMBER 2024
C Built Environment Report
D Cultural Resources Inventory Report
E Geotechnical Evaluation
F Confidential Paleontological Survey
G Drainage Report
H Storm Water Quality Management Plan
I Noise Technical Report
J Traffic Assessment Letter
K Water Report
L Sewer Report
M EDCO Will Serve Letter
N Responses to Comments

FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 95 2 Project Site ........................................................................................................................................................ 97 3 Site Plan............................................................................................................................................................. 99 4 Temporary Noise Barrier Locations................................................................................................................101 TABLES
1 County of San Diego Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................................... 15 2 Construction Scenario Assumptions................................................................................................................ 16 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ..................................................... 18 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions....................................................... 19 5 AERMOD Principal Parameters ........................................................................................................................ 21 6 Construction Activity Health Risk Assessment Results Prior to Mitigation.................................................... 21 7 Construction Activity Health Risk Assessment Results After Mitigation........................................................ 22 8 Total Proposed Project Construction Petroleum Demand.............................................................................. 33 9 Operational Annual Mobile Source Petroleum Demand................................................................................. 34 10 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions............................................................................................. 41 11 Summary of Operational GHG Emissions ........................................................................................................ 42 12 Consistency with City of La Mesa’s General Plan Objectives ......................................................................... 43 13 Consistency with City of La Mesa’s Climate Action Plan Strategies............................................................... 44 14 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels............................................................................... 58 15 Estimated Distances Between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors ......... 59 16 Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase ................................................................................ 60 17 Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results ........................................................................................................ 61 18 School Capacity and Enrollment Data ............................................................................................................. 67

Page 963 of 2604 ends

15823 iii
NOVEMBER 2024
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AB Assembly Bill
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model
API area of potential impact
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Building Energy Efficiency Standards CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of La Mesa
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
County County of San Diego
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
EDCO EDCO Waste and Recycling
GHG greenhouse gas
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HU Hydrologic Unit
HWD Helix Water District
ips inches per second
IS Initial Study
Leq energy equivalent sound level
LOS level of service
MM Mitigation Measure
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MT metric ton
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NRHP National Register of Historic Places

Page 964 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 iv
NOVEMBER 2024
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
O3 ozone
PDF Project Design Feature
PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
project Jericho Road Residential Project
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
sf square feet
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx sulfur oxide
SR State Route
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAL Traffic Assessment Letter
TCR tribal cultural resource
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Page 965 of 2604 ends

15823 1
NOVEMBER 2024
1 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview
The proposed Jericho Road Residential Project (project) includes a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Design Review and Special Permit for a residential development project within a 3.49-acre project site. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Urban Residential (R1) to Multiple Unit Residential (R3).

The project site is located at 9407 Jericho Road in the northeastern area of La Mesa, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 4866701800). The site is located roughly 1 mile east of State Route (SR) 125, and 0.5 miles north of Interstate

8. The project site has been previously disturbed and is developed with the Cavalry Chapel, a surface parking lot, turf area, a playground, ornamental plantings, and associated church facilities/structures. The site has a maintained lawn made of Bermuda grass with eucalyptus trees planted along the site’s perimeter. The project site is surrounded by singlefamily homes to the north and east, and multi-family developments to the south and west.

The proposed project includes demolition of the existing structures on site, and development of up to 73 three-story townhomes on the 3.49-acre site. Of the 73 units proposed, 8 would be designated as moderate-income units. The proposed mix of residential units is consistent with the underlying uses anticipated for the project site and consistent with the provisions allowed under California’s Density Bonus Law. The proposed townhomes would range in size from approximately 1,200 to 1,800 square feet (sf) and include two to four bedrooms.

California Assembly Bill (AB) 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 0.5 miles of a major transit stop. The project site is located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop so parking minimums do not apply; however, the project would include two garage spaces per unit plus approximately 5 guest spaces for a total of 151 parking spaces. All garages would be electric-vehicle-ready. Access to the residential area would be provided via two driveways. The first driveway would replace the existing Calvary Church driveway, aligned with Jericho Road. The second driveway would be aligned with Broadmoor Drive and serve as the west leg of the Jericho Road and Broadmoor Drive intersection.

The project would provide a total of 27,489 sf of open space area, including approximately 11,489 sf of private open space, and approximately 16,000 sf 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 tot lot and passive lawn areas for recreation. The private open space areas would consist of porches and the balconies available to each unit. The site would include approximately 31,136 sf of landscaped area. Bicycle parking would be provided in the common area located near the guest parking stalls. Once operational, the project would be all electric and would include solar panels on all proposed buildings, as required by the City of La Mesa code.

The project does not propose any off-site improvements or modifications. Thus, it is assumed that all study area roadway facilities and intersections would remain the same with the implementation of the project.

Page 966 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 2
NOVEMBER 2024

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The City is the lead California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) agency responsible for the review and approval of the proposed project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study (IS), the City has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA per the California Public Resources Code (PRC) (PRC Section 21000 et seq.). As stated in CEQA Section 21064.5, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an IS has identified all potentially significant effects on the environment can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

This draft IS/MND has been prepared by the City of La Mesa (City) as the lead agency and is in conformance with Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The purpose of the MND and the IS Checklist is to identify any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project and to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to reduce or eliminate any significant or potentially significant effects of the project.

1.3 Public Review Process
In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this IS/MND to contact affected agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project.

In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the project’s possible impacts on the environment. The Draft IS/MND and related documents are available for review on City’s website here: https://www.cityoflamesa.us/1672/Projects-Under-Review.

Comments on the IS/MND may be made in writing before the end of the public review period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider this IS/MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project.

Written comments on the IS/MND should be sent to the following address by October 14, 2024.

City of La Mesa
Community Development Department
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Contact: Laura Traffenstedt
Email: [email protected]
Upon completion of public review, this final version of the MND was prepared. The final version of the MND contains minor revisions/clarifications to the text or in response to the comments received as part of the public review period of the Draft MND. All revisions included in the final version of this MND have been made in tracking mode (strikeout/underline), so that the original and revised text may be compared. Public comments received on the Draft MND, and the City’s responses to comments, are included as part of the final MND as Appendix N. None of the revisions made herein result in changes to the impact significance determinations or proposed mitigation measures of the previously circulated IS/MND.

Page 967 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 3
NOVEMBER 2024

1.4 Initial Study Checklist
Dudek, under the City’s guidance, prepared the IS using Appendix G of the per CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15063– 15065). The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate whether a project would have an adverse impact on the environment. The checklist is found in Chapter 2 of this document. Following the Environmental Checklist, Sections 2.1 through 2.21 include an explanation and discussion of each significance determination made in the checklist for the project.

For this IS/MND, the following four possible responses to each individual environmental issue area are included in the checklist:

Potentially Significant Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact
No Impact
The checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist responses provide the information and analysis necessary to assess relative environmental impacts of the project. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the project.

Page 968 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 2
NOVEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 969 of 2604 ends

15823 3
NOVEMBER 2024
2 Initial Study Checklist

1. Project title:

Jericho Road Residential Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of La Mesa
Community Development Department
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942

3. Contact person and phone number:

Laura Traffenstedt, Associate Planner
619.667.1188

4. Project location:

The project site is at 9407 Jericho Road in the northeastern area of the City of La Mesa, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 486-670-18-00). Refer to Figure 1, Project Location, and Figure 2, Project Site.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

Meritage Homes
5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 310
Irvine, California 92606

6. General plan designation:

The existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Urban Residential. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan designation to Multiple Unit Residential.

7. Zoning:

The existing zoning for the project site is Urban Residential (R1). The project proposes a Rezone to change the existing zoning to Multiple Unit Residential (R3).

8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary):

The proposed Jericho Road Residential Project (project or proposed project) includes a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Design Review and Special Permit for a residential development project within a 3.49-acre project site (Figure 3, Site Plan).

Page 970 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 4
NOVEMBER 2024
The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Urban Residential (R1) to Multiple Unit Residential (R3).

The project site is located at 9407 Jericho Road in the northeastern area of La Mesa, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 486-670-18-00). The site is roughly 1 mile east of SR-125, and 0.5 miles north of Interstate

8. The project site has been previously disturbed and is developed with the Cavalry Chapel, a surface parking lot, turf area, a playground, ornamental plantings, and associated church facilities/structures. The site has a maintained lawn made of Bermuda grass with eucalyptus trees planted along the site’s perimeter. The project site is surrounded by single-family homes to the north and east, and multi-family developments to the south and west.

The proposed project includes development of up to 73 three-story townhomes on the 3.49-acre site. The proposed townhomes would range in size from approximately 1,200 to 1,800 sf and include two to four bedrooms. Of the 73 units proposed, 8 would be designated as moderate-income units. The proposed mix of residential units is consistent with the underlying uses anticipated for the project site and consistent with the provisions allowed under California’s Density Bonus Law. California AB 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 0.5-mile walking distance of a major transit stop. The project site is located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop so parking minimums do not apply; however, the project would include two garage spaces per unit plus approximately 5 guest spaces for a total of 151 parking spaces. Access to the residential area would be provided via two driveways. The first driveway would replace the existing Calvary Church driveway. The second driveway would be aligned with Broadmoor Drive and serve as the west leg of the Jericho Road and Broadmoor Drive intersection.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:

The existing project site has been previously disturbed and is currently developed. The project site is in an urban area of the City surrounded by development, including single-family residential to the north and east, the Serena Vista Apartments to the south, and the Grossmont Village Condos to the west.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Not applicable.

Page 971 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 5
NOVEMBER 2024

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Yes, in compliance with AB 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City, as lead agency, is responsible for conducting government to government consultation with pertinent tribal entities. Currently, the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians are the only tribe who have formally requested consultation with the City.

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians confirmed closure of consultation via email on August 23, 2024.

Additional details are provided in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND.

Page 972 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 6
NOVEMBER 2024
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and
Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise Population and
Housing
Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

Page 973 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 7
NOVEMBER 2024
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Page 974 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 8
NOVEMBER 2024
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. “Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or Threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

Page 975 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 9
NOVEMBER 2024

2.1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-Significant Impact. A scenic vista is typically defined as a public view of highly valued visual and scenic resources such as the ocean and distant mountain ranges, particularly from public vantage points. As discussed in the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the City’s General Plan, major transportation corridors and natural scenic resources such as Mount Helix and Mount Nebo define the geography of the City and surrounding areas. The City has also designated vistas and panoramic views throughout the City providing an overall image of a large portion of the City/outlying region (City of La Mesa 2012a). The City’s General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas near the project vicinity, but the project site is visible from the top of the City’s hills identified as a panoramic view within the City’s General Plan.

However, even with the development of the proposed project, views of the surrounding hillsides and ridgelines are not expected to be substantially obstructed from the panoramic viewing area due to the flat nature of the site, existing developed state of the site, and similar surrounding development. Additionally, the project site is positioned at a significantly lower elevation compared to properties located north and east. Due to the existing topography, the viewsheds of the surrounding single-family homes would not be substantially impaired by the proposed development.

Therefore, due to the relatively flat terrain of the project site and surrounding residential area, low elevation of the project site, and the project site’s location on a currently developed site in an urbanized area, development of the proposed project is not expected to impede views of existing scenic vistas, nor is the project site considered a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Page 976 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 10
NOVEMBER 2024
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less-than-Significant Impact. Scenic highways and routes are a unique component of the circulation system, as they traverse areas of unusual scenic or aesthetic value. The closest officially designated state scenic highway is SR-125. SR-125 extends as a designated state scenic highway from the junction of SR-94 and SR-125 to where SR-125 intersects with Interstate 8. SR-125 is approximately 0.72 miles southwest of the project site; however, the portion officially designated as a state scenic highway begins approximately

0.8 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is approximately 0.47 miles north of the closest portion of Interstate 8 identified as an eligible state scenic highway (Caltrans 2024). Additionally, a portion of SR-94 is also identified as an eligible state scenic highway; however, this eligible segment begins approximately 2.29 miles south of the project site.

The project site is not visible from any segment designated as a state scenic highway or eligible for designation as a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts associated with state scenic highways would be less than significant.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact. PRC Section 21071 (i.e., CEQA) defines an “urbanized area” as a “(a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated citied combined equals at least 100,000 persons.” The City of La Mesa has fewer than 100,000 persons; however, the City of La Mesa is immediately adjacent to the City of San Diego which has a population of over 1.3 million. Therefore, the City of La Mesa is considered to be located within an urbanized area as defined by CEQA.

To ensure that both current and future development within the City is designed and constructed to conform to existing visual character and quality of the surrounding built environment, the City’s Municipal Code includes design standards, specific to each Zoning District, related to building height, parking, landscaping requirements, and other visual considerations. The purpose is to regulate and restrict the uses of buildings and structures, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. The project would be subject to design review by the City and would be required to meet the City’s conditions of approval, which would ensure that proposed structures and landscaping would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

Additionally, development of the project would be consistent with surrounding residential development and would not degrade the existing visual character of the project site and its surroundings. The proposed project would modify the visual landscape of the site by transforming the current developed area, which consists of the Cavalry Chapel, a parking lot, turf area, a playground, and associated church facilities/structures, into 73 three-story townhomes. Building permit records indicate the church and school have existed on the site since 1960 which pre-dates La Mesa’s current Zoning Ordinance. The existing church is considered a legal nonconforming use on the site. Although the proposed multi-family residential uses would differ in land use designation and visual character in comparison to the existing church on-site, and would require City approval of the proposed land use and zoning change from Urban Residential (R1)

Page 977 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 11
NOVEMBER 2024
to Multiple Unit Residential (R3), the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Lighting in the project vicinity is associated with roadway lighting and lighting associated with the existing commercial and residential uses that surround the project site.

Development of the proposed project would result in new sources of light from the residential units, landscaping lighting, security lighting, and internal circulation and pedestrian lighting. Although more light sources are anticipated from the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions, the increase in lighting is not expected to be substantial in comparison to the existing similar residential development surrounding the site. Additionally, all lighting associated with the project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 24.05.020D16, which requires lighting to be designed, installed, and maintained to prevent light spillover onto adjacent properties. Although the proposed project would result in new sources of light in the area, the project site is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing development with existing sources of day and nighttime lighting. The use of energy-efficient, architecturally appropriate fixtures created to alleviate glare and light pollution would be incorporated to minimize and restrict nighttime light pollution and light trespass on adjacent properties in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and the proposed design and development standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to new sources of substantial lighting and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Page 978 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 12
NOVEMBER 2024

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDC 2022). As a result, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses.

No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, nor Farmland of Statewide Importance exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not result in substantial changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site is surrounded entirely by developed land, which is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Surrounding development adjacent to the project site include residential uses. Given the extent of development surrounding the project site, and considering the site was previously developed, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any existing farmland, and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use or designated as land under the Williamson Act, nor is the project site zoned for forest land or timberland production (CDC 2022). As stated in response to Threshold 2.2(a), above, the project site has been previously disturbed and developed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. No impact would occur regarding conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or forest land.

Page 979 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 13
NOVEMBER 2024
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. Please see response to Threshold 2.2(b) above. The project site is currently designated for residential use under both the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and is not zoned for forest land or timberland production (CDC 2022). According to the La Mesa General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element the City of La Mesa does not have designated forest land. Therefore, no impacts would occur regarding forest land.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Please see response to Thresholds 2.2(b) and 2.2(c), above. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is current designated for residential use under both the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and is currently being used as a church. There is no farmland nor forest land on the project site.

2.3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report was prepared for the proposed project in April 2024 and is included as Appendix A to this IS/MND. Findings from Appendix A are summarized throughout this analysis.

Page 980 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 14
NOVEMBER 2024
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. As described in Appendix A to this IS/MND, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB); specifically, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). 1 The federal ozone (O3) maintenance plan, which is part of the SIP, was adopted in 2016. The SIP includes a demonstration that current strategies and tactics will maintain acceptable air quality in the SDAB based on the NAAQS. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated every 3 years (most recently in 2022). The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the CAAQS for O3. The SIP and RAQS rely on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County and the cities in San Diego County, to project future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County of San Diego (County) and the cities in the County as part of the development of their general plans.

If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality. Implementation of the project would result in an increase in housing of 73 residential units. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Urban Residential (R1) to Multiple Unit Residential (R3). As of 2023, the City has a persons per household ratio of 2.35 (DOF 2023). The project’s 73 residential dwelling units would generate approximately 172 residents. Although not all residents of the project would be new to the City, residential development would be considered unplanned growth. Development of multi-family residential uses at the project site was not accounted for in the City’s General Plan growth projections since the existing planned land use designation is Urban Residential (7 to 10 dwelling units per acre). However, the increase of 172 residents would account for a 0.2845% increase in the City’s population. Therefore, the new residents would not be considered a substantial increase in the City’s population.

The most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment from SANDAG stated that La Mesa needs to build 3,797 units from 2021 through 2029 (SANDAG 2020). The City has a projected deficit of 859 very-low and 487 low income units, and 577 moderate and 1,874 above-moderate income units (SANDAG 2020). The project is expected to bring 73 units to market in 2027, which would be within SANDAG’s growth projection for housing during the 6th Cycle planning horizon (i.e., April 2021 to April 2029). Therefore, the project would not conflict with SANDAG’s regional growth forecast for the City.

The increase in the housing units and associated vehicle source emissions is not anticipated to result in air quality impacts that were not envisioned in the growth projections and RAQS, and this minor increase in residential units in the region would not obstruct or impede implementation of local air quality plans.

Based on the analysis above, implementation of the project would not result in development in excess of 1 For the purpose of this discussion, because the 2020 Attainment Plan has not yet been adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the California SIP for attaining the O3 NAAQS, the relevant federal air quality plan is the O3 maintenance plan. The RAQS is the applicable plan for purposes of state air quality planning. Both plans reflect growth projections in the SDAB (Appendix A).

Page 981 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 15
NOVEMBER 2024
that anticipated in local plans or increases in population/housing growth beyond those contemplated by SANDAG. As such, vehicle trip generation and planned development for the project are considered to be anticipated in the SIP and RAQS. Because the proposed land uses and associated vehicle trips are anticipated in local air quality plans, the project would be consistent at a regional level with the underlying growth forecasts in the RAQS. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less-than-Significant Impact. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SDAPCD develops and implements plans for future attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether the project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or pollution control district may be relied upon to determine whether the project would have a significant impact on air quality. The SDAPCD has not developed thresholds of significance for air quality and health risk, however, the SDAPCD has provided emission levels under its permitting authority for new source review for which an Air Quality Impact Assessment is triggered. The County of San Diego has reviewed SDAPCD’s trigger levels, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking, and CEQA thresholds adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to develop screening-level thresholds to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of project-level air quality impacts within San Diego County. The City has chosen to apply the County’s screening-level thresholds for determining mass daily criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance (Appendix A). Project-related air quality impacts estimated in this environmental analysis would be considered significant if any of the applicable significance thresholds presented in Table 1 are exceeded.

Table 1. County of San Diego Air Quality Significance Thresholds Construction Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Coarse particulate matter (PM10) 100
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 55
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 250
Sulfur oxides (SOx) 250
Carbon monoxide (CO) 550
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 75a
Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Total Emissions
Pounds per
Hour
Pounds per
Day Tons per Year
Coarse particulate matter (PM10) — 100 15
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) — 55 10
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 25 250 40

Page 982 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 16
NOVEMBER 2024
Table 1. County of San Diego Air Quality Significance Thresholds Sulfur oxides (SOx) 25 250 40
Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Lead and lead compounds — 3.2 0.6
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — 75a 13.7
Source: SDAPCD 2016.

Notes: SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District. a VOC threshold based on the threshold of significance for VOCs from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Coachella Valley as stated in the San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance.

Emissions from the construction phase of project components were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.
2 Per preliminary project details from the project
applicant, it is assumed that construction of the project would begin in May 2025 and would last approximately 22 months, matching the following schedule:
▪ Demolition/Site Preparation: May 2025
▪ Grading: May 2025—July 2025
▪ Paving: November 2025—December 2025
▪ Building Construction: December 2025—February 2027
▪ Architectural Coating: February 2027—March 2027
Table 2 provides the construction timeline, potential phasing, construction equipment mix, and vehicle trips assumed for estimating project-generated construction emissions. The construction schedule has been developed based on available information provided by the project applicant, typical construction practices, and CalEEMod default assumptions. Construction phasing is intended to represent a schedule of anticipated activities for use in estimating potential project-generated construction emissions.

Table 2. Construction Scenario Assumptions
Construction
Phase
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily
Worker
Trips
Average
Daily
Vendor
Truck
Trips
Average
Daily Haul
Truck
Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Demolition / Site
Prep
12 8 20 Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
3 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Grading 16 8 72 Graders 1 8
Scrapers 4 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Skid Steer Loader 1 8
Paving 16 8 0 Pavers 2 8
2 CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform to calculate construction and operational emissions from land use development projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in collaboration with multiple air districts across the state. Numerous lead agencies in the state, including SDAPCD, use CalEEMod to estimate greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(1).

Page 983 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 17
NOVEMBER 2024
Table 2. Construction Scenario Assumptions
Construction
Phase
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily
Worker
Trips
Average
Daily
Vendor
Truck
Trips
Average
Daily Haul
Truck
Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 3 8
Building
Construction
20 16 0 Forklift 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
2 4
Crane 1 4
Generator 1 8
Air Compressors
(Gasoline)
2 8
Architectural
Coating
12 0 0 Air Compressors (Diesel) 1 6
Note: See Appendix A for additional details.

The equipment mix assumptions were based on CalEEMod default assumptions based on proposed land use and information provided by the applicant and is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. For the analysis, it is assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for up to 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. Default assumptions provided in CalEEMod were used to determine worker trips and vendor truck trips for each potential construction phase. The default CalEEMod trip distance for construction vehicles was assumed, which was a one-way distance of 11.97 miles for worker trips, 7.63 miles for vendor truck trips, and 20 miles for haul truck trips.

Implementation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from entrained dust, off-road equipment, vehicle emissions, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. Based on project specific information provided by the applicant, 26,870 cubic yards of material import and 1,784 cubic yards of material export are expected from the construction of the project during the grading phase. Entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) emissions. Construction of project components would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control, included as PDF-AQ-2. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5)that may be generated during grading and construction activities.

Standard construction practices that would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active sites two times per day, depending on weather conditions. During the demolition phase, haul trucks would remove approximately 1,955 tons of debris would be removed from the project site.

The proposed project would implement both construction-related and operational Project Design Features (PDFs) intended to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs). To ensure that the PDFs are implemented during construction and operation of the project, they will be imposed as

Page 984 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15823 18
NOVEMBER 2024
enforceable conditions of approval by the City. The proposed project would implement PDF-AQ-1 and PDFAQ-2, as follows:

PDF-AQ-1 All-electric appliances and end uses (including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and induction cooking) shall be required for project residential development. Residential units would be prohibited from having wood-burning or natural gas fireplaces, stoves, or appliances. Furthermore, the Applicant shall incorporate electric heat pumps or electric water heaters into the residential development.

PDF-AQ-2 Standard construction practices that shall be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active sites two times per day, depending on weather conditions.

Construction of project components would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust that may be generated during grading and construction activities.

Table 3 shows the estimated maximum unmitigated daily construction emissions associated with the conceptual construction phases of the project. Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Construction Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Summer
2025 4.50 47.45 38.65 0.12 7.70 3.55
2026 0.93 7.48 10.16 0.02 0.54 0.32
Winter
2025 1.01 8.67 11.75 0.02 0.58 0.41
2026 0.93 7.77 10.06 0.02 0.54 0.32
2027 27.09 7.44 9.98 0.02 0.51 0.29
Maximum 27.09 47.45 38.65 0.12 7.70 3.55
SDAPCD threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District.

See Appendix A for complete results.

The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod and include quantification of PDF-AQ-2.

As shown in Table 3, daily construction emissions for the project would not exceed SDAPCD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to emissions of criteria air pollutant emissions during construction would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project would generate volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources (vehicle trips), area sources (consumer products, landscape maintenance equipment), and energy sources. Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod. Project-generated mobile source emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on project-specific trip rates. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate emissions from the proposed project area and energy sources.

Page 985 of 2604 ends

La Mesa City CouncilMay 13, 2025

La Mesa City Council
May 13, 2025