LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Location: City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Elected
Officials:
Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Lauren Cazares
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Genevieve Suzuki
City Treasurer Matthew Strabone
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
The City Council meeting may be viewed in-person or live on Cox Cable Channel 24 (within La Mesa City limits), AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 (in the San Diego Region), the City’s website (www.cityoflamesa.us), Facebook Live (www.facebook.com/lamesaca) or using the following Zoom Webinar options:
The public may view the meeting live using the following remote options:
Teleconference Meeting Webinar
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84472650722
Telephone (Audio only)
(669) 900-6833 or (253) 215-8782 Webinar ID: 844 7265 0722 Copy and paste the webinar link into your internet browser if the webinar link does not work directly from the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
In-Person comments during the meeting: Join us for the City Council meeting at the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments. Please complete a “Request to Speak” card and submit it to the Council Hostess. When the Mayor calls your name, step to the podium and state your name for the record. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes.
•
How to submit eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published.
Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until 24 hours prior to the meeting. eComments are limited to 3700 characters (approximately 500 words). eComments may be viewed by the City Council and members of the public following the close of the eComment submission period (24 hours prior to the meeting). Email your comment to [email protected] if you have difficulty submitting an eComment. eComments will not be read aloud as a regular meeting item; however any member of the Council or member of the public may do so during their respective comment time.
•
PLEASE NOTE: Public Comment will be limited to 3 minutes per item. The timer begins when the participant begins speaking. Time cannot be combined or yielded to another speaker. *Live Remote Public Comment ONLY permitted during Councilmember teleconferencing pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953 (AB 2449).
*Zoom Audio Comments: To provide oral public comments during the meeting, join the Zoom meeting by computer, mobile phone, or dial in number. On Zoom video conference by computer or mobile phone, use the “Raise Hand” feature. This will notify the moderator that you wish to speak during a specific item on the agenda or during non-agenda Public Comment. Members of the public will not be shown on video but will be able to speak when called upon. If joining the meeting using the Zoom dial-in number, you may raise your hand by pressing *9. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. No further comments will be entertained after the Mayor closes public comment. •
Citizens who wish to make an audio/visual presentation pertaining to an item on the agenda, or during Public Comments, should contact the City Clerk’s office at 619.667.1120, no later than 12:00 p.m., the Monday prior to the meeting day. Advance notification will ensure compatibility with City equipment and allow Council meeting presentations to progress smoothly and in a consistent and equitable manner. Please note that all presentations/digital materials are considered part of the maximum time limit provided to speakers.
Agenda reports for items on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.
ACCESSIBILITY: The City of La Mesa encourages the participation of disabled individuals in the services, activities and programs provided by the City. Individuals with disabilities, who require reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the City Council meetings, should contact the Administrative Services Department 48 hours prior to the meeting at 619.667.1175, fax 619.667.1163, or [email protected].
Hearing assisted devices are available for the hearing impaired. A City staff member is available to provide these devices upon entry to City Council meetings, commission meetings or public hearings held in the City Council Chambers. A photo i.d. or signature will be required to secure a device for the meeting.
Pages
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1 INVOCATION - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
4. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
5. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
6. PRESENTATIONS
6.1 CITY TREASURER’S QUARTERLY REPORT 1
6.2 PROCLAIMING MAY AS POPPY MONTH
6.3 PROCLAIMING MAY AS OLDER AMERICANS MONTH
6.4 PROCLAIMING MAY 15, 2025, AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
MEMORIAL DAY
6.5 PROCLAIMING MAY 18 - 24, 2025, AS NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
6.6 PRESENTATION BY MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS AND
COUNCILMEMBER SUZUKI ON CHILD FRIENDLY CITIES
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
NOTE: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take any action on the item at this meeting.
If appropriate, the item will be referred to Staff or placed on a future agenda.
8. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time in which members of the Council or audience may pull items from the CONSENT CALENDAR for discussion. Public Comments are also invited on Consent Calendar items.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 10.1 through 10.11)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.
*If a public hearing item is part of the Consent Calendar, the public hearing shall be deemed held if the item is not removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action (Items 10.10 and 10.11).
10.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT
OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.2 APPROVAL OF SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ADOPTING A FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES MAP AS REQUIRED
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 Staff Reference: Chief Koch
Recommended Motion:
Approve the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.
10.3 RESOLUTIONS APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER AND
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT STAFFING
SERVICES, INC.
14 Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER IN THE
AMOUNT OF $67,000 TO FUND AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONTINUED FINANCIAL SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 30,
2025
b. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH
GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC. FOR
CONTINUED FINANCIAL SERVICES
10.4 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS PLAN SEGMENT 2
34 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.5 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LA MESA BIKE AND SIDEWALK
CONNECTIONS PROJECT PLANNING PHASE PLAN
59 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.6 RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.28.030 OF THE LA
MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING EXCEPTIONS TO EL
PASO STREET AS A THROUGH STREET
161
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.7 POLICE CHIEF'S QUARTERLY OPERATIONS REPORT (JANUARY 2025 - MARCH 2025)
192
Staff Reference: Chief Sweeney
Recommended Motion:
Receive and file.
10.8 HOMELESS OUTREACH AND MOBILE ENGAGEMENT ("HOME")
PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT (JANUARY 2025 - MARCH 2025)
207
Staff Reference: Chief Sweeney
Recommended Motion:
Receive and file.
10.9 RESOLUTION APPROVING SALARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY
SERVICES MANAGER CLASSIFICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM MANAGER CLASSIFICATION TITLE CHANGE
221
Staff Reference: Ms. Spaniol
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.10 *STATUS UPDATE ON VACANCIES IN COMPLIANCE WITH
ASSEMBLY BILL 2561
228
Staff Reference: Ms. Spaniol
Recommended Motion:
Receive and file.
10.11 *TAX EQUITY AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1982 (“TEFRA”) HEARING FOR MT. HELIX ACADEMY SCHOOL, 5901-
5999 SEVERIN DRIVE
238
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF NOT TO EXCEED
$22,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S
REVENUE OBLIGATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING,
REFINANCING AND/OR REIMBURSING THE COST OF
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, IMPROVEMENT
AND EQUIPPING EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE INSTITUTE FOR EFFECTIVE EDUCATION AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATING THERETO HEREIN SPECIFIED
Staff Hearing: Mr. Herrera
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11. HEARINGS
11.1 APPEAL REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION PC2024-14 246
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION PC-2024-14 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, FOR A 73-
UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING EIGHT (8)
MODERATE INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS) LOCATED AT 9407
JERICHO ROAD (APN 486-670-18-00)
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution denying the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution PC-2024-14 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, a Site Development Plan, and Tentative Tract Map, authorizing a 73-unit townhome project (including 8 moderate income restricted units) located at 9407 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-18- 00).
11.2 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF THE FOLLOWING
ACTIONS NECESSARY AND REQUIRED TO APPROVE A
PROPOSED 73-UNIT TOWNHOME PROJECT (INCLUDING EIGHT (8)
MODERATE INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS) LOCATED AT 9407
JERICHO ROAD – APN 486-670-18-00 (“PROJECT")
733
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR PROJECT 2023-
2348, A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
REZONING, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW, FOR A 73-UNIT FORSALE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 9407 JERICHO ROAD, APN 486-670-18-00
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR LAND USE
REDESIGNATION (OF SPECIFIED AREAS) FROM URBAN
RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR PROJECT 2023-2348 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL FOR A 73-UNIT FOR-SALE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 9407 JERICHO ROAD (APN
486-670-18-00) ("GPA")
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
c. REZONING (OF SPECIFIED AREAS) FROM (R1) URBAN
RESIDENTIAL TO (R3) MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
MESA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF TITLE 24 OF THE
LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, REZONING 9407 JERICHO
ROAD (APN 486-670-18-00) FROM ZONE R1 (URBAN
RESIDENTIAL) TO ZONE R3 (MULTIPLE UNIT
RESIDENTIAL) AUTHORIZING A 73-UNIT TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT
Recommended Motion:
Approve the first reading and introduction of the Ordinance. d. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AUTHORIZING A REDUCTION
OF THE MINIMUM R3 BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING
UNIT
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
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
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AUTHORIZING A CONDOMINIUM
MAP
RESOLUTION 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
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
f. RATIFICATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S
APPROVAL
RESOLUTION 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
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
12. STAFF REPORT
12.1 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO
PROCEED WITH PROPOSITION 218 NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC
HEARING FOR PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026 AND 2027
2591
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the notification and public hearing process required by Proposition 218 for proposed adjustments to sewer service charges for Fiscal Years 2026 and 2027.
13. COUNCIL INITIATED
13.1 CONSIDERATION OF SENDING A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR
AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED
BUDGET CUTS TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEMS - COUNCILMEMBER
CAZARES
2602
13.2 CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A COUNCIL AD HOC
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR AMERICA'S 250TH BIRTHDAY -
COUNCILMEMBER CAZARES AND COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN
2603
13.3 CONSIDERATION OF CO-SPONSORING SENATE BILL 35
(UMBERG) - ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS, AND ASSEMBLY
BILL 423 (DAVIES) - ALCOHOLISM OR DRUG ABUSE RECOVERY
OR TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES: DISCLOSURES -
COUNCILMEMBER CAZARES
2604
14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
15. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
16. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
17. ADJOURNMENT
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 13, 2025
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Quarter Ending
March 31, 2025
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Finance Department – City Treasurer
SUMMARY
PORTFOLIO VALUE:
The City’s portfolio ended the quarter with a market value of $82,807,863. This represents a discount of $923,158 from par value, or purchase price. As the City maintains an Investment Policy that follows a strict “buy and hold” strategy, there is no economic gain or loss upon call or maturity. The City’s securities continue to earn interest at the stated rates through the dates of redemption.
LIQUIDITY:
Liquidity meets the statutory requirements with $33,317,020 in LAIF for immediate availability. “LAIF” stands for Local Agency Investment Fund, and is operated by the California State Treasurer to act as an immediate-access account for local governments and special districts in California.
EARNINGS:
Investment earnings from the invested portfolio of government agency bonds, corporate securities, and certificates of deposit, but excluding LAIF, for the current quarter collected from January 1, 2025, through March 31, 2025, total $459,703, which represents an annualized rate of 3.65%. Investment earnings from LAIF for the current quarter total $325,940, which represents an annualized rate of 3.91%. Combined, investment earnings were $785,643, representing a total annualized rate of return of 3.75% for this quarter.
Please note that this represents interest payments and dividends actually earned by the City during the quarter, and may not necessarily reflect all interest payments and dividends payable to the City for the current quarter, nor be representative of future quarterly performance, due to differing payment schedules and variable interest rates.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 2 of 5
City’s Strategic Goal
To maintain a financially sound and affordable
city government
SAFETY
Federal Agencies
• Carry the implied guarantee of the United States government Corporate Securities
• The City’s Investment Policy requires ratings of Double A (AA) or better Certificates of Deposit
• Guaranteed by the FDIC to $250,000
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
• Managed by the California State Treasurer; consists primarily of U.S. Treasuries, government agency bonds, and other short-term investments.
LIQUIDITY
The City’s LAIF balance of $33,317,020 represents the City’s immediate cash and is 39.8% of the portfolio. Additionally, as investments mature, they can be reinvested at then-current rates or redeemed to provide additional operating cash. The invested portfolio of government agency bonds, corporate securities, and certificates of deposit has an average maturity of 2 years with $10,745,000 maturing within one year for added liquidity.
EARNINGS
As noted above, the City’s portfolio earned $785,643 this quarter, representing an annualized yield of 3.75%.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 3 of 5
PORTFOLIO PROFILE
To achieve the City’s strategic goal, the City’s primary investment objectives, in order of priority, are: Safety, Liquidity, and Earnings. Key to each of these objectives is a well-diversified portfolio that minimizes credit and interest rate risk and provides necessary liquidity. The City’s portfolio is designed to meet these objectives as summarized in the following table which is presented at par values. This table represents the City’s holdings as of March 31, 2025:
Years to
Maturity
Government
Agencies
Corporate
Securities
Certificates
of Deposit LAIF Totals
%of
Portfolio
Interest
Rate
0 – 1 9,000,000 1,000,000 745,000 33,317,020* 44,062,020 52.62% 1.89% 1 – 2 17,000,000 0 3,471,000 - 20,471,000 24.45% 1.63%
2 – 3 5,000,000 0 3,464,000 - 8,464,000 10.11% 3.60%
3 – 4 1,000,000 0 1,984,000 - 2,984,000 3.56% 4.51%
4 – 5 7,750,000 0 0 - 7,750,000 9.26% 4.78%
Totals 39,750,000 1,000,000 9,664,000 33,317,020 83,731,020 100.00% Portfolio % 47.47% 1.19% 11.54% 39.79% 100.00%
Interest
Rate
2.56% 0.70% 3.34% 4.48% 3.39%
*Interest rate for assets with 0-1 years to maturity excludes LAIF
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 4 of 5
PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY
During the quarter, four federal agency bonds were purchased, one federal agency bond matured, seven certificates of deposit matured, and four federal agency bonds were called.
No other holdings in the City’s portfolio matured, were called, or were purchased.
Federal Agencies Purchased: Maturity Rate Par Value
FHLB 5 year 4.90% $1,000,000
FAMC 5 year 4.98% $1,000,000
FNMA 5 year 4.75% $1,000,000
FHLMC 5 year 5.00% $500,000
Federal Agencies Matured: Maturity Rate Par Value
FHLB 3 year 3.63% $1,000,000
Certificates of Deposit Matured: Maturity Rate Par Value Alma Bank 5 year 1.40% $249,000
Encore Bank 5 year 1.15% $249,000
FNB of Albany 5 year 1.60% $225,000
Lakeside Bank 5 year 1.40% $249,000
Pacific Enterprise Bank 5 year 1.15% $249,000
Poppy Bank 5 year 1.10% $249,000
San Francisco Credit Union 5 year 1.10% $249,000
Federal Agencies Called: Maturity Rate Par Value
FHLB 5 year 5.40% $1,000,000
FHLMC 5 year 5.50% $1,000,000
FHLMC 5 year 5.50% $500,000
FHLMC 5 year 5.25% $1,000,000
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 5 of 5
PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE
The portfolio complies with California code sections concerning safety and liquidity in the investment of public funds. Investment strategies are based on liquidity requirements and interest rate projections and have been collaboratively determined by the City Treasurer, City Manager, and Director of Finance. The City Treasurer executes trades in accordance with these strategies.
Required Contents of Investment Reports
California Government Code Section 53646(b) suggests that the quarterly investment report of a local agency contain certain items. These items include the type of investment, the issuer’s name, the date of maturity of the security, the par amount of the instrument, the market value, and the dollar amount invested in each security. The source of the market value also should be included in the report. The report also must reference all funds that are under the management of external investment providers, such as investment advisors and investment managers. A local government’s quarterly report, if submitted, must state the portfolio’s compliance with the agency’s investment policy or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance. Finally, the investment report must include a statement regarding the local agency’s ability to meet its cash flow needs for the next six months.
Accordingly, I advise you of the following facts in compliance with Government Code Section 53646(b):
1. The source of the valuations included herein is U.S. Bank, Saint Paul, MN 55107.
2. No funds are under the management of external providers or managers. Investment decisions are made by a consensus of the City Treasurer, City Manager, and Director of Finance.
3. The City’s portfolio remains in strict compliance with the Investment Policy of the City of La Mesa for FY 2024-2025.
4. The City of La Mesa’s investment portfolio more than adequately assures the City’s ability to meet its cash flow needs during the ensuing six months.
Reviewed by Respectfully submitted by
___________________________ ___________________________ Greg Humora Matt Strabone
City Manager City Treasurer
Attachments:
A - Schedule of Investments – Summary
B - Schedule of Investments – Detail
City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments (Summary)
As of March 31, 2025
Issuer Type of Investment Maturity Date Par Value Book Value Market Value State of California LAIF 98-37-421 Demand 33,317,020 33,317,020 33,345,313 Federal Agencies U.S. Agency Obligations 06/2025 - 03/2030 39,750,000 39,748,500 38,902,753 Financial/Banking Institutions Certificates of Deposit 04/2025 - 09/2028 9,664,000 9,664,000 9,593,807 Corporate Obligations Medium Term Notes 01/2026 - 02/2026 1,000,000 992,425 965,990 Total 83,731,020 83,721,945 82,807,863
I certify that the investment of funds is in conformance with California Government Code section 53600. Those investments valued at below market cost will be held until maturity or until they can be sold without a loss. I also certify that the investment of funds provides the cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's estimated expenditure requirements.
Matt Strabone, City Treasurer
City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2025
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 856285TF8 STATE BK INDIA C D 1.600% 4/29/25
04/29/2020 04/29/2025 1.60% 248,000.00 248,000.00 247,442.00 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 33847E3F2 FLAGSTAR BK FSB C D
1.050% 4/30/25
04/30/2020 04/30/2025 1.05% 248,000.00 248,000.00 247,320.48 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 06063HMS9 BANK BARODA NEW C D
0.700% 7/22/25
07/22/2020 07/22/2025 0.70% 249,000.00 249,000.00 246,236.10 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 89235MKY6 TOYOTA FINL C D 0.900% 4/22/26
04/22/2021 04/22/2026 0.90% 248,000.00 248,000.00 239,878.00 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 02007GQQ9 ALLY BK UT C D 2.850%
5/05/26
05/02/2022 05/05/2026 2.85% 246,000.00 246,000.00 242,760.18 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 90348JQ29 UBS BK USA SALT C D
0.900% 7/14/26
07/14/2021 07/14/2026 0.90% 249,000.00 249,000.00 239,067.39 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 30960QAS6 FARMERS INS C D 5.100% 7/27/26
07/26/2023 07/27/2026 5.10% 248,000.00 248,000.00 251,224.00 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 16141BAH4 CHARTWAY FED C D
5.250% 7/28/26
07/28/2023 07/28/2026 5.25% 248,000.00 248,000.00 251,707.60 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 68584JAG4 OREGON CMNTY CR C D
5.100% 7/28/26
07/28/2023 07/28/2026 5.10% 248,000.00 248,000.00 251,228.96 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 37424PAH7 GESA CR UN C D 5.250%
7/31/26
07/31/2023 07/31/2026 5.25% 248,000.00 248,000.00 251,759.68 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 67054NBL6 NUMERICA CR UN C D
5.200% 7/31/26
07/31/2023 07/31/2026 5.20% 248,000.00 248,000.00 251,598.48 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 32022RSC2 FIRST FINL BK C D 3.250% 8/03/26
08/01/2022 08/03/2026 3.25% 249,000.00 249,000.00 246,305.82 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 70962LAE2 PENTAGON C D 0.850%
9/01/26
09/01/2021 09/01/2026 0.85% 249,000.00 249,000.00 237,919.50 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 14042RQB0 CAPITAL ONE NATL C D
1.100% 11/17/26
11/17/2021 11/17/2026 1.10% 248,000.00 248,000.00 236,445.68 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 14042TDW4 CAPITAL ONE BANK C D
1.100% 11/17/26
11/17/2021 11/17/2026 1.10% 248,000.00 248,000.00 236,445.68 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 07371CE88 BEAL BK USA C D 1.900% 2/17/27
02/23/2022 02/17/2027 1.90% 247,000.00 247,000.00 237,349.71 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 02589ABQ4 AMERICAN EXPRESS C D
2.000% 3/09/27
03/09/2022 03/09/2027 2.00% 247,000.00 247,000.00 237,406.52 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 06740KPK7 BARCLAYS BK DEL C D
2.650% 4/13/27
04/13/2022 04/13/2027 2.65% 246,000.00 246,000.00 239,148.90 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 58404DPC9 MEDALLION BK C D 3.200% 5/24/27
05/24/2022 05/24/2027 3.20% 249,000.00 249,000.00 244,445.79 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 20825WAX8 CONNEXUS CR UN C D
3.100% 5/26/27
05/26/2022 05/26/2027 3.10% 249,000.00 249,000.00 243,962.73 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 90352RCN3 USALLIANCE FCU C D
3.300% 5/28/27
05/31/2022 05/28/2027 3.30% 249,000.00 249,000.00 244,956.24 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 50625LBN2 LAFAYETTE FED C D
3.250% 6/15/27
06/15/2022 06/15/2027 3.25% 249,000.00 249,000.00 244,577.76 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 88413QDL9 THIRD FED SVGS C D
3.500% 6/28/27
06/28/2022 06/28/2027 3.50% 245,000.00 245,000.00 241,868.90 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 254673L38 DISCOVER BK C D 3.400% 7/06/27
07/06/2022 07/06/2027 3.40% 245,000.00 245,000.00 241,334.80 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 32026UU20 FIRST FNDTN BK C D
4.600% 7/19/27
07/19/2023 07/19/2027 4.60% 244,000.00 244,000.00 246,657.16 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 307811EM7 FARMERS C D 3.200%
8/05/27
08/05/2022 08/05/2027 3.20% 249,000.00 249,000.00 244,005.06 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 08016PEH8 BELMONT BK TR C D
3.150% 8/24/27
08/24/2022 08/24/2027 3.15% 249,000.00 249,000.00 243,601.68 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 19075JAB4 COBALT FED CR C D 3.600% 9/15/27
09/15/2022 09/15/2027 3.60% 249,000.00 249,000.00 246,104.13 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 052392BT3 AUSTIN TELCO C D 3.800% 9/21/27
09/21/2022 09/21/2027 3.80% 249,000.00 249,000.00 247,224.63 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 87164YT95 SYNCHRONY C D 4.600%
10/28/27
10/28/2022 10/28/2027 4.60% 244,000.00 244,000.00 246,867.00 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 25460FDW3 DIRECT FED CR C D 4.800% 11/08/27
11/07/2022 11/08/2027 4.80% 248,000.00 248,000.00 252,253.20 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 61690U5K2 MORGAN STANLEY C D
4.450% 5/03/28
05/03/2023 05/03/2028 4.45% 244,000.00 244,000.00 246,276.52 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 804767AB7 SAVANNAH BK C D
4.100% 5/03/28
05/03/2023 05/03/2028 4.10% 249,000.00 249,000.00 248,828.19 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 91527PBW6 UNIVEST NATL BK C D
4.100% 5/05/28
05/05/2023 05/05/2028 4.10% 249,000.00 249,000.00 248,828.19 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 92834ABT2 VISIONBANK ST C D 4.050% 5/12/28
05/12/2023 05/12/2028 4.05% 249,000.00 249,000.00 248,462.16 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 05765LBU0 BALBOA THRIFT C D
4.400% 7/19/28
07/19/2023 07/19/2028 4.40% 249,000.00 249,000.00 257,580.54 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 89854LAD5 TTCU FED CR UN C D
5.000% 7/26/28
07/26/2023 07/26/2028 5.00% 248,000.00 248,000.00 254,730.72 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 898812AC6 TUCSON FED CR C D
5.000% 9/08/28
09/08/2023 09/08/2028 5.00% 248,000.00 248,000.00 254,951.44 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 39573LEM6 GREENSTATE CR UN C D
5.000% 9/26/28
09/26/2023 09/26/2028 5.00% 248,000.00 248,000.00 255,045.68 Subtotal: 9,664,000.00 9,664,000.00 9,593,807.20
City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2025
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value CORPORATE BONDS 46632FRU1 JPMORGAN CHASE MTN
0.700% 1/22/26
01/22/2021 01/22/2026 0.70% 500,000.00 500,000.00 480,865.00 CORPORATE BONDS 037833EB2 APPLE INC 0.700%
2/08/26
02/08/2021 02/08/2026 0.70% 500,000.00 492,425.00 485,125.00 Subtotal: 1,000,000.00 992,425.00 965,990.00
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value US AGENCIES 3130ASF61 F H L B DEB 3.450%
6/27/25
06/27/2022 06/27/2025 3.45% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 997,560.00 US AGENCIES 3134GXZY3 F H L M C M T N 4.000%
6/30/25
06/30/2022 06/30/2025 4.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 998,710.00 US AGENCIES 31422XB50 F A M C M T N 3.630%
7/28/25
07/28/2022 07/28/2025 3.63% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 997,450.00 US AGENCIES 3134GXF66 F H L M C M T N 4.000%
8/01/25
08/01/2022 08/01/2025 4.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 998,180.00 US AGENCIES 3136G4G98 F N M A 0.560%
8/12/25
08/12/2020 08/12/2025 0.56% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 986,270.00 US AGENCIES 3136G4C43 F N M A 0.650%
8/14/25
08/14/2020 08/14/2025 0.65% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 986,400.00 US AGENCIES 3130ALD76 F H L B DEB 0.700%
2/25/26
02/25/2021 02/25/2026 0.70% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 969,760.00 US AGENCIES 3130ALGB4 F H L B DEB 0.800%
3/17/26
03/17/2021 03/17/2026 0.80% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 968,230.00 US AGENCIES 3130ALMM3 F H L B DEB 1.000%
3/30/26
03/30/2021 03/30/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 969,160.00 US AGENCIES 3130AMDY5 F H L B DEB 1.000%
5/20/26
05/20/2021 05/20/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 965,240.00 US AGENCIES 3133EMH21 F F C B DEB 0.900%
6/15/26
06/12/2021 06/15/2026 0.90% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 960,560.00 US AGENCIES 3130AMPT3 F H L B DEB 1.030%
6/23/26
06/23/2021 06/23/2026 1.03% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 963,090.00 US AGENCIES 3130AMWX6 F H L B DEB 1.020%
6/30/26
06/30/2021 06/30/2026 1.02% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 962,470.00 US AGENCIES 3130ANHW3 F H L B DEB 0.930%
8/25/26
07/29/2021 08/25/2026 0.93% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 957,610.00 US AGENCIES 3130ANSB7 F H L B DEB 1.000%
9/17/26
09/17/2021 09/17/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 956,560.00 US AGENCIES 3130ANYR5 F H L B DEB 0.950%
9/30/26
09/30/2021 09/30/2026 0.95% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 955,210.00 US AGENCIES 3130AP6M2 F H L B DEB 1.020%
9/30/26
09/30/2021 09/30/2026 1.02% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 956,530.00 US AGENCIES 3130APB87 F H L B DEB 1.100%
10/13/26
10/13/2021 10/13/2026 1.10% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 956,620.00 US AGENCIES 3130AP6U4 F H L B DEB 1.000%
10/14/26
10/14/2021 10/14/2026 1.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 955,130.00 US AGENCIES 3130APDQ5 F H L B DEB 1.250%
10/28/26
10/28/2021 10/28/2026 1.25% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 957,830.00 US AGENCIES 3130APL78 F H L B DEB 1.375%
10/28/26
10/28/2021 10/28/2026 1.38% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 959,720.00 US AGENCIES 3130APQA6 F H L B DEB 1.400%
11/24/26
11/24/2021 11/24/2026 1.40% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 957,890.00 US AGENCIES 3130AQUD3 F H L B DEB 2.010%
2/25/27
02/25/2022 02/25/2027 2.01% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 964,040.00 US AGENCIES 3130AQZ55 F H L B DEB 2.500%
3/10/27
03/10/2022 03/10/2027 2.50% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 971,730.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARAH4 F H L B DEB 2.350%
3/29/27
03/04/2022 03/29/2027 2.35% 1,000,000.00 998,500.00 968,410.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARDY4 F H L B DEB 2.500%
3/29/27
03/29/2022 03/29/2027 2.50% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 970,920.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARGE5 F H L B DEB 3.000%
4/21/27
04/21/2022 04/21/2027 3.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 978,850.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARW56 F H L B DEB 3.650%
5/12/27
05/12/2022 05/12/2027 3.65% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 989,410.00 US AGENCIES 3130ARYA3 F H L B DEB 4.000%
5/26/27
05/26/2022 05/26/2027 4.00% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 994,050.00 US AGENCIES 3130AS7J2 F H L B DEB 3.200%
6/10/27
06/10/2022 06/10/2027 3.20% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 984,690.00 US AGENCIES 3134GXZN7 F H L M C M T N 4.250%
7/12/27
07/12/2022 07/12/2027 4.25% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 997,270.00 US AGENCIES 3135GAUG4 F N M A 4.500%
8/21/28
08/29/2024 08/21/2028 4.50% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,460.00 US AGENCIES 3134HACE1 F H L M C M T N 5.050%
8/01/29
08/01/2024 08/01/2029 5.05% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 999,610.00
City of La Mesa
Schedule of Investments, March 31, 2025
US AGENCIES 3135GAU25 F N M A DEB 4.375%
8/06/29
08/06/2024 08/06/2029 4.38% 250,000.00 250,000.00 249,027.50 US AGENCIES 3130B26B6 F H L B DEB 5.150%
8/08/29
08/08/2024 08/08/2029 5.15% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,001,430.00 US AGENCIES 3130B2JQ9 F H L B DEB 4.550%
8/27/29
08/30/2024 08/27/2029 4.55% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 999,450.00 US AGENCIES 3130B2K95 F H L B DEB 4.100%
8/28/29
08/30/2024 08/28/2029 4.10% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 991,090.00 US AGENCIES 3130B5AM0 F H L B DEB 4.900%
2/27/30
02/27/2025 02/27/2030 4.90% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,003,010.00 US AGENCIES 31424WVS8 F A M C M T N 4.980%
2/27/30
02/27/2025 02/27/2030 4.98% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,540.00 US AGENCIES 3136GACF4 F N M A M T N 4.750%
3/05/30
03/05/2025 03/05/2030 4.75% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,002,560.00 US AGENCIES 3134HBDD0 F H L M C M T N 5.000%
3/18/30
03/18/2025 03/18/2030 5.00% 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,025.00 Subtotal: 39,750,000.00 39,748,500.00 38,902,752.50
Type of Investment CUSIP Id Asset Short Name Issue Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Par Value Book Value Market Value Demand 98-37-421 LAIF State of California 4.48% 33,317,020.29 33,317,020.29 33,345,312.80 Grand Total: 83,731,020.29 83,721,945.29 82,807,862.50
DATE: May 13, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ADOPTING A FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES MAP AS REQUIRED
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
At the Council meeting of April 22, 2025, the Council unanimously approved the introduction and first reading of the Ordinance adopting a Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map as required by the State of California.
Staff recommends the Council approve the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.
City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:
Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:28,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2
Mi 0 1
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
La Mesa
8 125
94 UNINCORPORATED
SAN DIEGO CO.
EL CAJON
LEMON GROVE
SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO
March 24, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF LA MESA – SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ADOPTING A FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES MAP AS REQUIRED BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and pursuant to Government Code 51178, this City Council finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to adopt a fire hazard severity zones map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California as follows:
SECTION 1: The draft fire hazard severity zones map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is hereby adopted by the City Council and shall be designated as “City Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map.”
SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to use summary publication procedures pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 utilizing a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of La Mesa.
INTRODUCED AND READ at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 22nd day of April 2025, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of said City Council held the 13th day of May 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
__________________________
MARK ARAPOSTATHIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 2025- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited and that the same has been duly published according to law.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 13, 2025
SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER
IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,000 TO FUND AN
AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT STAFFING
SERVICES, INC. FOR CONTINUED FINANCIAL
SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SUMMARY:
Issues:
A. Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a budget transfer in the amount of $67,000 to fund an agreement for continued financial services through June 30, 2025?
B. Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving an agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc., for continued financial services? Recommendation:
A. Adopt the attached resolution approving a budget transfer in the amount of $67,000 to fund an agreement for financial services through June 30, 2025 (Attachment “A”).
B. Adopt the attached resolution approving an agreement in substantial form, subject to final review by the City Attorney, with Government Staffing Services, Inc., for continued financial services (Attachment “B”).
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 2 of 3
Fiscal Impact:
A budget transfer is necessary to transfer $67,000 from the Risk – Miscellaneous Other Charges account (604-64500-137) to the Finance – Temporary Salaries account (101-61020-141) to fund a new agreement for financial services through June 30, 2025.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Ensure a strong financial outlook through careful planning, sustainable service levels, and fiscal sustainability.
BACKGROUND:
In March 2025, pursuant to the City Manager’s contracting authority ($50,000), the City Manager executed an agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc., to provide financial services pending the appointment of a permanent Finance Director (Initial Agreement). The Initial Agreement ensures continuity in financial operations within the City. However, the Initial Agreement expires on May 13, 2025, due to a funding shortfall (i.e., exceeds City Manager’s contracting authority), and a new agreement to continue the same services is required (New Agreement).
DISCUSSION:
To fund the New Agreement through June 30, 2025, it is necessary for the City Council to approve a budget transfer of $67,000 from the Risk – Miscellaneous Other Charges account (604-64500-137) to the Finance – Temporary Salaries account (101-61020-141).
Thereafter, potential funding for the New Agreement may be addressed in the City Council’s consideration of the 2025-2027 Biennial Budget. The New Agreement is attached for your reference and consideration.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of the following:
A. Adopt the attached resolution approving a budget transfer in the amount of $67,000 to fund an agreement for continued financial services through June 30, 2025 (Attachment “A”).
B. Adopt the attached resolution approving the New Agreement in substantial form, subject to final review and approval of the City Attorney, with Government Staffing Services, Inc., for continued financial services (Attachment “B”).
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 3 of 3
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________
Greg Humora Amanda Lee
City Manager Assistant City Manager
____________________
Lyn Dedmon
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution approving a budget transfer in the amount of $67,000 to fund an agreement for continued financial services through June 30, 2025
B. Resolution approving an agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc for continued financial services
C. Agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc. for continued financial services
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,000 TO FUND
AN AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUED FINANCIAL SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025
WHEREAS, the City is in need of financial services in the Finance Department; WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025, the City Manager executed an agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc. for financial services in the Finance Department (Initial Agreement);
WHEREAS, the Initial Agreement was executed pursuant to the City Manager’s contracting authority ($50,000) with a not-to-exceed provision in the same amount; WHEREAS, the Initial Agreement expires on May 13, 2025, due to a funding shortall (i.e., exceeds City Manager’s contracting authority, and a new agreement to continue the same services is required (New Agreement));
WHEREAS, a budget transfer is necessary to transfer $67,000 from the Risk – Miscellaneous Other Charges account (604-64500-137) to the Finance – Temporary Salaries account (101-61020-141) to fund the New Agreement through June 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, funding included in the 2025-2027 Biennial Budget may be used to fund the New Agreement beginning July 1, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council approves a budget transfer in the amount of $67,000 from the Risk – Miscellaneous Other Charges account (604-64500-137) to the Finance – Temporary Salaries account (101-61020-141) to fund the Initial Agreement through June 30, 2025.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 13
th 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 a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2025- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC. FOR CONTINUED FINANCIAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City is in need of financial services in the Finance Department; WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025, the City Manager executed an agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc. for financial services in the Finance Department (Initial Agreement);
WHEREAS, the Initial Agreement was executed pursuant to the City Manager’s contracting authority ($50,000) with a not-to-exceed provision in the same amount; WHEREAS, the Initial Agreement expires on May 13, 2025, due to a funding shortall (i.e., exceeds City Manager’s contracting authority, and a new agreement to continue the same services is required (New Agreement));
WHEREAS, funding for the New Agreement is authorized by Resolution in the amount of $67,000 through June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, thereafter funding included in the 2025-2027 Biennial Budget may be used to fund the New Agreement beginning July 1, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council approves the attached draft New Agreement in substantial form, subject to the final review and approval of the City Attorney.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 13
th day of May 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2025- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
-1-
STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA AND GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC.
FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES IN THE CITY OF LA MESA
This Agreement is entered into by City of La Mesa as of this day of 2025, by and between the City of La Mesa, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Government Staffing Services, Inc. (DBA “MuniTemps”), hereinafter referred to as "Consultant."
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, City has a need for professional financial services for municipal staffing services related to the Finance Department;
WHEREAS, staffing services will assist the City in said services is necessary to adequately oversee the City’s financial operations, budgeting and fiscal planning pending the appointment of a permanent Director of Finance; WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to render certain professional services related to the same; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant is qualified to perform said services and City has allocated the necessary funds to compensate Consultant.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows:
SECTION 1: EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT
City hereby agrees to engage Consultant and Consultant hereby agrees to perform the services set forth in this Agreement.
SECTION 2: SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT
Consultant shall commence performance of the Project upon execution of this Agreement by both parties. The term "Project" as used in this Agreement shall include all the tasks and items listed and described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of this Agreement.
SECTION 3: KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL
Consultant agrees to provide the services of John Herrera, CPA, for the full term of this Agreement. No substitutions shall be made without prior written approval by City. City reserves the right to request specific qualifications for personnel substituted pursuant to this Agreement.
-2-
SECTION 4: SUBCONTRACTING
Consultant shall not utilize the services of any sub-contractors during the term of this Agreement without the prior consent of City.
SECTION 5: CITY REPRESENTATION
The City Manager for City, or his or her designated representative, shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the Project and shall administer Agreement on behalf of City.
This person shall hereinafter be referred to as the "City's Representative." SECTION 6: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
City will provide the Consultant, or cause to be provided with, the following documents, services and other relevant information, at no charge to Consultant.
A. Any necessary electronic and/or paper files, documents, information, and/or data as needed for Consultant’s performance in carrying out the Project.
SECTION 7: PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
Both Consultant and City recognize that time is of the essence in the completion of the Project and the schedule is dependent upon timely actions by Consultant and City.
Accordingly, Consultant shall complete the Project and this Agreement as directed by the City Manager.
Consultant shall not be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, or governmental agencies.
SECTION 8: COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
Payments shall be made monthly based upon evidence that the work is progressing satisfactorily as determined by the City and substantiated with timesheets and detailed invoices. The amount to be billed shall be based on Consultant’s bill rate for professional services and the actual time required to perform the scope of work. The bill rate and assignment duration for the Project pursuant to Exhibit "A". Any change in compensation is negotiable at the time of renewal/expiration and is subject to adjustment based upon the CPI-U for the San Diego region.
The total fee for professional services shall be billed on a time-and-material basis with a total amount not to exceed One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000).
SECTION 9: METHOD OF COMPENSATION
City shall compensate Consultant for the services performed hereunder within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of Consultant's biweekly invoice for the services performed.
-3-
Consultant shall provide documentation regarding charges sufficient to meet normal auditing practice. Copies of the invoices for materials in excess of $500 and subConsultant charges shall be submitted with the request for periodic payment.
City shall promptly review invoicing and notify Consultant of any objection thereto in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the invoice; absent such objection the invoice shall be deemed proper and acceptable.
In the event that any undisputed invoice is not paid within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice by the City, it shall commence bearing interest on the date that the invoice was rendered at the rate of 1% per month and the City agrees to pay all accrued interest, together with the charges for services rendered.
SECTION 10: RECORDS
Consultant shall maintain adequate records to permit inspection audit of Consultant's charges pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make such records available to City and to other public agencies responsible for approval, funding or auditing the Project, during normal business hours upon reasonable notice. Such records shall be maintained by the Consultant for three (3) years following completion of the work pursuant to this Agreement.
SECTION 11: ADDITIONAL SERVICES OUTSIDE SCOPE
Only after written authorization from City, additional services that Consultant could provide, or cause to be provided, include the following:
A. Additional work related to the Project but not authorized by this Agreement.
B. Additional work caused by changes unrelated to the Project or this Agreement.
C. Consultant may provide accounting consulting services through its sister company Herrera & Associates, upon written approval of the City Manager.
Changes to the scope of this Agreement shall be negotiated prior to commencement of extra work. Consultant shall be compensated for Consultant time and direct personnel expenses as approved by City. Payment for such additional services shall include Consultant's time at the bill rates shown in Exhibit “A.” SECTION 12: HOLD HARMLESS
A. Indemnity for Professional Services. To the furthest extent allowed by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in contract, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage), and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness
-4-
or willful misconduct of Consultant, its principals, officers, employees, agents or volunteers in the performance of professional services under this Agreement.
B. Other Indemnities. Other than in the performance of professional services, and to the fullest extent allowed by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in contract, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage), and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses) arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of performance of this Agreement. Consultant’s obligations under the preceding sentence shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs or damages caused solely by the gross negligence, or caused by the willful misconduct of City, or any of its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.
C. If Consultant should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Consultant shall require each subconsultant to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers in accordance with the terms of the preceding paragraphs.
D. This section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
SECTION 13: INSURANCE
Throughout the life of this Agreement, Consultant shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect all policies of insurance required hereunder with an insurance company(ies) either (i) admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California and rated not less than "A:VII" in Best's Insurance Rating Guide, or (ii) as may be authorized in writing by the City Manager or his/her designee at any time and in his/her sole discretion. The following policies of insurance are required:
(i) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage Form CG 00 01 and include insurance for “bodily injury,” “property damage” and “personal and advertising injury” with coverage for premises and operations (including the use of owned and non-owned equipment), products and completed operations, and contractual liability (including, without limitation, indemnity obligations under the Agreement) with limits of liability of not less than the following:
$2,000,000 per occurrence
$4,000,000 general aggregate
(ii) ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT CERTIFICATE
(iii) COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY insurance which shall be at least as
-5-
broad as the most current version of Insurance Service Office (ISO) Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and (non-owned), with limits of liability not less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(iv) WORKERS' COMPENSATION insurance as required under the California Labor Code.
(v) EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY insurance with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 disease policy limit and $1,000,000 disease each employee.
(vi) Waiver of Subrogation for all Insurance Coverages
The certificate holder should be stated as:
City: Risk Management, 8130 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91942 Should Consultant maintain insurance with broader coverage and/or limits of liability greater than those shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits of liability maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City.
Consultant shall be responsible for payment of any deductibles contained in any insurance policies required hereunder and Consultant shall also be responsible for payment of any self-insured retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by, the City Manager or his/her designee. At the option of the City Manager or his/her designee, either: (i) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects to City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers: or (ii) Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee, satisfactory to City Manager or his/her designee, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. At no time shall City be responsible for the payment of any deductibles or self-insured retentions.
All policies of insurance required hereunder shall be endorsed to provide that the coverage shall not be cancelled, non-renewed, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 calendar day written notice has been given to City. Upon issuance by the insurer, broker, or agent of a notice of cancellation, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage or in limits, Consultant shall furnish City with a new certificate and applicable endorsements for such policy(ies). In the event any policy is due to expire during the work to be performed for City, Consultant shall provide a new certificate, and applicable endorsements, evidencing renewal of such policy not less than 15 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the expiring policy.
The General Liability and Automobile Liability insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence form and shall name City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as an additional insured. Such policy(ies) of insurance shall be endorsed so Consultant’s insurance shall be primary and no contribution shall be required of City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City,
-6-
its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. The Workers’ Compensation insurance policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation as to City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.
Consultant shall furnish City with all certificate(s) and applicable endorsements effecting coverage required hereunder. All certificates and applicable endorsements are to be received by City and approved by City Manager or his/her designee in his/her sole discretion prior to City’s execution of the Agreement and before work commences. Upon request of City, Consultant shall immediately furnish City with a complete copy of any insurance policy required under this Agreement, including all endorsements, with said copy certified by the underwriter to be a true and correct copy of the original policy. This requirement shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.
If at any time during the life of the Agreement or any extension, Consultant or any of its sub- contractors fail to maintain any required insurance in full force and effect, all work under this Agreement shall be discontinued immediately, and all payments due or that become due to Consultant shall be withheld, until notice is received by City that the required insurance has been restored to full force and effect and that the premiums therefore have been paid for a period satisfactory to City. Any failure to maintain the required insurance shall be sufficient cause for City to terminate this Agreement. No action taken by City hereunder shall in any way relieve Consultant of its responsibilities under this Agreement.
The fact that insurance is obtained by Consultant shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of Consultant, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. The duty to indemnify City shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Consultant. Approval or purchase of any insurance contracts or policies shall in no way relieve from liability nor limit the liability of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, persons under the supervision of Consultant, vendors, suppliers, invitees, subcontractor, or anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them.
If Consultant should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to provide insurance protection in favor of City, its elected officials, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers in accordance with the terms of each of the preceding paragraphs, except that the subcontractor’s certificates and endorsements shall be on file with Consultant and City prior to the commencement of any work by the subcontractor.
SECTION 14: OWNERSHIP OF WORK
All finished or unfinished documents, studies, reports, computer files and materials prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered the property of City and will be turned over to City upon demand, but in any event, upon completion of the Project. Consultant shall be allowed to retain copies of documents for his or her permanent records, if desired.
-7-
City and Consultant shall agree to keep information of service pursuant to this Agreement confidential.
SECTION 15: ASSIGNABILITY
Consultant shall not assign, delegate, or transfer this Agreement or any work hereunder, nor assign any monies due or to become due hereunder, except as expressly stated herein. In no event shall any contractual relation be created between any third party and City without prior written consent of City. A consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment.
SECTION 16: AMENDMENTS
This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no other agreements, expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein. This Agreement may be amended upon written mutual consent of both parties hereto. Amendment requiring changes in compensation shall be subject to City's change order procedures.
SECTION 17: NOTICES
All communications to either party by the other shall be deemed given when made in writing and delivered or mailed to such party at its respective address as follows:
CITY: CONSULTANT:
City Manager John Herrera, CPA
City of La Mesa Government Staffing Services, Inc.
8130 Allison Avenue PO Box 718
La Mesa, CA 91942 Imperial Beach, CA 91933
Phone: (619) 667-1105 Phone: (866) 406-6864
FAX: (619) 462-7528 FAX: (866) 498-6678
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] The date of notification shall be receipt by the City as evidenced by date/time stamp affixed to the notice.
SECTION 18: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
City and Consultant shall submit unresolved claims, counterclaims, disputes, controversies and other matters between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof (“disputes”), first to mediation and then if not resolved, to nonbinding arbitration prior to initiating suit or judicial proceeding.
City shall require that Consultants agree to submit any unresolved claims, counterclaims, disputes, controversies and other matters between it and City or Consultant and/or any sub-Consultants of any tier arising out of or relating to their agreement with City or the
-8-
breach thereof (“disputes”) first to mediation and then if not resolved, to non-binding arbitration prior to initiating suit or judicial proceeding.
SECTION 19: TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CAUSE AND CONVENIENCE If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, models, and reports prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall, at the option of City, become its property and the Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed hereunder.
In addition to termination for cause, City may terminate this Agreement for City’s convenience upon not less than fifteen (15) day’s written notice to Consultant. Upon receipt of said notice, Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement unless said notice provides otherwise. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in this paragraph for City’s convenience, Consultant shall be required to provide to City all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, models, and reports, prepared by Consultant as may be requested by City and such work shall become City’s property upon payment to Consultant for the value of the work performed, less payments of compensation previously made.
Notwithstanding the above, Consultant shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by Consultant, and City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due City from Consultant is determined.
SECTION 20: BUSINESS LICENSE
Consultant shall obtain a business license for work within the City of La Mesa pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Sections 6.08.010 through 6.08.240.
No payments shall be made to Consultant until such business license has been obtained, and all fees paid therefore, by the Consultant and all sub-Consultants. Business license applications and information may be obtained from the Finance Department, City Administration Building, 8130 Allison Avenue, P. O. Box 937, La Mesa, CA 91941-0937, (619) 667-1118.
SECTION 21: INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE CITY
No member of the governing body of the City and no other officer, employee, or agent of the City, who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the Consultant shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance.
-9-
SECTION 22: INTEREST OF CONSULTANT AND EMPLOYEES; STATEMENT OF
ECONOMIC INTERESTS
Consultant covenants that it shall presently has no interest and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in any other firms or products referred to in the report recommendations or any other interest which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. City may require Consultant to complete and submit a Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests, in accordance with applicable law, to City Clerk.
SECTION 23: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Consultant shall, at his sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this Agreement.
SECTION 24: INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent Consultant and shall not be an employee of the City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
SECTION 25: TIME
Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Consultant's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
SECTION 26: CONSULTANT NOT AGENT
Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
SECTION 27: NON-DISCLOSURE
The reports, surveys, data, materials and documents prepared or acquired by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement (including any duplicate copies kept by the Consultant) shall not be shown to any other public or private person or entity, except as authorized by the City. The Consultant shall not disclose to any other public or private person or entity any information regarding the activities of the City except as authorized by the City.
-10-
SECTION 28: CHANGES
City may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Services of the Agreement to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of Consultant's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between City and Consultant shall be incorporated to this Agreement.
SECTION 29: PERS ELIGIBILITY INDEMNIFICATION
In the event that Consultant’s employee providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employer and employee contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of the employee as well as for payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.
Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant’s employees providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation and benefit including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contributions to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
SECTION 30: PREVAILING WAGES FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS– IF
APPLICABLE
A. No professional consultant or subcontractor subject to the requirements of State of California’s prevailing wages may be awarded a contract, or contracted with, for a public works project (submitted on or after April 1, 2015) unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].
B. This project may be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
SECTION 31: CONFLICTS
In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and any documents incorporated by reference in this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall supersede those contained in any such document incorporated by reference. (NEXT PAGE)
-11-
SECTION 32: DATE OF AGREEMENT
The date of this Agreement shall be the date it shall have been signed by a duly authorized representative of City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed the Agreement.
GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES,
INC.
Date: By: _____________________________
John Herrera, CPA
CITY OF LA MESA,
A Municipal Corporation
Date: By: _____________________________
Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
Date: ______________ By: _____________________________
Greg Humora, City Manager
Date: Attest:
Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date: ______________ ___________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
Attachment: Exhibit “A” – Scope of Work and Bill Rate
GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC. EXHIBIT "A" - Scope of Work & Bill Rate Client Contact: Gretchen Spaniol Director of Human Resources Interim Position: Finance Director John Herrera, CPA
Class of Assignment: Exempt
Bill Rate: $180 per hour Billed Hourly
Work Schedule: TBD John Herrera will work in the office (and remotely) as mutually agreed to meet the project needs of the City of La Mesa.
Start Date: 3/10/2025
Assignment Duration: 6 Months or Longer 30-day advance notice to terminate interim staffing services.
PROPER SUPERVISION
INTERIM STAFFING SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY TEMP EMPLOYEE(S) OF MUNITEMPS:
PROVISION FOR OTHER TEMP SERVICES (IF REQUESTED BY HR DIRECTOR / CITY MANAGER):
Authorized Signature: ______________________________________ _____________________________ City Manager Date
(2) If MuniTemps associate has worked "less than" 980 hours on this assignment at CITY (per this Exhibit A), CITY shall pay a direct hire / conversion fee equal to 18% of the annualized hourly pay rate (pay rate x 2,080) offered by CITY to MuniTemps associate.
This Exhibit A confirms that MuniTemps staff will perform duties, projects, and tasks under direction of the City Manager. Additionally, CITY acknowledges that John Herrera serves as a City consultant and may need to take phone calls or Zoom meetings during the work day. However, Mr. Herrera will ensure that these engagements do not interfere with his responsibilities at the City of La Mesa.
Appointment of John Herrera as interim Finance Director will not preclude MuniTemps from providing other temp staffing services, if so needed and requested by the CITY in writing.
Municipality: CITY OF LA MESA
CITY will properly supervise MuniTemps employee(s), whether they work at CITY's offices or remotely from home, and be responsible for its business operations, services, and intellectual property. CITY will also properly supervise, control, and safeguard its premises, processes, or systems, and not permit MuniTemps employees to operate any vehicle (see section 2.f. of municipal staffing agreement), or mobile equipment unless approved by MuniTemps in writing.
DIRECT HIRE / CONVERSION FEE OF MUNITEMPS ASSOCIATES
CITY may hire MuniTemps associate "directly" as Employee or as Independent contractor, or "indirectly" through a third party upon paying a direct hire / conversion as follows:
(1) If MuniTemps associate has worked a "minimum of" 980 hours on this assignment at CITY (per this Exhibit A), CITY may convert the MuniTemps employee to become a permanent employee of CITY at zero buyout fee.
INVOICING & TIMESHEET APPROVER: CITY shall provide the information below for CITY representative who will sign the bi-weekly timesheet via DocuSign.
Note: A/P is primary contact to receive vendor invoices to pay MuniTemps invoices when accompanied by signed timesheet.
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Email: Email:
Rev. 02-10-21 3. MuniTemps EXHIBIT A (Final) City of La Mesa (Finance Director) v2 3/10/2025 9:12 AM 3/10/25
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 13, 2025
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LA MESA BOULEVARD
COMPLETE STREETS PLAN SEGMENT 2
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issue:
Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan Segment 2?
Recommendation:
That the City of La Mesa adopts a resolution approving the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan Segment 2.
Fiscal Impact:
None at this time. Final design and construction activities are contingent on grants and other sources of funding yet to be determined. Adoption of the Segment 2 Plan makes the project eligible and competitive for grant funding.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe. Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 2 of 4
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
T-1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure – Encourage active transportation options through planning and development of safe active transportation infrastructure and facilities in the City.
T- 4 Mixed-Use and Transit Oriented Development – Encourage mixed-use and transit-oriented development to support alternative transportation opportunities and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
GI-1 Urban Forest Master Plan – Support natural carbon sequestration opportunities through continued development and maintenance of a healthy, vibrant urban forest.
BACKGROUND:
The City of La Mesa received an SB-1 Sustainable Communities grant from the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan Segment 2. This visionary plan is intended to provide a framework for the redevelopment of last century’s auto-centric corridor into a thriving mixed-use active transportation corridor that maximizes the use of walking, biking, micro-mobility and transit, and can serve as a model for the redevelopment of other established corridors within the City.
DISCUSSION:
The La Mesa Boulevard/Grossmont Center Drive corridor between Jackson Drive and Center Drive is located along MTS Route 852 and within a mile of both the La Mesa Boulevard trolley station and the Fletcher Parkway/Grossmont Transit Center and has been identified as a Smart Growth Opportunity Area by the San Diego Association of Governments. The specific limits of the corridor are along La Mesa Boulevard between Jackson Drive and Interstate 8, and Grossmont Center Drive and to Center Drive.
Key features include the incorporation of enhanced transit stops along MTS Route 852 with direct access to the San Diego Trolley at La Mesa Boulevard and Grossmont Transit Stations, as well as construction of roundabouts along the corridor at key intersections.
Safe and inviting public spaces, streetscape, water quality and other sustainability enhancements are also envisioned as part of the program.
Staff provided outreach to both the public and numerous stakeholders. Public outreach included the creation of a project website, fact sheets, social media, two rounds of public surveys, public meeting events, commission meetings, and a public workshop.
The following is a summary of key feedback received:
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 3 of 4
1. Add more pedestrian crossings
2. Create bike lanes with physical barriers
3. Slower cars
4. Consider roundabouts
On March 6, 2024, City staff met with the Mobility Commission who provided the following suggestions:
1. Change “reverse” to “drive in” angled parking
2. Stress importance of proper bike lanes for both the inside and outside buffers to protect against both moving vehicles and vehicles opening their doors while parked
3. Identified concern with driveway conflict points along class four bike facilities
4. While supportive of roundabouts, they recommended a phased approach to get the community comfortable with this concept
On April 15, 2024, City staff met with the Environmental Sustainability Commission who provided the following suggestions:
1. Consider additional green space
2. Expressed support for Class IV bike facilities and roundabouts
3. Stressed the importance of the plan helping the City to meet climate goals When completed, the project will provide a road map for the pursuit of design and construction funding and environmental approvals. As it progresses, continuing community outreach and education regarding the benefits of active transportation and Smart Growth will occur. A presentation on the project and its goals was made to the City Council at their March 25, 2025, meeting.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan Segment 2.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ __________________ _________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 4 of 4
_____________________
Michael Kinnard, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution
Attachment B: Presentation
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING THE LA MESA BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS PLAN SEGMENT 2
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, $25 million in Senate Bill 1 funding was made available to jurisdictions through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Communities Grant Program for the Fiscal Year 2022 funding cycle;
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2021, City Council approved submittal of an application to the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the preparation of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan Segment 2 and was awarded a grant from Caltrans to prepare the plan;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has adopted a Complete Streets Policy or the equivalent in the 2012 General Plan Update in a public hearing on July 09, 2013, that is consistent with the California Complete Streets Act;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa adopted a Climate Action Plan in March 2018 and an Updated Climate Action Plan in November 2024, which established a goal to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 2016 levels by 2035 and 85% below 2016 levels by 2045; and
WHEREAS, after extensive public input and consultation with City boards and commissions, the draft Plan was reviewed by the City Council at a public meeting and finds that the Plan meets the requirements of the grant and the stated goals and policies of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, hereby adopts a resolution approving the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan Segment 2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 13th day of May 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2025- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
La Mesa Blvd Complete Streets Plan – Segment 2
Presentation | City Council
2
2 3
PROJECT OVERVIEW
$380,000 Caltrans Sustainable
Communities grant
Transform La Mesa Blvd into a Complete
Street
Improve corridor safety
Enhance connections to key destinations
including transit amenities, Sharp Health
Care, Grossmont Center Drive, and more
4 KEY BIG IDEAS
Consistency with the CAP
Reducing exposure times for pedestrian and bicycles
Balancing modes
Equitable use for everyone
Maintain parking and add parking where possible
77 EXISTING MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE
8 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Project Website https://www.cityoflamesa.us/1754/La-Mesa-Boulevard-Complete-Streets-Segme Project Fact Sheet
Social Media Posts / 4300 followers
Public Notices and Mailers
Focus Groups / 5 Meetings
Public Survey / 480 responses
Pop-Ups
La Mesa Village Farmers’ Market
La Mesa Oktoberfest
Public Workshop (October 30, 2023)
9 TOP RESPONSES
9 1. People drive too fast
2. Difficulty finding parking
3. Difficulty crossing the street when I’m walking
4. Too much congestion and traffic
Top Responses:
• More traffic management
• Increased pedestrian walkability
• Separate, protected bike lanes
• Shorter street crossing distances
What challenges do you encounter when you come here?
I would like to see…
• Street trees, beautification, landscaping
• Easier parking, curb management
• Slower car traffic
• Better, improved access
10 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Blue – Existing Average
Daily Traffic (ADT)
“Vehicles per Day”
Roadway Level of Service
A-C
D
E
F
Daily Traffic Volumes Page 47 of 2604
11 C
CC
C
C
C
C
S
C
C
C
C
C
C
V
C
C
C
C
C
C
S
C
C
C
C
VC
VC
C
C
C
C
V
C
C
C
C
S
C
C
SAFETY
42 Collisions 3 Severe Injuries 4 Ped Related
Injuries
2 Bicycle
Related Injuries
1212
KEY PROJECT SEGMENTS
1313
EXISTING
PROPOSED
JACKSON DR TO GROSSMONT BLVD
16 ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTS
Jackson Drive and
La Mesa Boulevard
Wilson St/Garfield St
1717
EXISTING
PROPOSED
GROSSMONT BLVD TO HAWLEY AVE
1818
EXISTING
PROPOSED
HAWLEY AVE TO MURRAY DR
1919
EXISTING
PROPOSED
HAWLEY AVE TO MURRAY DR
2020
EXISTING
PROPOSED
HAWLEY AVE TO MURRAY DR
2121
EXISTING
PROPOSED
MURRAY DR TO CENTER DR
2424
CORRIDOR
RECOMMENDATION
27 NEXT STEPS
Implementation:
Look for funding opportunities
Future City Council Meeting
Adopt a resolution for the approval of the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan, Segment 2
Feedback/Comments/Questions?
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 13, 2025
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LA MESA BIKE AND
SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT PLANNING
PHASE PLAN
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issue:
Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving the planning phase plan for the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the planning phase plan for the Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project.
Fiscal Impact:
None at this time. Final design and construction activities are contingent on grants and other sources of funding yet to be determined. Adoption of the planning phase plan increases the eligibility and competitiveness of the individual project segments for grant funding.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe. Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 2 of 3
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
T-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Development BACKGROUND:
The City of La Mesa received an Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant for the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections project. The project approval and environmental documentation (PA&ED) phase of the grant was completed in 2024. The recommended project segments are consistent with the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan, the Vision Zero Policy and adopted Sidewalk Master Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The goal of the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections project is to complete gaps in the bike and pedestrian circulation networks along collector and arterial streets within the City to improve safety and access to transit, schools, parks, healthcare, and other essential services.
The goal of the PA&ED phase was to complete a planning level study that assessed opportunities and constraints, determined needs and demands, collected community feedback, and evaluated alternatives that have multiple options and or complicating factors including school traffic, challenges to construction (such as encroaching private improvements) or right of way acquisition. There are eight planning segments included in this scope of work:
A. La Mesa Rail Trail Multi-Use Path
B. Pasadena Avenue Sidewalks/Collier Multi-Use Path/Mariposa Trail (Spring Street to Upland Street)
C. Palm Avenue Bike Lanes (University Avenue to Spring Street) D. Gateside Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalk (Park Lane to Payson Road) E. La Mesa Boulevard Bike Lanes (Jackson Drive to I-8)
F. Jackson Drive Bike Lanes and Sidewalks (La Mesa Blvd. to Lemon Avenue) G. Lemon Avenue Sidewalks and Bike Lanes (Glen St. to SR 125) H. Garfield Street Sidewalks
City staff presented the results of the study to the Mobility Commission and the Environmental Sustainability Commission in June 2024 and May 2024, respectively. The commissions have passed motions to support the staff recommended alternatives.
The roadway segments and recommendations were presented to the City Council on April 22, 2025 excluding Segment E, which is included in the La Mesa Boulevard Complete
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 3 of 3
Streets project. The findings for Segment E are included in the final report for the planning study. The final recommendations for each segment are described beginning on page 15 of the attached Final Report.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the planning phase plan for the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Carly Cubberley, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: Attachment A – Resolution
Attachment B – Final Report
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING
THE LA MESA BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT PLANNING
PHASE PLAN
WHEREAS, $440 million in federal and statewide funding was made available to jurisdictions through the Active Transportation Program “ATP” for Fiscal Years 2021-2022, 2022- 2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025;
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, the City of La Mesa project was recommended to receive $3,962,000 in grand funding from the Regional Competition administered by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), $180,000 for the PA&ED phase; WHEREAS, the grant funding is for a portion of the amount requested in the application and therefore the City of La Mesa will be required to provide the remaining funds in the amount of $528,233 in order to be awarded the grant, $72,233 for the PA&ED phase; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has adopted a Vision Zero Policy in September 2018, and the proposed project is in line with four of the activities of the policy; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has adopted a Complete Streets Policy or the equivalent in the 2012 General Plan Update in a public hearing on July 09, 2013, that is consistent with the California Complete Streets Act;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa adopted a Climate Action Plan in March 2018, which established a goal to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 53% and reduce vehicle miles traveled by 6% by 2035 through infrastructure improvements and other programs; and updated in 2024 with greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 50% below 2016 levels by 2035 and 85% below 2016 levels by 2045; and
WHEREAS, after public engagement and input on the project segments was receive, the planning phase for the Project was completed and ready to be approved by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, adopts a resolution approving the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project Planning Phase Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 13th day of May 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2025- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
Project Study Report Equivalent (PSRE)
June 30, 2024
Bike and Sidewalk Connections
Planning Phase Projects
August 20, 2024 Page 64 of 2604
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects i Table of Contents
1. Introduction....................................................................................................1
2. Background.....................................................................................................3
3. Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................3
4. Deficiencies ....................................................................................................4
5. Projects and Alternatives................................................................................5
6. Community and Stakeholder Involvement .....................................................9
7. Environmental Compliance...........................................................................10
8. Funding, Programming and Estimates..........................................................10
9. Delivery Schedules........................................................................................11
10. Project Risks .................................................................................................12
11. External Agency Coordination ......................................................................13
12. Project Reviews............................................................................................13
13. Project Personnel .........................................................................................14
14. Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................15 Attachments
A. Project Maps
B. Project Cost Estimates
C. Community and Stakeholder Outreach Report
D. Public Comment Summary
E. Commissioner’s Comment Summary
F. Lemon Avenue/Jackson Drive Corridor Survey
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 1
1. Introduction
The City of La Mesa was awarded a planning grant from the regional allocation of the State of California’s Cycle 5 Active Transportation Program forthe La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project (LMBSWC). The grant includes funding for three phases of work: the Planning (or Project Approval & Environmental Documentation‐PA&ED) Phase, the Design (or Preliminary Engineering‐PE) Phase, and the Construction Phase.
This Project Study Report Equivalent (PSRE) document covers eight projects currently in the Planning Phase, which were selected as requiring additional study, community outreach and potentially involving some controversial elements due to issues such as loss of on‐street parking or impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. The eight Planning Phase projects are currently unfunded for final design and construction, and the City will need to pursue additional funding to complete these phases of the planning projects. The format, organization and content of this report generally follows that of a Caltrans PSRE; however, it has been modified to reduce extraneous information and better fit the requirements and needs of a local agency project.
The purpose of the LMBSWC program is to improve accessibility and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Due to the geographic distribution of the projects within the City of La Mesa, planning efforts have been organized into two groups of four projects each, with the locations indicated on the vicinity maps below.
Detailed descriptions of the proposed projects and alternatives are included in Section 5.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 2 Vicinity Map-West Side Projects
Vicinity Map-East Side Projects
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 3
2. Background
City of La Mesa staff prepared and submitted a grant application in June 2021 seeking funds under Cycle 5 of the State of California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP). The grant application sought planning, design, and construction funding for a suite of bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects gleaned from a review of the City’s previous active transportation plans and which was designed to complete gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle circulation networks as well assupport the active transportation goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and safety goals of the City’s Vision Zero (VZ) policy.
The La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections grant application was notsuccessful in the statewide competition; however, it was ranked number 2 by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in the competition for regional ATP funds. Due to limitations on regional funds the LMBSWC Project was awarded only partial funding and, following discussions with SANDAG, the City agreed to make up the shortfall with other local funds, accepted the grant award, and executed the grant agreement.
3. Purpose and Need
The purpose of the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Project is to assess viability, evaluate alternatives, collect community feedback, and estimate order of magnitude costs for a group of eight proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects. These projects are currently unfunded for final design and construction; these planning studies will determine which move forward in the project development process.
The need for these projects is established in the City of La Mesa’s CAP and VZ policy. The CAP provides a framework for the long‐term reduction of carbon‐based emissions, and a key element of that is providing for alternative modes of transportation, since transportation is a significant generator of GHGs. Walking, biking, and access to transit will encourage a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to zero‐emission active transportation for short trips, and to low‐emission transit for longer trips. Safe, low‐stress and inviting bicycle and pedestrian facilities are also critical to implementing a Vision Zero policy of eliminating deaths and serious injuries among the most vulnerable of roadway users. Further development of these active transportation projects will provide dedicated and connected facilities for bikers and walkers to safely access key destinations such as transit, schools, parks, public facilities and neighborhood retail outlets.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 4
4. Deficiencies
Deficiencies and safety issues within the City of La Mesa’s bicycle and pedestrian circulation networks have been researched and well documented through the preparation of several local active transportation plans over the last decade or so. These plans include the following:
Bicycle Facilities & Alternative Transportation Plan (February 2012) Sidewalk Master Plan (June 2014)
Urban Trails Mobility Action Plan (February 2016)
Livable La Mesa Action Plan (October 2019)
Local Road Safety Plan (Submitted 2021)
These plans were reviewed in detail by City staff with the goal of developing a list of projects needed to complete gaps in the circulation systems, support the long‐term goals of the Climate Action Plan, and provide safety improvements consistent with the City’s adoption of a Vision Zero policy.
The main goal of Vision Zero is eliminating traffic fatalities and seriousinjuries among all roadway users, most specifically the most vulnerable users which include pedestrians and bicyclists. The list of needed active transportation projects developed through this review ultimately became the basis for the development of the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections grant application.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 5
5. Projects and Alternatives
The eight bicycle/pedestrian projects included in the LMBSWC Planning Phase are described in detail below.
These projects are separated into two groups, West Side and East Side, for ease of reference and addressing interrelations between the individual projects. Conceptual‐level plans and cost estimates for each of the projects are included as attachments to this report.
West Side Projects
La Mesa Rail Trail Multi‐Use Path
The Rail Trail is a proposed north‐south multi‐use path that would provide an alternative to walking or biking on busy, high speed Spring Street, while providing transit access for Nebo Hill neighborhoodsto the west as well as connecting the Spring Street and La Mesa Boulevard Transit Stations along the west side of the San Diego Trolley. It would ultimately connect to regional bicycle routes to the west, encourage use of active transportation for the recently approved Transit‐Oriented Development at the station site and allow Spring Street Transit Station to supplement the busy and constrained La Mesa Boulevard Transit Station.
Alternatives include:
Alternative A: A new paved multi‐use path generally located within new and existing City rights‐of‐way and a Helix Water District easement west of the San Diego Trolley tracks.
This alignment would provide a curving, more scenic route with a decorative bridge crossing an existing watercourse and grades up to 5%.
Alternative B: A paved multi‐use path located mainly within MTS right‐of‐way, parallel to and west of the San Diego Trolley. This alignment would provide milder grades (generally about 2%) and a more direct route but would be located in closer proximity to the trolley tracks.
Pasadena Sidewalk‐Collier Trail‐Mariposa Alley Pedestrian Route This project proposes an east‐west pedestrian connection (although it could be navigated by bikes) from Spring Street one quarter mile north of the transitstation via an ADA‐compliant ramp down to Pasadena Avenue then via sidewalk along the south side of the street to Palm Avenue and Collier Park. From that point a paved multi‐use path would skirt around the hill at the north end of Collier Park to 4th Street.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 6 With a mid‐block pedestrian crossing at 4th, an ADA‐compliant ramp, stair and sidewalk would then provide accessthrough Mariposa Alley to Mariposa Street, which would then provide a low‐ stress “park to park” pedestrian and bike route to Eucalyptus Park and the eastern City Limits.
Options and alternatives include variations in the design of the stairs and ramps, amenities and finishes along the multi‐use path, and enhancements to the “paseo” along the east end of the Mariposa Alley which is also used by residents for vehicular access.
Palm Avenue Bike Lanes
This project features a proposed north‐south bicycle route along Palm Avenue providing a lower‐ volume, lower‐speed alternative to Spring Street for bicyclists traveling between University Avenue on the north and Broadway on the south.
Alternative A: This project proposes shared bicycle lanes in both northbound and southbound directions. The existing on‐street parking would remain on both sides of the street.
Alternative B: This alternative proposes a shared bicycle lane southbound and a dedicated bike lane northbound where roadway width is available, while preserving existing on‐street parking.
In addition to the two alternatives described above two other alternatives were evaluated, both of which would have eliminated parking on one or both sides of Palm Avenue in favor of buffered or non‐buffered dedicated bike lanes. With the City’s concurrence, these two alternatives are no longer under consideration due to community impacts and feedback.
Gateside Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalk
This project would complete a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Gateside Road between Park Lane and Payson Road, providing connectivity from the Spring Street corridor via Gateside Road and Riviera Drive to points west, including the Lemon Grove Transit Station.
Project elements would include ADA‐compliant sidewalk on the west side only; curb ramps; new curb and gutter; 5’ dedicated bike lanes on both sides; high visibility pedestrian crossings; advanced warning signage; retaining wall; utility relocations and right of way acquisition. Due to the very narrow existing right of way (40’) alternatives and options are very limited. One design variation considered was to construct a cut slope on the west side rather than a retaining wall, this option was eliminated from further consideration due to impacts to the fronting properties.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 7 East Side Projects
Lemon Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
This project proposes bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including traffic management features, on Lemon Avenue from Glen Street to State Route 125. Thisresidential corridorincludes an elementary school and is heavily impacted by “cut through” traffic during the PM rush hour by southbound and eastbound drivers seeking to avoid congestion on SR 125. Residents along the corridor have been presented with and asked to weigh in on a list of alternative active transportation measures and traffic mitigation options, which include the following:
Tabletop raised intersection at Garfield Street
Enhanced pedestrian crossing with curb pop‐outs at Wood Street Reduction of posted speed limit per Assembly Bill 43 criteria Posting of a permanent truck weight restriction
Improved lighting and traffic monitoring using “smart” street lights Neighborhood entry monument(s) with island chicane(s) Permanent radar speed feedback signs
Narrower “squeezed” traffic lanes with high‐visibility edge lines ADA‐compliant sidewalks and driveways on north side of street Dedicated, buffered bike lanes in both directions with no on‐street parking Jackson Drive Sidewalks and Bike Facilities
The Jackson Drive corridor from Lemon Avenue to La Mesa Boulevard is also impacted by “cut through” traffic during the PM rush hour. Jackson Drive does not currently have continuous sidewalks or marked bicycle facilities and connects residential areas and Lemon Avenue Elementary School to the transit and commercial corridor along La Mesa Boulevard. Jackson Drive residents were also polled for their input on the same active transportation and traffic management measures as Lemon Avenue residents. Alternatives include:
Alternative A: ADA‐compliant sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways with shared bike lanes, while retaining on‐street parking.
Alternative B: ADA‐compliant sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways with dedicated bike lanes and buffers, eliminating on‐street parking.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 8 La Mesa Boulevard Bike Lanes
This project encompasses bicycle lane improvements on La Mesa Boulevard from Jackson Drive to Interstate 8. This project is expected to be an interim improvement until future multimodal improvements are implemented as part of the longer term La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan. Alternatives include:
Alternative A: Restriping to add bike lanes within the existing roadway prism while retaining the existing on‐street parking.
Alternative B: Removal of raised medians, modification of the existing traffic signal at La Mesa Blvd./Jackson Dr. and restriping to add bike lanes and buffers within the existing roadway while retaining on‐street parking.
Garfield Street Sidewalks
This project proposes continuous, ADA‐compliant pedestrian improvements on Garfield Street from Lemon Avenue to La Mesa Boulevard to connect schools and residential areas with commercial areas, medical services and the regional transit corridor along La Mesa Boulevard.
One minor variation to address existing private encroachments blocking the sidewalk within the public right of way would be to extend the curb out to the traffic lane on the affected blocks, with no parking allowed on that segment. Either one or both sides of the street could be improved with sidewalks, as resources are available:
Alternative A: ADA‐compliant sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways on the east side of the street.
Alternative B: ADA‐compliant sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways on the west side of the street.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 9
6. Community and Stakeholder Involvement
A key element of the Planning Phase projects was an intensive community and stakeholder outreach effort, which featured the following major elements:
Solicitation of letters ofsupport from localstakeholders during preparation of the original LMBSWC Active Transportation Program grant application. Individual meetings with key stakeholders during the conceptual design process, Helix Water District, the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and the Nebo neighborhood being three examples.
Staffing an informational booth/public workshop during La Mesa’s Earth Day celebration on April 20, 2024. Project staff from the City of La Mesa and the consultant team presented the projects, responded to community member’s questions and collected written and verbal comments.
The Lemon Avenue/Jackson Drive corridor south of La Mesa Boulevard was identified as one area heavily impacted by traffic conditions and active transportation concerns.
Focused mailers were sent to 38 addresses fronting the corridor along with a project description, project area map and a printed survey requesting support, neutrality or opposition to ten proposed active transportation/traffic calming measures for the project. The information also included a link to the project website, link to an online survey and addresses where emailed or written comments could be submitted. The online survey was active from the beginning of March through the end of May 2024. Notification postcards were also mailed to 51 addresses that would be directly affected by physical construction (i.e., other than sidewalks or restriping) of other projects in the planning package with basic information and a QR code and link to the project website which provided additional details, as well as an email address for submittal of written comments.
Online access was provided to a city‐hosted project website with descriptions and graphics for each of the eight projects from early March until the end of June 2024. Two publicly advertised presentations were made to the La Mesa Environmental Sustainability Commission at their regular meetings in December 2023 and May 2024.
Projects were also submitted in advance for review and comment by a two‐person subcommittee appointed by the Commission.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 10 Three publicly noticed presentations were made to the La Mesa Mobility Commission at their regular meetings in December 2023, April 2024 and June 2024. All projects were submitted in advance for review and comment by a two‐person subcommittee appointed by the Commission, their comments are summarized in the attachments. A presentation to a regional bicycle user’s group was made to the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition’s Council of Clubs on May 15, 2024.
At the request of the Nebo Drive neighborhood, a meeting with the City’s Project Manager and the design consultant was held in the field on June 18, 2024. Comments received following that meeting are included in the attachments.
A summary of the comments received during the community outreach process, as well as comments received from the online survey, are included as attachments. Public comments were accepted from approximately April 1, 2024, to June 28, 2024.
7. Environmental Compliance
As nearly all of these projects are confined to modifications of existing facilities within City‐owned rights of way, it is anticipated that they will likely be Categorically Exempt (CE) under CEQA, and Categorically Excluded under NEPA if federal funding is utilized for construction.
Only three projects, Gateside Road, Lemon Avenue and the La Mesa Rail Trail, are anticipated to require limited right of way acquisition, which in turn may require a higher level of environmental review such as a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
8. Funding, Programming and Estimates
The City of La Mesa does not currently have a locally funded major capital program for the development of active transportation projects; therefore, it is expected that the majority of these projects that advance to final design and construction will be funded through a combination of federal, state and/or regional grants supplemented by local matching funds. Some of the more basic restriping projects could be performed by City forces or contractors as part of ongoing maintenance efforts. Conceptual level, Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimatesfor each of the projects are included as attachments.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 11
9. Delivery Schedules A typical preliminary project schedule has been developed with key milestone dates related to project implementation. This schedule is based on a projected timeline for an ATP project awarded under Cycle 7 and is presented below.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 12
10. Project Risks
The following risks have been identified by the project team during development of the conceptual designs:
Right of Way Clearances– Only three of the eight projects in this package are expected to require right of way acquisition; however, due to the lead time for surveying, appraisals, negotiations, Caltrans approvals and other acquisition tasks there is an implied risk to these projects for an extended schedule.
Utility Clearances – As with right of way, there are only a few significant utility relocations required within this package of AT projects. Gateside Road is one project that requires utility relocations which physically cannot take place until additional right of way is acquired. Significant lead time can be expected for the affected utility companies to secure agreements, procure materials, design and construct the relocations prior to any roadway or sidewalk construction.
Project Schedules – Schedule adherence, particularly on grant funded projects with hard expiration deadlines, is critical and demands close monitoring of progress, intermediate milestones and measures to mitigate schedule slippage.
Construction Costs – Labor and construction materials markets continue to be volatile and are expected to be so for the foreseeable future. Estimated costs for these projects have a 20% construction contingency applied and have escalation calculated at the CPI rate to the midpoint of construction (3.4% for three years) assuming an ATP Cycle 7 projectschedule; however, these measures cannot be considered asfull insurance against changes in project scope, supply chain issues or future cost spikes in labor and materials. Permitting/Third Party Approvals —As with right of way and utilities, there are not many external approvals or permits required to implement these projects. One that should be noted is MTS’ and Helix Water District’s approval and permitting of the La Mesa Rail Trail, should either alignment be selected to move forward. MTS and Helix have been engaged early on this project, that process should be continued with open lines of communication and regular meetings to confirm the direction and details of the project, and to minimize operational impacts to the facilities of both agencies. Community Objections – Despite lengthy and intensive advance outreach efforts, there are too many interests, concerns and community members affected to fully address the all the potential community concerns and objections by the time of construction.
Continuing outreach and engagement through the final design and construction period is recommended to mitigate some of this risk.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 13 Construction Issues – Construction issues that may expected to be encountered during construction include traffic control/detours, loss of parking, undocumented utilities, rock excavation, noise and dust controls, community impacts, drainage and water quality issues. A package of well‐prepared construction documents with provisions for unforeseen conditions and a thorough Quality Assurance review by an independent party such as a qualified and experienced construction management firm will assist in alleviating the major cost, schedule, construction impacts and other risks related to construction issues.
11. External Agency Coordination
External stakeholder agency coordination is addressed under Section 6, Community and Stakeholder Involvement. In addition to the community at large, major stakeholders on these projects include Helix Water District and MTS.
12. Project Reviews
During project development, progress reviews were performed by City of La Mesa staff and by independent STC Traffic staff as part of the internal Quality Assurance review process. Formal review and adoption of this planning package will be by the La Mesa Mobility Commission, La Mesa Environmental Sustainability Commission and the City Council. Full, detailed technical reviews are expected to be performed by the City during the final design phase.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 14
13. Project Personnel
The following personnel have contributed to the development of this Project Study Report Equivalent:
City of La Mesa
o Carly Cubberley, PE, Project Manager
STC Traffic, Inc.
o Philip R. Kern, PE, Sr. Project Manager/Principal Civil Engineer o Joseph Walters, Project Engineer, Civil
o Myles Baidy, TE Project Engineer, Traffic
o Ashley Adamos, Public Engagement/Grants Management
RE Services Landscape Architecture
o David Preciado, ASLA
o Jaime Sandoval
o Colby Alston
This Project Study Report Equivalent has been prepared under the direction and supervision of Philip R. Kern, PE.
Philip R. Kern RCE 40831
STC Traffic, Inc.
5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 218
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 15
14. Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on evaluation of the concept designs and cost estimates, discussion with stakeholders and comments received from the community during the outreach period. Supporting information for each of these elements is presented in the attachments.
As noted above, the basic project implementation schedule is based on an Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant award for final design and construction under the California Transportation Commission’s ATP Cycle 7. Escalation is calculated for three years from June 2024 through June 2027 (the assumed midpoint of construction) at the April 2024 CPI rate of 3.4%. Escalation for projects that are expected to take longer to implement will need to be recalculated based on the actual dates of construction. Project costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project Cost Summary Project
Number Project Name Alternative AEstimated Cost
Alternative B
Estimated Cost Recommendations and Comments
1 Rail Trail $5,736,000 $5,293,000 Alternative B, “Railroad Alternative”, recommended for implementation.
2a Pasadena
Sidewalk $913,000 N/A Not recommended for implementation dueto cost and lack of community support. 2b Collier Trail $1,113,000 N/A Recommended for implementation. 2c Mariposa Alley $1,916,000 N/A Not recommended for implementation due to cost and lack of community support.
3 Palm Avenue
Bike Lanes $304,000 $316,000 Alternative A recommended forimplementation. 4 Gateside Rd.
Bike Lanes and
Sidewalk
$1,089,000 N/A No design alternatives due to limited right of way. Recommended for implementation.
5 Lemon Avenue
Bike Lanes and
Sidewalk
$1,750,000 N/A
No design alternatives, multiple
improvement options recommended for
implementation with shared bike lanes.
6 Jackson Drive
Bike Lanes and
Sidewalk
$974,000 $974,000 Alternative A (shared bike lanes)
recommended for implementation.
7 La Mesa Blvd.
Bike Lanes $357,000 $2,108,000
Alternative B recommended for
implementation, includes signal
modification at La Mesa Blvd. & Jackson Dr.
8 Garfield Street
Sidewalks $500,000 $500,000
Recommended for implementation.
Estimated costs shown are for east and west
sides which could be constructed separately
or together.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 16 West Side Projects
La Mesa Rail Trail Multi‐Use Path – Alternative B, the “Railroad Alternative”, is recommended as the preferred alternative. It provides a more direct route for bicyclists and walkers, minimizes impacts to the existing Helix Water District transmission water main and has fewer impacts (i.e. noise and privacy) on the residences adjacent to the project on the west side of the Trolley.
Estimated cost is $5,293,000, which would increase to $5,851,000 with escalation.
Pasadena Sidewalk/Collier Trail/Mariposa Alley – This project would provide an east‐west pedestrian connection one quarter mile north of Spring Street Trolley Station. Community feedback indicated no particular need or desire for the Pasadena sidewalk/ramp and the Mariposa stair/ramp connections, as well as concerns with appearance and construction impacts.
The existing terrain with significant differences in grade requiring retaining walls, ramps, grading and concrete work make these segmentsrelatively expensive to construct, for these reasonsthey are not recommended to move forward. The Collier Trail, which would complete a walking loop through the north end of the park and includes re‐grading of the East Trail for ADA compliance, is recommended for implementation as resources are available. Estimated cost for the Collier Trail segment only is $1,113,000. Estimated overall project cost for all three segments is $3,941,000, which would increase to $4,357,000 with escalation.
Palm Avenue Bike Lanes – Palm Avenue offers an alternative route for bikes east of Spring Street, whose bike lanes terminate north of the Trolley station. Alternative B is recommended for implementation, which would provide a dedicated bike lane in the northbound (uphill) direction, and a shared facility in the southbound (downhill) direction where bikes would more closely match the speed of other traffic. Estimated cost for Alternative B is $316,000, which would increase to $383,000 with escalation.
Gateside Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalks – Due to the established alignment and very limited existing right of way width (40’) along this segment, there are no significant alternatives to consider other than minor design details. With right of way to be acquired and utilities to be relocated Gateside Road is expected to be a longer‐term project. This project is recommended for implementation with an estimated cost of $1,089,000, increasing to $1,204,000 with escalation.
East Side Projects
Lemon Avenue Bike Lanes and Sidewalks – Lemon Avenue, along with the southerly segment of Jackson Drive, is considered an impacted corridor due to the high volume of “cut through” traffic during the PM rush hour. A direct survey indicated that the package of ten proposed bicycle/pedestrian safety measures and traffic calming improvements was well received by the residents, with the one exception of eliminating on‐street parking in favor of installing dedicated bike lanes. It is recommended that this project move forward with provisions for shared traffic
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects 17 lanes in lieu of dedicated bike lanes and associated loss of parking. Estimated cost is $1,750,000, which would increase to $1,935,000 with escalation.
Jackson Drive Bike Lanes and Sidewalks – This section of Jackson Drive operates in tandem with Lemon Avenue and is similarly impacted by PM rush hour traffic. A survey of residents indicated similar concerns with eliminating on‐street parking to install dedicated bike lanes. The alternative recommended for implementation is Alternative B, which featuresshared bicycle/vehicular lanes while retaining existing on‐street parking. Estimated cost is $974,000, which would increase to $1,077,000 with escalation.
La Mesa Boulevard Bike Lanes – The La Mesa Boulevard transit corridor is slated for long term redevelopment under the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan (LMBCSP), so this planning effort has been approached as a shorter‐term project until LMBCSP kicksin. Based on discussions with stakeholders Alternative B, installation of dedicated bike lanes with buffers, is recommended as the preferred alternative. This alternative has significantly higher costs but incorporates features such as interim upgrades to the La Mesa Boulevard/Jackson Drive intersection that were desired by the community. Estimated cost of Alternative B is $2,108,000, which would increase to $2,331,000 with escalation.
Garfield Street Sidewalks – Garfield Street sidewalks are recommended for implementation by the City as resources are available. The alternatives provide for installation of sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. Total cost for the east and west side sidewalks is estimated at $999,000, increasing to $1,105,000 with escalation.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects Attachment A
Concept Plans
PASADENA AVE.
NEBO DRIVE DATE AVENUE
SPRING STREET
TRANSIT STATION SPRING STREET
BEGIN TRAIL
CONNECT TO
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
DECORATIVE
BRIDGE END TRAIL
CONNECT TO
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
AND NEBO DR. SAN DIEGO TROLLEY
NEBO
SUBSTATION
LANDSCAPED
SWALE
5% MAXIMUM VIEW POINT
GRADE
D
B
A C FINLEY AVENUE
MAINTENANCE
TURNOUT
LA MESA BIKE AND SIDEWALK
CONNECTIONS PROJECT
RAIL TRAIL
WATER MAIN ALTERNATE A
August 20, 2024
Section C - Valley Segment Section A - Hillside Segment Elevation B - Rest Stop Section D - Swale Segment
PASADENA AVE.
NEBO DRIVE
DATE AVENUE
SPRING STREET
TRANSIT STATION SPRING STREET
BEGIN TRAIL
CONNECT TO
EXISTING
WALKWAY
END TRAIL
CONNECT TO
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
AND NEBO DR. SAN DIEGO TROLLEY
NEBO
SUBSTATION
LANDSCAPED
SWALE 5% MAXIMUM
GRADE REST STOP/
MAINTENANCE
TURNOUT
RETAINING WALL WITH
ARCHITECTURAL FINISH
C D
B
A
HIGH STREET FINLEY AVENUE
LA MESA BIKE AND SIDEWALK
CONNECTIONS PROJECT
RAIL TRAIL
RAILROAD ALTERNATE B
August 20, 2024
Elevation B - Rest Stop Section A - Cut Segment Section C - Fill Segment Section D - Swale Segment
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W
SS
G G G G G
G
G
GG
G
G
G G
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
G
G
W W
W
2. PASADENA AVE SIDEWALKS
TRAFFIC
3. PALM AVENUE BIKE LANES ALTERNATE A 1 2 BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC
3. PALM AVENUE BIKE LANES ALTERNATE A BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC 2 2 Page 91 of 2604
3. PALM AVENUE BIKE LANES ALTERNATE B 1 2 BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC
BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC 3. PALM AVENUE BIKE LANES ALTERNATE B 2 2 Page 93 of 2604 25 25 5. LEMON AVENUE SIDEWALKS & BIKE LANES BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 2
MATCH LINE SEE BELOW RAISED TABLETOP INTERSECTION
WITH PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
ENHANCED PEDESTRIANCROSSING WITH CURB POP-OUT
HIGH VISIBILITY 6" EDGE LINESWITH NARROWER 10' LANES
HIGH VISIBILITY 6" EDGE LINESWITH NARROWER 10' LANES
STOP GARFIELD ST. WOOD STREET JACKSON DR.
BUFFERED BIKE LANES AND
ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY
MONUMENT WITH CHICANE
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE
X X X X X X X X X X X X 6. JACKSON DR BIKE LANE AND SIDEWALKS ALTERNATE A BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC
X X X X X X X X X X X X BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC 6. JACKSON DR BIKE LANE AND SIDEWALKS ALTERNATE B Page 96 of 2604 BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC 7. GARFIELD STREET SIDEWALKS ALTERNATE A & B Page 97 of 2604 BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC 8. GATESIDE ROAD BIKE LANES & SIDEWALKS Page 98 of 2604 City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects Attachment B
Project Cost Estimates
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 5673589:999;99 3589:999 599<3589:999
= 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
> 567358:999;99 358:999 599<358:999
? 56738:999;99 38:999 599<38:999
8 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
@ 599<
A
B
C
59 599<
4
55 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999
5= =899DE3=8;99 3@=:899 599<3@=:899
5> 599<
5? 5999DE3>8;99 3>8:999 599<3>8:999
58 899DE3599;99 389:999 599<389:999
5@ 899DE3=9;99 359:999 599<359:999
5A A>997F3A8;99 38?A:899 599<38?A:899
5B ?A997F35=8;99 38BA:899 599<38BA:899
5C 5GH3599:999;99 3599:999 599<3599:999
=9 589DE35:999;99 3589:999 599<3589:999
=5 59997F359;99 359:999 599<359:999
== =896F3=9;99 38:999 599<38:999
=> =GH3A:899;99 358:999 599<358:999
=? ??@IJK3589;99 3@@:BB5 599<3@@:BB5
=8 =989 6F358;99 3>9:A89 599<3>9:A89
=@ ?8@DE3589;99 3@B:>>> 599<3@B:>>>
=ADLMNOPQRS =GH38:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
=BDTSUVWTXYP =GH38:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
=C5BZ[D\7S]M^_MTYP\Y`R>996F3=89;99 3A8:999 599<3A8:999 >97S]M^_MTYPaRTbcTQQd7SMTYeVSIf`Rg =GH3=:899;99 38:999 599<38:999 >57LNbMTYPhiTQQ_MTYP5=996F358;99 35B:999 599<35B:999
>= iTSRMjLTQYSfWTXYP89997F389;99 3=89:999 599<3=89:999 >>kSYQYSf6]UTSYPeh\]SV]QYPe 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999 >? lYP]MkSYQYSf[RQ]UTSY]PX 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999 >8GQRUSMYUTQ7RMmYUR 5GH3A:899;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
>@7^TMS7SMRRS6YeVSX ?GH358:999;99 3@9:999 599<3@9:999 >A6YeVSYPeFYnSLMRX5@GH35=:999;99 35C=:999 599<35C=:999 >BGQRUhD]^^D]PbLYSTPbD]PbLUS]MX==996F3=9;99 3??:999 599<3??:999 >C7YePYPe 5673=9:999;99 3=9:999 599<3=9:999
?97SMY`YPe 5673=9:999;99 3=9:999 599<3=9:999
?5 lRSTQWRT^oLTMbMTYQ8996F3599;99 389:999 599<389:999 ?=KTSYmRafbM]XRRbYPe ?99997F39;89 3=9:999 599<3=9:999
?> >99997F358;99 3?89:999 599<3?89:999
?? 8996F3=8;99 35=:899 599<35=:899
?8 ?8996F358;99 3@A:899 599<3@A:899
?@ 5=996F358;99 35B:999 599<35B:999
?A 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999
?B 599<
?C 599<
89 599<
85 599<
8= 599<
'
2pqrstquv2pqrstquv
!
d<]wD]PXSMLUSY]POSR^Xgxy"yy1 3@CA:8C>3@CA:8C>
z
!
2rq{svqvvs2rq{svqvvs
DYSf]w6TlRXT @h59h=9=?
6TlRXT[TYQIMTYQ|iTSRMlTYPHQSRMPTSYmRH
6TlRXT:DH
DTNQR[TYQYPe
7YSRFLMPYXVYPeX
6TPbXUT`YPeTPbOMMYeTSY]P
DVTYP6YP}FRPUYPed@~\DchXUMRRPg
DVTYP6YP}FRPUYPed?~\DU]TSRbg
\DD7YbRcTQ}
\DDDLMNTPboLSSRM
\DDDLMN[T^` HD\TmYPe
HD_Y}R
HeeMReTSRWTXR
[R^RbYTQoMTbYPe
[RSTYPYPeiTQQd7Re;WQ]U}hDlkhl7Gg
[RSTYPYPeiTQQdDO\l]b;If`R5g
WMYbeR7SMLUSLMR
WMYbeRF]LPbTSY]Pd7`MRTbF]]SYPeg
DQRTMYPeTPboMLNNYPe
kPUQTXXYwYRbGnUTmTSY]P
kPUQTXXYwYRbFYQQdO^`]MSg
[]U}GnUTmTSY]P
l]NYQYTSY]P
IMTwwYUD]PSM]Q
iTSRM\]QQLSY]PD]PSM]Q
7UVRbLQYPe
[TYQM]Tb\RM^YSSYPehFQTeeYPehOPX`RUSY]PX
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
012341;1+<=>1+<?@1,3>21+AB<,3>A1,+C3B
012341D*B
&
E
!
!
B=FG<+H+I<3*.4,4J.A?K1>,+L+K1,+AH*.4,4
GAC+>.AM3A,1<N,OP+341APF3>M+,4QFBRGSTUV788D888
F<1A4DNK3L+/+L1,+.A41APG4,+M1,34QFNRGTUVW88D888XFGXL.4,46X*YJXL.4,4
Z EE [[\[[[ Z[[\[[[ ]]^ ]_^`a
!
b
b ;+Hc,./@1-GAH+A33>+AHUVd8D888
BLeO+4+,+.A41APf,+<+,+34UV788D888
b g EE _[\[[[ g_[\[[[
hb Eg\[_[\[[[Eg\[_[\[[[
!
!
X*GXL.4,46X*YJXL.4,4
*.A4,>OL,+.AGAH+A33>+AHQ*GTUVd88D888 g]^ g_^`a
Ei\j_\__j Ei\j_\__j
B=FG<+H+I<3*.4,4J.A?K1>,+L+K1,+AH*.4,4
E_\kl_\__j
S.LOM3A,1,+.A./mA3<+H+I<3QJ.A?F1>,+L+K1,+AHT*.4,4U
=c3GAH+A33>n4<.H+L1AP6.>L1<LO<1,+.A4/.>4K<+,,+AHL.4,4I3,o33AB=F?G<+H+I<31APJ.A?K1>,+L+K1,+AHL.4,4MO4,I3P.LOM3A,3P+A,c+443L,+.A./,c3G4,+M1,3/.>Mp N3K1>1,3<.H+L+4>3eO+>3P/.>31Lc+,3Moc+Lc+4K1>,<-+A3<+H+I<3/.>B=F/OAP+AH.>+4>3eO+>3P/.>,c3L.A4,>OL,+.A./1A+A3<+H+I<3+,3M63<3M3A,./,c3K>.q3L,p m,3MrU S34L>+K,+.A./GAH+A33>n40.H+LUQN333s1MK<344c.oA+A,c3mA4,>OL,+.A4T Vd8D888
V788D888
VW88D888
V788D888
E_\kl_\__j
Vd88D888
tuvwuvxvy vz{vv
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 5673589:999;99 3589:999 599<3589:999
= 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
> 567358:999;99 358:999 599<358:999
? 56738:999;99 38:999 599<38:999
8 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
@ 67 599<
A 67 599<
B 67 599<
C 67 599<
59 67 599<
4
55 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999
5= 5899DE3=8;99 3>A:899 599<3>A:899
5> 599<
5? 5999DE3>8;99 3>8:999 599<3>8:999
58 5999DE3599;99 3599:999 599<3599:999
5@ 899DE3=9;99 359:999 599<359:999
5A >9997F3A8;99 3==8:999 599<3==8:999
5B A8997F35=8;99 3C>A:899 599<3C>A:899
5C 599<
=9 599<
=5 59997F359;99 359:999 599<359:999
== =896F3=9;99 38:999 599<38:999
=> =GH3A:899;99 358:999 599<358:999
=? ??@IJK3589;99 3@@:BB5 599<3@@:BB5
=8 =9896F358;99 3>9:A89 599<3>9:A89
=@ ?8@DE3589;99 3@B:>>> 599<3@B:>>>
=ADLMNOPQRS =GH38:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
=BDTSUVWTXYP =GH38:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
=C5BZ[D\7S]M^_MTYP\Y`R>996F3=89;99 3A8:999 599<3A8:999 >97S]M^_MTYPaRTbcTQQd7SMTYeVSIf`Rg =GH3=:899;99 38:999 599<38:999 >57LNbMTYPhiTQQ_MTYP58996F358;99 3==:899 599<3==:899
>= iTSRMjLTQYSfWTXYP89997F389;99 3=89:999 599<3=89:999 >>kSYQYSf6]UTSYPeh\]SV]QYPe 567359:999;99 359:999 599<359:999 >? lYP]MkSYQYSf[RQ]UTSY]PX 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999 >8GQRUSMYUTQ7RMmYUR 5GH3A:899;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
>@7^TMS7SMRRS6YeVSX ?GH358:999;99 3@9:999 599<3@9:999 >A6YeVSYPeFYnSLMRX5@GH359:999;99 35@9:999 599<35@9:999 >BGQRUhD]^^D]PbLYSTPbD]PbLUS]MX==996F3=9;99 3??:999 599<3??:999 >C7YePYPe 5673=9:999;99 3=9:999 599<3=9:999
?97SMY`YPe 5673=9:999;99 3=9:999 599<3=9:999
?5 lRSTQWRT^oLTMbMTYQ8996F3599;99 389:999 599<389:999 ?=KTSYmRafbM]XRRbYPe?99997F39;89 3=9:999 599< 3=9:999
?> >99997F358;99 3?89:999 599<3?89:999
?? 8996F3=8;99 35=:899 599<35=:899
?8 ?8996F358;99 3@A:899 599<3@A:899
?@ 58996F358;99 3==:899 599<3==:899
?A 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999
?B 599<
?C 599<
89 599<
85 599<
8= 599<
'
2pqrsrqtu2pqrsrqtu
!
d<]vD]PXSMLUSY]POSR^Xgrs"ss1 3@?9:?C>3@?9:?C>
w
!
2pqxtrqyux2pqxtrqyux
HeeMReTSRWTXR
6TPbXUT`YPeTPbOMMYeTSY]P
DVTYP6YPzFRPUYPed@{\|DchXUMRRPg
DVTYP6YPzFRPUYPed?{\|DU]TSRbg
DTNQR[TYQYPe
7YSRFLMPYXVYPeX
HD_YzR
kPUQTXXYvYRbFYQQdO^`]MSg
[]UzGnUTmTSY]P
[R^RbYTQoMTbYPe
[RSTYPYPeiTQQd7Re;WQ]UzhDlkhl7Gg
[RSTYPYPeiTQQdDO\l]b;If`R5g
\DD7YbRcTQz
\DDDLMNTPboLSSRM
\DDDLMN[T^` HD\TmYPe
kPUQTXXYvYRbGnUTmTSY]PdGn`]MSg
IMTvvYUD]PSM]Q
iTSRM\]QQLSY]PD]PSM]Q
7UVRbLQYPe
[TYQM]Tb\RM^YSSYPehFQTeeYPehOPX`RUSY]PX
DQRTMYPeTPboMLNNYPe
kPUQTXXYvYRbGnUTmTSY]P
l]NYQY}TSY]P
DYSf]v6TlRXT @h59h=9=?
6TlRXT[TYQIMTYQ~[TYQM]TbHQSRMPTSYmRW
6TlRXT:DH
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
012341;1+<=>1+<?;1+<>.1@A<,3>B1,+C3D
012341E*A
&
F
!
!
A=GH<+I+J<3*.4,4K.B?L1>,+M+L1,+BI*.4,4
HBC+>.BN3B,1<O,P@+341B@G3>N+,4QGARHSTUV788E888
G<1B4EOL3M+/+M1,+.B41B@H4,+N1,34QGORHTUVW88E888XGHXM.4,46X*YKXM.4,4
Z FF [[\[[[ Z[[\[[[ ]^_ ]`_ab
!
c
c ;+Id,./e1-HBI+B33>+BIUVf8E888
AMgP+4+,+.B41B@h,+<+,+34UV788E888
c ^ FF `[\[[[ ^`[\[[[
ic Fj`[\[[[Fj`[\[[[
!
!
X*HXM.4,46X*YKXM.4,4
*.B4,>PM,+.BHBI+B33>+BIQ*HTUVf88E888 ^k_ ^`_ab
Fl\kl]\j`Z Fl\kl]\j`Z
A=GH<+I+J<3*.4,4K.B?L1>,+M+L1,+BI*.4,4
F`\]j]\j`Z
S.MPN3B,1,+.B./mB3<+I+J<3QK.B?G1>,+M+L1,+BIT*.4,4U
=d3HBI+B33>n4<.I+M1B@6.>M1<MP<1,+.B4/.>4L<+,,+BIM.4,4J3,o33BA=G?H<+I+J<31B@K.B?L1>,+M+L1,+BIM.4,4NP4,J3@.MPN3B,3@+B,d+443M,+.B./,d3H4,+N1,3/.>Np O3L1>1,3<.I+M+4>3gP+>3@/.>31Md+,3Nod+Md+4L1>,<-+B3<+I+J<3/.>A=G/PB@+BI.>+4>3gP+>3@/.>,d3M.B4,>PM,+.B./1B+B3<+I+J<3+,3N63<3N3B,./,d3L>.q3M,p m,3NrU S34M>+L,+.B./HBI+B33>n40.I+MUQO333s1NL<344d.oB+B,d3mB4,>PM,+.B4T VW88E888
Vf8E888
V788E888
Vf88E888
F`\]j]\j`Z
V788E888
tuvwuvxvy yz{vv
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 5673589:;;;<;; 3589:;;; 5;;=3589:;;;
8 56735;:;;;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;;
> 567359:;;;<;; 359:;;; 5;;=359:;;;
? 56739:;;;<;; 39:;;; 5;;=39:;;;
9 5;;=
@
A
B
C
5; 5;;=
4
55 5;;=
58 56738;:;;;<;; 38;:;;; 5;;=38;:;;;
5>DEFGHIIJKJLMNOFHPHQJRE9;;ST389<;; 358:9;; 5;;=358:9;; 5?ULQHJEJEVWHGGXSYZ[RM<\]^L5_8>;;7`3589<;; 38BA:9;; 5;;=38BA:9;; 59ZSS7JMLaHGbc7QHEMHdM8A9;7`35;<;; 38A:9;; 5;;=38A:9;; 5@ZSSedJPLaH]f^^dRHFg8;;;7`38;<;; 3?;:;;; 5;;=3?;:;;; 5AZSSZHPJEV5B;;7`359<;; 38A:;;; 5;;=38A:;;;
5BZSS7QHJdaH]59;7`39;<;; 3A:9;; 5;;=3A:9;;
5ChHEMdHJGJEVc7QHEMHdM>;6`39;<;; 35:9;; 5;;=35:9;;
8;SgHJE6JEb`LEFJEVXZiSFRHQLM:ERFGJjk_89;6`39;<;; 358:9;; 5;;=358:9;; 85SgHJE6JEblHQL 5Nf38:;;;<;; 38:;;; 5;;=38:;;;
88
5;;=
8>SGLHdJEVHEMldmkkJEV 56735;:;;;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;; 8?URFbNOFHPHQJREA;;ST35;;<;; 3A;:;;; 5;;=3A;:;;;
89ULQHJEJEVWHGGXSYZ[RM<\]^L5_A;;7`3589<;; 3BA:9;; 5;;=3BA:9;; 8@el7mdKHFJEV5;;ST359;<;; 359:;;; 5;;=359:;;;
8AZSS7JMLaHGbcNEgHEFLM@9;;7`38;<;; 35>;:;;; 5;;=35>;:;;; 8BZSSSmdkUHj^ @ Nf3A:9;;<;; 3?9:;;; 5;;=3?9:;;;
8C6JVgQJEV`JOQmdLI @Nf35@:;;;<;; 3C@:;;; 5;;=3C@:;;;
>;NGLFnSRjjSREMmJQHEMSREMmFQRdI5;;;6`38;<;; 38;:;;; 5;;=38;:;;; >5hHEMdHJGJEVceLFRdHQJPL@;;6`35;;<;; 3@;:;;; 5;;=3@;:;;; >8SHkGLUHJGJEVA;6`389<;; 35:A9; 5;;=35:A9;
>>6HEMIFH^L:YddJVHQJREHEM7JQL`mdEJIgJEVI56739;:;;;<;; 39;:;;; 5;;=39;:;;; >?7JVEJEVHEM7QdJ^JEV 56738;:;;;<;; 38;:;;; 5;;=38;:;;; >9 o
$ 5;;=
>@SGLHdJEVHEMldmkkJEV 56738;:;;;<;; 38;:;;; 5;;=38;:;;; >ADEFGHIIJKJLMNOFHPHQJRE9;;ST389<;; 358:9;; 5;;=358:9;; >BURFbNOFHPHQJRE59;;ST35;;<;; 359;:;;; 5;;=359;:;;;
>CULQHJEJEVWHGGXSYZ[RM<\]^L5_9;;;7`3589<;; 3@89:;;; 5;;=3@89:;;; ?;ZSSSmdkHEMlmQQLd5?;6`38;<;; 38:B;; 5;;=38:B;;
?5ZSS7JMLaHGbc7QHEMHdM>A9;7`35;<;; 3>A:9;; 5;;=3>A:9;; ?8ZSSZHPJEVcNEgHEFLM>9;; 7`389<;; 3BA:9;; 5;;=3BA:9;;
?>ZSS7QHJdaH]89;7`39;<;; 358:9;; 5;;=358:9;;
??hHEMdHJGJEVceLFRdHQJPL9;;6`35;;<;; 39;:;;; 5;;=39;:;;; ?9hHEMdHJGJEVc7QHEMHdMB;;6`39;<;; 3?;:;;; 5;;=3?;:;;;
?@6JVgQJEV`JOQmdLI @Nf35@:;;;<;; 3C@:;;; 5;;=3C@:;;;
?ANGLFnSRjjSREMmJQHEMSREMmFQRdI5;;;6`38;<;; 38;:;;; 5;;=38;:;;; ?BSmdkpmQGLQ 5Nf38:9;;<;; 38:9;; 5;;=38:9;;
?CSHQFgqHIJE 5Nf39:;;;<;; 39:;;; 5;;=39:;;;
9;58rZiS7QRdjedHJEZJ^L59;6`38;;<;; 3>;:;;; 5;;=3>;:;;; 957mkMdHJEnWHGGedHJE9;;6`359<;; 3A:9;; 5;;=3A:9;;
986HEMIFH^L:YddJVHQJREHEM7JQL`mdEJIgJEVI5673A9:;;;<;; 3A9:;;; 5;;=3A9:;;; '
2stuvstwxw2stuvstwxw
!
X=RKSREIQdmFQJREYQLjI_ sw"ww1 3?C?:?5;3?C?:?5;
y
!
2stztuw2stztuw
SJQ]RK6H[LIH Bn9n8;8?
ZHIHMLEH7JMLaHGbcSRGGJLd\dHJGc[HdJ^RIHfGGL]
6H[LIH:Sf
[RkJGJ{HQJRE
\dHKKJFSREQdRG
WHQLdZRGGmQJRESREQdRG
7FgLMmGJEV
'"'#+
SGLHdJEVHEMldmkkJEV
|}~}~~ ~~
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 5676898:
;141<3=1>+<3?1@AB*.@@+3CDC1+@B21C+E.41F@@3-
012341G*F
&
H
!
!
FD;I@+J+K@3*.4,4L.=BE1C,+M+E1,+=J*.4,4
I=N+C.=O3=,1@>,P<+341=<;3CO+,4Q;FRISTUV79G999
;@1=4G>E3M+/+M1,+.=41=<I4,+O1,34Q;>RITUV799G999W;IWM.4,46W*XLWM.4,4
Y HH YZ[ZZZ YYZ[ZZZ \]^ _Y^`a
!
b
b c+Jd,./e1-I=J+=33C+=JUV87G999
FMfP+4+,+.=41=<g,+@+,+34UV79G999
b h HH Y[ZZZ hY[ZZZ
ib H_Y[ZZZH_Y[ZZZ
!
!
W*IWM.4,46W*XLWM.4,4
*.=4,CPM,+.=I=J+=33C+=JQ*ITUVj79G999 \_^ \Y^`a
Hk[k\[lZ Hk[k\[lZ
FD;I@+J+K@3*.4,4L.=BE1C,+M+E1,+=J*.4,4
Hk[]l\[lZ
S.MPO3=,1,+.=./m=3@+J+K@3QL.=B;1C,+M+E1,+=JT*.4,4U
Dd3I=J+=33Cn4@.J+M1=<6.CM1@MP@1,+.=4/.C4E@+,,+=JM.4,4K3,?33=FD;BI@+J+K@31=<L.=BE1C,+M+E1,+=JM.4,4OP4,K3<.MPO3=,3<+=,d+443M,+.=./,d3I4,+O1,3/.COo >3E1C1,3@.J+M+4C3fP+C3</.C31Md+,3O?d+Md+4E1C,@-+=3@+J+K@3/.CFD;/P=<+=J.C+4C3fP+C3</.C,d3M.=4,CPM,+.=./1=+=3@+J+K@3+,3O63@3O3=,./,d3EC.p3M,o m,3OqU S34MC+E,+.=./I=J+=33Cn40.J+MUQ>333r1OE@344d.?=+=,d3m=4,CPM,+.=4T Hk[]l\[lZ
V79G999
V799G999
V87G999
V79G999
Vj79G999
stuvtuwux yz{uu
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 5673589:::;:: 3589::: 5::<3589:::
= 5673=:9:::;:: 3=:9::: 5::<3=:9:::
> 567389:::;:: 389::: 5::<389:::
? 567389:::;:: 389::: 5::<389:::
8 5::<
@
A
B
C
5: 5::<
4
55 5AB98C= 7D 3:;8: 3BC9=C@ 5::<3BC9=C@
5= @@: 7D 3?;:: 3=9@?: 5::<3=9@?:
5> C=: 7D 3?;:: 3>9@B: 5::<3>9@B:
5? ?955: 6D 3=;:: 3B9==: 5::<3B9==:
58 B: 6D 3=;:: 35@: 5::<35@:
5@ B8 6D 3=;:: 35A: 5::<35A:
5A A98C8 6D 35;:: 3A98C8 5::<3A98C8
5B C= 6D 35;:: 3C= 5::<3C=
5C = EF 3>::;:: 3@:: 5::<3@::
=: = EF 3@::;:: 359=:: 5::<359=::
=5 = EF 3>::;:: 3@:: 5::<3@::
== = EF 3>::;:: 3@:: 5::<3@::
=> C EF 3?::;:: 3>9@:: 5::<3>9@::
=? > EF 3?::;:: 359=:: 5::<359=::
=8 ?> EF 3>::;:: 35=9C:: 5::<35=9C::
=@ ?8: 7D 3@;:: 3=9A:: 5::<3=9A::
=A >= 7D 3?;:: 35=B 5::<35=B
=B 8:: 6D 3=;:: 359::: 5::<359:::
=C >: EF 358:;:: 3?98:: 5::<3?98::
>: 5: EF 35::;:: 359::: 5::<359:::
>5 5::<
>= 5::<
>> 5::<
>? 5::<
>8 5::<
>@ 5::<
>A 5::<
>B 5::<
>C 5::<
?: 5::<
?5 5::<
?= 5::<
?> 5::<
?? 5::<
?8 5::<
?@ 5::<
?A 5::<
?B 5::<
?C 5::<
8: 5::<
85 5::<
8= 5::<
'
2GHIHHG2GHIHHG
!
J<KLMKNOPQRSPTKNUPVWOXYZ"ZZ1 3>A9>A@3>A9>A@
[
!
2YY\IY]^2YY\IY]^
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSaebVfUUUgdhVWVNP
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSi_FUaigdhVWVNP
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSijEkEigdhVWVNP
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSi7algigdhVWVNP
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSijVcWVPVmnTSeScTOP
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTS7`dQVmkKdmode
pQVVNMKNLcTSPqKNV7PQTbTNr
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSsTVcm6TNVbVQMFt
kVmgdTNPVmMRQu
DRQNTO`dNmUNOPdccvVo7TrNdNmgKOP
kVWKhVdNm7dchdrVEwTOPTNr7TrNdNm
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSaebVUfgdhVWVNP
7cRQQe7Vdc
5=ia`VQWKbcdOPTS6TWTP6TNVbVQMa7g
_`TPVa`VQWKbcdOPTSMKNPTNVNPdcxodcy
@izuc;sVccKoaoKtzTQVSPTKNvKtgdOOTNr
@i_`TPV6dNV6TNVbVQMFt{|aMz
Bi_`TPVM`dNNVcT}TNr6TNVbVQMFt
@i_`TPVnTyV6dNV6TNVbVQMFt{|aMz
@i_`TPVnTyV6dNVUNPVQOVSPTKN6TNVbVQ
MTPeKL6d{VOd @~5:~=:=?
gdcWFhVNRVnTyV6dNVOtFcPVQNdPThVF
6d{VOd9MF
{KuTcT}dPTKN
aQdLLTSMKNPQKc
_dPVQgKccRPTKNMKNPQKc
7S`VmRcTNr
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
;1<=>?3@A3B+C301@34D><,3E@1,+?3>
012341F*>
&
G
!
!
>H;I<+J+K<3*.4,4L.@DM1E,+N+M1,+@J*.4,4
I@?+E.@=3@,1<O,AP+341@P;3E=+,4Q;>RISTUVWF888
;<1@4FOM3N+/+N1,+.@41@PI4,+=1,34Q;ORITUV:WF888X;IXN.4,46X*YLXN.4,4
Z GG [\[[[ Z[\[[[ ]]^ ]Z^_`
!
a
a b+Jc,./d1-I@J+@33E+@JU
>NeA+4+,+.@41@Pf,+<+,+34U
a G
ga GZ[\[[[GZ[\[[[
!
!
X*IXN.4,46X*YLXN.4,4
*.@4,EAN,+.@I@J+@33E+@JQ*ITUVh8F888 ij^ iZ^_`
G]Zk\]Zl G]Zk\]Zl
>H;I<+J+K<3*.4,4L.@DM1E,+N+M1,+@J*.4,4
Gj[k\]Zl
S.NA=3@,1,+.@./m@3<+J+K<3QL.@D;1E,+N+M1,+@JT*.4,4U
Hc3I@J+@33En4<.J+N[email protected]N1<NA<1,+.@4/.E4M<+,,+@JN.4,4K3,o33@>H;DI<+J+K<31@PL.@DM1E,+N+M1,+@JN.4,4=A4,K3P.NA=3@,3P+@,c+443N,+.@./,c3I4,+=1,3/.E=p O3M1E1,3<.J+N+4E3eA+E3P/.E31Nc+,3=oc+Nc+4M1E,<-+@3<+J+K<3/.E>H;/A@P+@J.E+4E3eA+E3P/.E,c3N.@4,EAN,+.@./1@+@3<+J+K<3+,3=63<3=3@,./,c3ME.q3N,p m,3=rU S34NE+M,+.@./I@J+@33En40.J+NUQO333s1=M<344c.o@+@,c3m@4,EAN,+.@4T Gj[k\]Zl
VWF888
V:WF888
Vh8F888
tuvwuvxvy tz{vv
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 5673589:::;:: 3589::: 5::<3589:::
= 5673=:9:::;:: 3=:9::: 5::<3=:9:::
> 567389:::;:: 389::: 5::<389:::
? 567389:::;:: 389::: 5::<389:::
8 5::<
@
A
B
C
5: 5::<
4
55 5AB98C= 7D 3:;8: 3BC9=C@ 5::<3BC9=C@
5= @@: 7D 3?;:: 3=9@?: 5::<3=9@?:
5> C=: 7D 3?;:: 3>9@B: 5::<3>9@B:
5? ?955: 6D 3=;:: 3B9==: 5::<3B9==:
58 B: 6D 3=;:: 35@: 5::<35@:
5@ B8 6D 3=;:: 35A: 5::<35A:
5A C9A5: 6D 35;:: 3C9A5: 5::<3C9A5:
5B AC: 6D 35;:: 3AC: 5::<3AC:
5C = EF 3>::;:: 3@:: 5::<3@::
=: = EF 3@::;:: 359=:: 5::<359=::
=5 = EF 3>::;:: 3@:: 5::<3@::
== = EF 3>::;:: 3@:: 5::<3@::
=> C EF 3?::;:: 3>9@:: 5::<3>9@::
=? 5C EF 3?::;:: 3A9@:: 5::<3A9@::
=8 =8 EF 3>::;:: 3A98:: 5::<3A98::
=@ ?8: 7D 3@;:: 3=9A:: 5::<3=9A::
=A >= 7D 3?;:: 35=B 5::<35=B
=B >9@=8 6D 3=;:: 3A9=8: 5::<3A9=8:
=C >: EF 358:;:: 3?98:: 5::<3?98::
>: 5: EF 35::;:: 359::: 5::<359:::
>5 5::<
>= 5::<
>> 5::<
>? 5::<
>8 5::<
>@ 5::<
>A 5::<
>B 5::<
>C 5::<
?: 5::<
?5 5::<
?= 5::<
?> 5::<
?? 5::<
?8 5::<
?@ 5::<
?A 5::<
?B 5::<
?C 5::<
8: 5::<
85 5::<
8= 5::<
'
2GHIHJJ2GHIHJJ
!
K<LMNLOPQRSTQULOVQWXPYZ["[[1 3>C9>BC3>C9>BC
\
!
2Z]I]]]2Z]I]]]
NUQ^LM6_`WP_ @a5:a=:=?
b_cXFdWOSWeUfW6_OWPgFcQWRO_QUdWe
6_`WP_9NF
`LhUcUi_QULO
jR_MMUTNLOQRLc
k_QWRbLccSQULONLOQRLc
7TlWmScUOn
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTj^oWVpb_dWXWOQ
7cSRR^7W_c
5=qjlWRXLoc_PQUT6UXUQ6UOWoWRNj7b
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTNLOQUOWOQ_crs_cf
@qthc;uWccLsjsLgtURWTQULOvLgb_PPUOn
@qklUQW6_OW6UOWoWRNFg`wjNt
BqklUQWNl_OOWcUiUOn6UOWoWRNFg
@qklUQWeUfW6_OW6UOWoWRNFg`wjNt
@qklUQWeUfW6_OWVOQWRPWTQULO6UOWoWR
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTj^oWpVVVb_dWXWOQ
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTqkFVjqb_dWXWOQ
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTqxEyEqb_dWXWOQ
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTq7jzbqb_dWXWOQ
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTqxWcXWQWmeUT^TcUPQ
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUT7l_RWmyL_ms_^
klUQWjlWRXLoc_PQUTuUWcm6UOWoWRNFg
yWmb_UOQWmNSRh
DSROUPl_OmVOPQ_ccvWs7UnO{bLPQ
yWXLdW_Om7_cd_nWE|UPQUOn7UnO_Om
Fooc^}RWWOEOOUPgDcUOQCB8=5@}RWWO
~
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
;1<=>?3@A3B+C301@34D><,3E@1,+?3B
012341F*>
&
G
!
!
>H;I<+J+K<3*.4,4L.@DM1E,+N+M1,+@J*.4,4
I@?+E.@=3@,1<O,AP+341@P;3E=+,4Q;>RISTUVWF888
;<1@4FOM3N+/+N1,+.@41@PI4,+=1,34Q;ORITUV:WF888X;IXN.4,46X*YLXN.4,4
Z GG [\[[[ Z[\[[[ ]^_ ]Z_`a
!
b
b c+Jd,./e1-I@J+@33E+@JU
>NfA+4+,+.@41@Pg,+<+,+34U
b G
hb GZ[\[[[GZ[\[[[
!
!
X*IXN.4,46X*YLXN.4,4
*.@4,EAN,+.@I@J+@33E+@JQ*ITUVi8F888 ^j_ ^Z_`a
G]\jjj G]\jjj
>H;I<+J+K<3*.4,4L.@DM1E,+N+M1,+@J*.4,4
Gj^\jjj
S.NA=3@,1,+.@./k@3<+J+K<3QL.@D;1E,+N+M1,+@JT*.4,4U
Hd3I@J+@33El4<.J+N[email protected]N1<NA<1,+.@4/.E4M<+,,+@JN.4,4K3,m33@>H;DI<+J+K<31@PL.@DM1E,+N+M1,+@JN.4,4=A4,K3P.NA=3@,3P+@,d+443N,+.@./,d3I4,+=1,3/.E=n O3M1E1,3<.J+N+4E3fA+E3P/.E31Nd+,3=md+Nd+4M1E,<-+@3<+J+K<3/.E>H;/A@P+@J.E+4E3fA+E3P/.E,d3N.@4,EAN,+.@./1@+@3<+J+K<3+,3=63<3=3@,./,d3ME.o3N,n k,3=pU S34NE+M,+.@./I@J+@33El40.J+NUQO333q1=M<344d.m@+@,d3k@4,EAN,+.@4T Gj^\jjj
VWF888
V:WF888
Vi8F888
rstustvtw xvyztt
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 567389:;;;<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
8 567389:;;;<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
> 56735;:;;;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;;
? 56739:;;;<;; 39:;;; 5;;=39:;;;
9 5;;=
@
A
B
C
5; 5;;=
4
55 567389:;;;<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
58 5;;;DE389<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
5> 9;;DE39;<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
5?FGHIJKHLMLNOGP89;DE35;;<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
59FQNLOPOPRSLTTU7QR<VTGHIWDXYWX7JZ59;;7[39;<;; 3A9:;;; 5;;=3A9:;;; 5@7\]^_LOPWSLTT`_LOP89;6[359<;; 3>:A9; 5;;=3>:A9;
5AaDD7O^QbLTI>;;;7[35;<;; 3>;:;;; 5;;=3>;:;;;
5BaDDD\_]LP^c\NNQ_@;;6[38;<;; 358:;;; 5;;=358:;;;
5C @Jd3A:9;;<;; 3?9:;;; 5;;=3?9:;;;
8; 9;;7[38;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;;
85 59;;7[38;<;; 3>;:;;; 5;;=3>;:;;;
88 59;efg359;<;; 388:9;; 5;;=388:9;;
8>dRR_QRLNQVLhQ59;DE359;<;; 388:9;; 5;;=388:9;;
8? 567 35;:;;;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;;
89 567389:;;;<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
8@ 5Jd3A:9;;<;; 3A:9;; 5;;=3A:9;;
8A 8Jd359:;;;<;; 3>;:;;; 5;;=3>;:;;;
8B 5;;;6[38;<;; 38;:;;; 5;;=38;:;;;
8C 567359:;;;<;; 359:;;; 5;;=359:;;;
>; 56735;:;;;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;;
>57TGiQaTLPNOPR>;;;7[359<;; 3?9:;;; 5;;=3?9:;;;
>8 5;;=
>> 5;;=
>? 5;;=
>9 5;;=
>@ 5;;=
>A 5;;=
>B 5;;=
>C 5;;=
?; 5;;=
?5 5;;=
?8 5;;=
?> 5;;=
?? 5;;=
?9 5;;=
?@ 5;;=
?A 5;;=
?B 5;;=
?C 5;;=
9; 5;;=
95 5;;=
98 5;;=
'
2jklmnjo2jklmnjo
!
U=GpDGPhN_\HNOGPqNQrhZno"oo1 3559:@9;3559:@9;
s
!
2tumtoo2tumtoo
XG]OTOvLNOGP
DONwGp6LXQhL @W5;W8;8?
cLNQhO^QFGL^VOHwHTQLP^aQ^QhN_OLPqri_GMQrQPNh
6LXQhL:Dd
YPHTLhhOpOQ^JKHLMLNOGPUJKiG_NZ
e_LppOHDGPN_GT
SLNQ_aGTT\NOGPDGPN_GT
7HxQ^\TOPR
DTQL_OPRLP^c_\]]OPR
YPHTLhhOpOQ^JKHLMLNOGP
XOPG_YNOTONwFQTGHLNOGPh
aDDD\_]FLri aDDD_Ghhc\NNQ_
aDD`_OMQbLwdii_GLHx
dDaLMOPR
YNOTONw6GHLNOPRWaGNxGTOPR
7N_QQN6ORxNh
JTQHWDGrrDGP^\ONLP^DGP^\HNG_h
7ORPOPR
7N_OiOPR
JTQHN_OHLT7Q_MOHQ
yz{|z{}{~ {{
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
;1,34+<3=.1<>+?-?@31A<B3<34,C+1ADEFC.G3E3A,4
012341H*I
&
J
!
!
IKBL@+M+N@3*.4,4O.APF1C,+?+F1,+AM*.4,4
LAG+C.AE3A,1@Q,R<+341A<B3CE+,4SBITLUVWX98H888
B@1A4HQF3?+/+?1,+.A41A<L4,+E1,34SBQTLVWX7Y8H888ZBLZ?.4,46Z*[OZ?.4,4
\ JJ ]^_^^^ \]^_^^^ `ab `cbde
!
f
f =+Mg,./h1-LAM+A33C+AMWX9YH888
I?iR+4+,+.A41A<j,+@+,+34WX788H888
f \ JJ `c_^^^ \`c_^^^
kf J`lc_^^^J`lc_^^^
!
!
Z*LZ?.4,46Z*[OZ?.4,4
*.A4,CR?,+.ALAM+A33C+AMS*LVWX788H888 \ab \cbde
J]lm_l^^ J]lm_l^^
IKBL@+M+N@3*.4,4O.APF1C,+?+F1,+AM*.4,4
J\_^nn_l^^
U.?RE3A,1,+.A./DA3@+M+N@3SO.APB1C,+?+F1,+AMV*.4,4W
Kg3LAM+A33Co4@.M+?1A<6.C?1@?R@1,+.A4/.C4F@+,,+AM?.4,4N3,p33AIKBPL@+M+N@31A<O.APF1C,+?+F1,+AM?.4,4ER4,N3<.?RE3A,3<+A,g+443?,+.A./,g3L4,+E1,3/.CEq Q3F1C1,3@.M+?+4C3iR+C3</.C31?g+,3Epg+?g+4F1C,@-+A3@+M+N@3/.CIKB/RA<+AM.C+4C3iR+C3</.C,g3?.A4,CR?,+.A./1A+A3@+M+N@3+,3E63@3E3A,./,g3FC.r3?,q D,3EsW U34?C+F,+.A./LAM+A33Co40.M+?WSQ333t1EF@344g.pA+A,g3DA4,CR?,+.A4V X788H888
J\_^nn_l^^
X98H888
X7Y8H888
X9YH888
X788H888
uvwxvwywz {w|}ww
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999
= 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
> 567359:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
? 56738:999;99 38:999 599<38:999
8 599<
@
A
B
C
59 599<
4
55 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
5= 5999DE3=8;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
5> @8997F359;99 3@8:999 599<3@8:999
5? 8996F3=8;99 35=:899 599<35=:899
58GDDHIJKLMDNOP>996F3=8;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
5@ BQR3A:899;99 3@9:999 599<3@9:999
5A A8997F3=8;99 35BA:899 599<35BA:899
5B >=997F3=9;99 3@?:999 599<3@?:999
5C >89997F39;89 35A:899 599<35A:899
=9RDGLSKMT89UVW3589;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
=5RTTOITLXIYLZI89DE3589;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
==DNOP[M\IX ?QR38:999;99 3=9:999 599<3=9:999
=>DLX]^YLZKM =QR38:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
=?5B_`DG7XaObcOLKMGKdI@996F 3=99;99 35=9:999 599<35=9:999 =87KJIeL\fgMJIOJOLKM ?QR3=:899;99 359:999 599<359:999
=@7bLOX7XOIIX6KT^XZ =QR358:999;99 3>9:999 599<3>9:999 =A7XLMJLOJ7XOIIX6KT^XZ ?QR358:999;99 3@9:999 599<3@9:999 =BQ\I]hDabbDaMJNKXLMJDaMJN]XaOZ59996F3=9;99 3=9:999 599<3=9:999 =C HKMaOgXK\KXi`I\a]LXKaMZ 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999 >9Q\I]XOK]L\7IOSK]I 5QR3A:899;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
>57KTMKMT 5673=9:999;99 3=9:999 599<3=9:999
>=7XOKdKMT 567358:999;99 358:999 599<358:999
>>6LMJZ]LdKMTLMJ[OOKTLXKaM?8997F358;99 3@A:899 599<3@A:899 >?WIKT^PaO^aaJQMXOi7KTM 5QR3>9:999;99 3>9:999 599<3>9:999 >8`LJLO7dIIJFIIJPL]f7KTMZ =QR3=8:999;99 389:999 599<389:999 >@ 599<
>A 599<
>B 599<
>C 599<
?9 599<
?5 599<
?= 599<
?> 599<
?? 599<
?8 599<
?@ 599<
?A 599<
?B 599<
?C 599<
89 599<
85 599<
8= 599<
'
2jklmnklll2jklmnklll
!
o<apDaMZXON]XKaM[XIbZqrl"ll1 3=59:B993=59:B99
s
!
2jkrnktll2jkrnktll
HaPK\KuLXKaM
DKXiap6LHIZL @h59h=9=?
6IbaMRSIMNIYK]i]\ILMJGIJIZXOKLM[bdOaSIbIMXZ
6LHIZL:DR
GDD7KJIeL\f
UOLppK]DaMXOa\
vLXIOGa\\NXKaMDaMXOa\
7]^IJN\KMT
D\ILOKMTLMJwONPPKMT
gM]\LZZKpKIJQx]LSLXKaM
GDDDNOPLMJwNXXIO
GDDDNOP`Lbd GDDGLSKMT:QM^LM]IJ
GDDcOKSIeLiRddOaL]^
7\NOOi7IL\
yz{|z{}{~ {{
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
03;.<=>3<?3@+A-AB31<CD3C34,E+1<F;GE.>3;3<,4
012341H*=
&
I
!
!
=JDKB+L+MB3*.4,4N.<OG1E,+A+G1,+<L*.4,4
K<>+E.<;3<,1BP,?C+341<CD3E;+,4QD=RKSTUV78H888
DB1<4HPG3A+/+A1,+.<41<CK4,+;1,34QDPRKTUV9W8H888XDKXA.4,46X*YNXA.4,4
Z II [\[[[ Z[\[[[ Z]^ Z_^`a
!
b
b c+Ld,./e1-K<L+<33E+<LUV9WH888
=Af?+4+,+.<41<Cg,+B+,+34UVW8H888
b h II _\[[[ h_\[[[
ib Ijj_\[[[Ijj_\[[[
!
!
X*KXA.4,46X*YNXA.4,4
*.<4,E?A,+.<K<L+<33E+<LQ*KTUV7W8H888 ]Z^ ]_^`a
I]\k]k\l[[ I]\k]k\l[[
=JDKB+L+MB3*.4,4N.<OG1E,+A+G1,+<L*.4,4
I]\hkm\l[[
S.A?;3<,1,+.<./F<3B+L+MB3QN.<OD1E,+A+G1,+<LT*.4,4U
Jd3K<L+<33En4B.L+A1<C6.EA1BA?B1,+.<4/.E4GB+,,+<LA.4,4M3,o33<=JDOKB+L+MB31<CN.<OG1E,+A+G1,+<LA.4,4;?4,M3C.A?;3<,3C+<,d+443A,+.<./,d3K4,+;1,3/.E;p P3G1E1,3B.L+A+4E3f?+E3C/.E31Ad+,3;od+Ad+4G1E,B-+<3B+L+MB3/.E=JD/?<C+<L.E+4E3f?+E3C/.E,d3A.<4,E?A,+.<./1<+<3B+L+MB3+,3;63B3;3<,./,d3GE.q3A,p F,3;rU S34AE+G,+.<./K<L+<33En40.L+AUQP333s1;GB344d.o<+<,d3F<4,E?A,+.<4T I]\hkm\l[[
V78H888
V9W8H888
V9WH888
VW8H888
V7W8H888
tuvwuvxvy zy{|vv
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 567389:999;99 389:999 599<389:999
= 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
> 567359:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
? 56738:999;99 38:999 599<38:999
8 599<
@
A
B
C
59 599<
4
55 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999
5= 899DE3=8;99 35=:899 599<35=:899
5> ?9997F359;99 3?9:999 599<3?9:999
5?GDDHIJKLMDNOP>996F3=8;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
58GDDDNOPQLRS B TU3A:899;99 3@9:999 599<3@9:999
5@GDDUVVIWUSSOXLYZ5B997F3=8;99 3?8:999 599<3?8:999
5AGDD[OK\I]LWUSSOXLYZ>@997F3=9;99 3A=:999 599<3A=:999 5B7VNOOW7ILV?9997F39;89 3=:999 599<3=:999
5CUDGL\KM^=8_`a3589;99 3>:A89 599<3>:A89
=9U^^OI^LbIcLdI=8DE3589;99 3>:A89 599<3>:A89
=57RLOb7bOIIb6K^Zbd 5TU358:999;99 358:999 599<358:999 ==7bLMJLOJ7bOIIb6K^Zbd =TU358:999;99 3>9:999 599<3>9:999 =>TVIYeDXRRDXMJNKbLMJDXMJNYbXOd59996F3=9;99 3=9:999 599< 3=9:999 =? HKMXOfbKVKbWQIVXYLbKXMd 5673=8:999;99 3=8:999 599<3=8:999 =8TVIYbOKYLV7IO\KYI 5TU3A:899;99 3A:899 599<3A:899
=@7K^MKM^ 567358:999;99 358:999 599<358:999
=A7bOKSKM^ 567359:999;99 359:999 599<359:999
=B6LMJdYLSKM^LMJgOOK^LbKXM?9997F358;99 3@9:999 599<3@9:999 =CaIK^ZPXOZXXJTMbOW7K^M 5TU3>9:999;99 3>9:999 599<3>9:999 >9 599<
>5 599<
>= 599<
>> 599<
>? 599<
>8 599<
>@ 599<
>A 599<
>B 599<
>C 599<
?9 599<
?5 599<
?= 599<
?> 599<
?? 599<
?8 599<
?@ 599<
?A 599<
?B 599<
?C 599<
89 599<
85 599<
8= 599<
'
2hijklll2hijklll
!
m<XnDXMdbONYbKXMgbIRdopl"ll1 355?:B99355?:B99
q
!
2rrkrll2rrkrll
DKbWXn6LHIdL @e59e=9=?
sLYtdXM[OK\IcKYWYVILMJGIJIdbOKLMgRSOX\IRIMbd
6LHIdL:DU
HXPKVKuLbKXM
_OLnnKYDXMbOXV
vLbIOGXVVNbKXMDXMbOXV
7YZIJNVKM^
DVILOKM^LMJwONPPKM^
fMYVLddKnKIJTxYL\LbKXM
GDD7KJI]LVt
yz{|z{}{~ {{
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
;1<=4.>?@+A3B+<-<C31>DE3D34,@+1>[email protected]>,4
012341I*J
&
K
!
!
JLEMC+N+OC3*.4,4P.>QH1@,+<+H1,+>N*.4,4
M>A+@.>G3>,1CR,SD+341>DE3@G+,4TEJUM?VWX78I888
EC1>4IRH3<+/+<1,+.>41>DM4,+G1,34TERUMVWX7Y8I888ZEMZ<.4,46Z*[PZ<.4,4
\ KK ]^]]] \]^]]] _`a _bacd
!
e
e f+Ng,./h1-M>N+>33@+>NW
J<iS+4+,+.>41>Dj,+C+,+34WX9YI888
e _ KK b^]]] _b^]]]
ke K\lb^]]]K\lb^]]]
!
!
Z*MZ<.4,46Z*[PZ<.4,4
*.>4,@S<,+.>M>N+>33@+>NT*MVWX788I888 \ba \bacd
Kmll^l]] Kmll^l]]
JLEMC+N+OC3*.4,4P.>QH1@,+<+H1,+>N*.4,4
Knm`^l]]
?.<SG3>,1,+.>./F>3C+N+OC3TP.>QE1@,+<+H1,+>NV*.4,4W
Lg3M>N+>33@o4C.N+<1>D6.@<1C<SC1,+.>4/.@4HC+,,+>N<.4,4O3,p33>JLEQMC+N+OC31>DP.>QH1@,+<+H1,+>N<.4,4GS4,O3D.<SG3>,3D+>,g+443<,+.>./,g3M4,+G1,3/.@Gq R3H1@1,3C.N+<+4@3iS+@3D/.@31<g+,3Gpg+<g+4H1@,C-+>3C+N+OC3/.@JLE/S>D+>N.@+4@3iS+@3D/.@,g3<.>4,@S<,+.>./1>+>3C+N+OC3+,3G63C3G3>,./,g3[email protected]<,q F,3GsW ?34<@+H,+.>./M>N+>33@o40.N+<WTR333t1GHC344g.p>+>,g3F>4,@S<,+.>4V XQ X9YI888
X788I888
Knm`^l]]
X78I888
X7Y8I888
uvwxvwywz {|}~ww
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 5673589:::;:: 3589::: 5::<3589:::
= 5673>89:::;:: 3>89::: 5::<3>89:::
> 567389:::;:: 389::: 5::<389:::
? 567389:::;:: 389::: 5::<389:::
8 5::<
@
A
B
C
5: 5::<
4
55 =585:=7D3:;8: 35:A9885 5::<35:A9885
5= =:8 7D 3?;:: 3B=: 5::<3B=:
5> >B8 7D 3?;:: 3598?: 5::<3598?:
5? 59=B: 6D 3=;:: 3=98@: 5::<3=98@:
58 >>8 6D 3=;:: 3@A: 5::<3@A:
5@ ?9>A: 6D 3=;:: 3B9A?: 5::<3B9A?:
5A B>8 6D 3=;:: 359@A: 5::<359@A:
5B A95>8 6D 35;:: 3A95>8 5::<3A95>8
5C @8= 6D 35;:: 3@8= 5::<3@8=
=: 5B EF 3>::;:: 389?:: 5::<389?::
=5 5B EF 3?::;:: 3A9=:: 5::<3A9=::
== > EF 3>::;:: 3C:: 5::<3C::
=> =95B= 7D 3@;:: 35>9:C= 5::<35>9:C=
=? ?A: 6D 3=;:: 3C?: 5::<3C?:
=8 =: EF 358:;:: 3>9::: 5::<3>9:::
=@ 5: EF 35::;:: 359::: 5::<359:::
=A 5::<
=B 5::<
=C 5::<
>: 5::<
>5 5::<
>= 5::<
>> 5::<
>? 5::<
>8 5::<
>@ 5::<
>A 5::<
>B 5::<
>C 5::<
?: 5::<
?5 5::<
?= 5::<
?> 5::<
?? 5::<
?8 5::<
?@ 5::<
?A 5::<
?B 5::<
?C 5::<
8: 5::<
85 5::<
8= 5::<
'
2GGGHIJK2GGGHIJK
!
L<MNOMPQRSTURVMPWRXYQZGK"KK1 3??98A?3??98A?
[
!
2GJH\\\2GJH\\\
]^VRX_^XSYM`abQRVU_c`XWdebfXYXPR
]^VRX_^XSYM`abQRVUghXaYXRXijVUcUaVQR
]^VRX_^XSYM`abQRVU7^bSXikMbilbc
mSXXPOMPNaVURnMPX7RSV`VPo
kXiebVPRXiOTSp
DTSPVQ^bPiWPQRbaaqXl7VoPreMQR
kXYMfXbPi7bafboXEsVQRVPo7VoPreMQR
@g]^VRXjVtX6bPXWPRXSQXURVMP6VPX`XS
7aTSSc7Xba
5=g_^XSYM`abQRVU6VYVR6VPX`XSO_7e
]^VRX_^XSYM`abQRVUOMPRVPXPRbaulbat
vpa;wXaaMl_]6_67RSV`VPo`XSO_7e
vpa;wXaaMlxXiVbPWQabPi7RSV`VPo`XS
@g]^VRX6bPX6VPX`XSOFyxz_Ov
Bg]^VRXO^bPPXaV{VPo6VPX`XSOFy
@g]^VRXjVtX6bPX6VPX`XSOFyxz_Ov
OVRcMN6bxXQb @|5:|=:=?
6bxXQbjafi;jVtX6bPXQyFaRXSPbRVfXF
6bxXQb9OF
xMpVaV{bRVMP
_SbNNVUOMPRSMa
]bRXSeMaaTRVMPOMPRSMa
7U^XiTaVPo
}~~
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
012341;<=>?;+@301A34BC<,3DA1,+=3C
012341E*C
&
F
!
!
CGHI<+J+K<3*.4,4L.ABM1D,+N+M1,+AJ*.4,4
IA=+D.AO3A,1<P,Q>+341A>H3DO+,4RHCSITUVWXE888
H<1A4EPM3N+/+N1,+.A41A>I4,+O1,34RHPSIUVWX8E888YHIYN.4,46Y*ZLYN.4,4
[ FF [\]]] [[\]]] ^_` ^[`ab
!
c
c d+Je,./f1-IAJ+A33D+AJV
CNgQ+4+,+.A41A>h,+<+,+34V
c F
ic F[[\]]]F[[\]]]
!
!
Y*IYN.4,46Y*ZLYN.4,4
*.A4,DQN,+.AIAJ+A33D+AJR*IUVWjXE888 _k` _[`ab
Fk]^\lll Fk]^\lll
CGHI<+J+K<3*.4,4L.ABM1D,+N+M1,+AJ*.4,4
Fk[m\lll
T.NQO3A,1,+.A./nA3<+J+K<3RL.ABH1D,+N+M1,+AJU*.4,4V
Ge3IAJ+A33Do4<.J+N1A>6.DN1<NQ<1,+.A4/.D4M<+,,+AJN.4,4K3,p33ACGHBI<+J+K<31A>L.ABM1D,+N+M1,+AJN.4,4OQ4,K3>.NQO3A,3>+A,e+443N,+.A./,e3I4,+O1,3/.DO? P3M1D1,3<.J+N+4D3gQ+D3>/.D31Ne+,3Ope+Ne+4M1D,<-+A3<+J+K<3/.DCGH/QA>+AJ.D+4D3gQ+D3>/.D,e3N.A4,DQN,+.A./1A+A3<+J+K<3+,3O63<3O3A,./,e3MD.q3N,? n,3OrV T34ND+M,+.A./IAJ+A33Do40.J+NVRP333s1OM<344e.pA+A,e3nA4,DQN,+.A4U Fk[m\lll
WXE888
WX8E888
WjXE888
tuvwuvxvy zt{|vv
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 567389:;;;<;; 389:;;; 5;;=389:;;;
> 56739;:;;;<;; 39;:;;; 5;;=39;:;;;
? 56735;:;;;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;;
@ 56735;:;;;<;; 35;:;;; 5;;=35;:;;;
9 5;;=
A
8 B
C
5; 5;;=
4
55DEFGHEIJKLMKNOPQRS5@@?6T359<;; 3>5:A@9 5;;=3>5:A@9 5>DEFGHEIJKLMKNOUEVKWNXWHKNO@A957T3A<;; 3>8:C;A 5;;=3>8:C;A 5?PQRSDWFYL AIZ38:9;;<;; 3@9:;;; 5;;=3@9:;;;
5@XPP7KVE[W\]>;;;7T35;<;; 3>;:;;; 5;;=3>;:;;;
59DEFGHEWNVDEY\W^EUEVKWNPQRS?;;6T3?;<;; 3C:;;; 5;;=3C:;;; 5ADEFGHEPQRS_N\EMWNVZSWNVGNXKYE 5IZ39:;;;<;; 39:;;; 5;;=39:;;; 58ZP`RKNVabHER\Wc5;;;;7T39<;; 39;:;;; 5;;=39;:;;;
5B_NLMW\\@dZPGHERBdZeXWHKNO@A957T35;<;; 3@A:95; 5;;=3@A:95; 5C 5IZ389;:;;;<;; 389;:;;; 5;;=389;:;;;
>; UKNGRfMK\KMcDE\G^WMKGNL 5673>9:;;;<;; 3>9:;;; 5;;=3>9:;;; >5XGMgG\KNO 567359:;;;<;; 359:;;; 5;;=359:;;;
>> >59:5;> 7T 3;<9; 35;8:995 5;;=35;8:995
>? >;9 7T 3@<;; 3B>; 5;;=3B>;
>@ ?B9 7T 3@<;; 35:9@; 5;;=35:9@;
>9 @B; 6T 3><;; 3CA; 5;;=3CA;
>A 5:8>; 6T 3><;; 3?:@@; 5;;=3?:@@;
>8 >@; 6T 3><;; 3@B; 5;;=3@B;
>B @:@89 6T 3><;; 3B:C9; 5;;=3B:C9;
>C 5:;5; 6T 3><;; 3>:;>; 5;;=3>:;>;
?; 5;:>;9 6T 35<;; 35;:>;9 5;;=35;:>;9
?5 A9> 6T 35<;; 3A9> 5;;=3A9>
?> 5@ IZ 3?;;<;; 3@:>;; 5;;=3@:>;;
?? 5C IZ 3@;;<;; 38:A;; 5;;=38:A;;
?@ ?:A8> 7T 3A<;; 3>>:;?> 5;;=3>>:;?>
?9 @8; 6T 3><;; 3C@; 5;;=3C@;
?A >; IZ 359;<;; 3?:;;; 5;;=3?:;;;
?8 5; IZ 35;;<;; 35:;;; 5;;=35:;;;
?B 5;;=
?C 5;;=
@; 5;;=
@5 5;;=
@> 5;;=
@? 5;;=
@@ 5;;=
@9 5;;=
@A 5;;=
@8 5;;=
@B 5;;=
@C 5;;=
9; 5;;=
95 5;;=
9> 5;;=
'
2hijjkilkh2hijjkilkh
!
m=GnPGNLMRQ^MKGN_MEFLopq"qq1 3>A8:;C;3>A8:;C;
r
!
2hiqpiklh2hiqpiklh
`REENPGNn\K^MsGNE7MRKYKNO
TQRNKLgWNV_NLMW\\tE[7KONWNVXGLM
DEFGHEWNV7W\HWOEIJKLMKNO7KONWNV
DEVXWKNMEVPQRS
uRWnnK^7KONW\7cLMEF:@J@
vgKMEugERFGY\WLMK^dwE\FEMEVeK^c^\KLM
7\QRRc7EW\
5>dugERFGY\WLMK^6KFKM6KNEYERPu7X
vgKMEugERFGY\WLMK^PGNMKNENMW\
xGQS\EyE\\G[PENMER\KNE7MRKYEYER
xGQS\EyE\\G[u[GzvWc6EnMuQRN6WNE
AdvgKMEeK]E6WNE_NMERLE^MKGN6KNEYER
xGQS\EyE\\G[UEVKWN_L\WNV7MRKYKNOYER
AdvgKME6WNE6KNEYERPZzUfuPx
BdvgKMEPgWNNE\K{KNO6KNEYERPZz
AdvgKMEeK]E6WNE6KNEYERPZzUfuPx
vgKMEugERFGY\WLMK^ucYE_|XWHEFENM
PKMcGn6WUELW A}5;}>;>@
6WUELWe\HV<eK]E6WNELzZ\MERNWMKHEe
6WUELW:PZ
UGSK\K{WMKGN
uRWnnK^PGNMRG\
vWMERXG\\QMKGNPGNMRG\
7^gEVQ\KNO
~
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
012341;<=>?;+@301A34BC<,3DA1,+=3;
012341E*C
&
F
!
!
CGHI<+J+K<3*.4,4L.ABM1D,+N+M1,+AJ*.4,4
IA=+D.AO3A,1<P,Q>+341A>H3DO+,4RHCSITUVWXE888
H<1A4EPM3N+/+N1,+.A41A>I4,+O1,34RHPSIUVWY88E888ZHIZN.4,46Z*[LZN.4,4
\ FF ]^_]]] \]^_]]] `ab c^bde
!
f
f g+Jh,./i1-IAJ+A33D+AJV
CNjQ+4+,+.A41A>k,+<+,+34V
f F
lf F\]^_]]]F\]^_]]]
!
!
Z*IZN.4,46Z*[LZN.4,4
*.A4,DQN,+.AIAJ+A33D+AJR*IUVW988E888 `cb `^bde
F`_m]c_^n` F`_m]c_^n`
CGHI<+J+K<3*.4,4L.ABM1D,+N+M1,+AJ*.4,4
Fc_`]o_^n`
T.NQO3A,1,+.A./pA3<+J+K<3RL.ABH1D,+N+M1,+AJU*.4,4V
Gh3IAJ+A33Dq4<.J+N1A>6.DN1<NQ<1,+.A4/.D4M<+,,+AJN.4,4K3,r33ACGHBI<+J+K<31A>L.ABM1D,+N+M1,+AJN.4,4OQ4,K3>.NQO3A,3>+A,h+443N,+.A./,h3I4,+O1,3/.DO? P3M1D1,3<.J+N+4D3jQ+D3>/.D31Nh+,3Orh+Nh+4M1D,<-+A3<+J+K<3/.DCGH/QA>+AJ.D+4D3jQ+D3>/.D,h3N.A4,DQN,+.A./1A+A3<+J+K<3+,3O63<3O3A,./,h3MD.s3N,? p,3OtV T34ND+M,+.A./IAJ+A33Dq40.J+NVRP333u1OM<344h.rA+A,h3pA4,DQN,+.A4U Fc_`]o_^n`
WXE888
WY88E888
W988E888
vwxywxzx{ xz|}xx
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*
+
#
*
+
#
, $ ! $ !
-
-
-
.
" /
0 0
12 12 1 3
4
,&
5 56735889888:88 35889888 588;35889888
< 5673589888:88 3589888 588;3589888
= 56735>9888:88 35>9888 588;35>9888
? 5673>9888:88 3>9888 588;3>9888
> 588;
@
A
B
C
58 588;
4
55 5673>89888:88 3>89888 588;3>89888
5< 588DE3=8:88 3=9888 588;3=9888
5=FDD7GHIJKLMA>887N358:88 3A>9888 588;3A>9888
5?FDDDOPQKRHSOTTIP58886N3<8:88 3<89888 588;3<89888
5>FDDDOPQUKVW B XY3A9>88:88 3@89888 588;3@89888
5@FDDZPG[IJK\YWWP]K^_B8887N3<>:88 3<889888 588;3<889888 5A 5>887N3<>:88 3=A9>88 588;3=A9>88
5B 58`ab35>8:88 359>88 588;359>88
5CYccPIcKTIdKeI58DE35>8:88 359>88 588;359>88
<8 588;
<5 588;
<< 588;
<= 588;
<? 588;
<> 588;
<@ 588;
<A 588;
<B 588;
<C 588;
=8 588;
=5 588;
=< 588;
== 588;
=? 588;
=> 588;
=@ 588;
=A 588;
=B 588;
=C 588;
?8 588;
?5 588;
?< 588;
?= 588;
?? 588;
?> 588;
?@ 588;
?A 588;
?B 588;
?C 588;
>8 588;
>5 588;
>< 588;
'
2fghifjj2fghifjj
!
k;]lD]ReTPO^TG]RmTIVenoj"jj1 355>9A88355>9A88
p
!
2qriojj2qriojj
DGT\]l6KsIeK @t58t<8<?
SKPlGILH7TPIIT7GHIJKLMmVWP][IVIRTe
6KsIeK9DY
s]QGLGuKTG]R
`PKllG^D]RTP]L
vKTIPF]LLOTG]RD]RTP]L
7^_IHOLGRc
DLIKPGRcKRHSPOQQGRc
wR^LKeeGlGIHXx^K[KTG]RkXxW]PTn
FDDYLLI\YWP]R
YDFK[GRc
yz{|z{}{~ {{{
!"
#
"
$!
%
%
!
!
!
&#! '(
&
%
)
*+,-./012341 56786989:
;1</+3=>?,<33,?+>3@1=ABCD<.E3C3F,4
012341G*H
&
I
!
!
HJKL=+M+N=3*.4,4O.FPD1<,+Q+D1,+FM*.4,4
LFE+<.FC3F,1=?,R>+341F>K3<C+,4SKHTLUVWXYG888
K=1F4G?D3Q+/+Q1,+.F41F>L4,+C1,34SK?TLVWX7Y8G888ZKLZQ.4,46Z*[OZQ.4,4
\ II ]]^___ \]]^___ ``a `]abc
!
d
d e+Mf,./g1-LFM+F33<+FMW
HQhR+4+,+.F41F>i,+=+,+34WXY8G888
d ] II _^___ ]_^___
jd I`_]^___I`_]^___
!
!
Z*LZQ.4,46Z*[OZQ.4,4
*.F4,<RQ,+.FLFM+F33<+FMS*LVWX788G888 \ka \]abc
Ilmk^`__ Ilmk^`__
HJKL=+M+N=3*.4,4O.FPD1<,+Q+D1,+FM*.4,4
Immm^`__
U.QRC3F,1,+.F./BF3=+M+N=3SO.FPK1<,+Q+D1,+FMV*.4,4W
Jf3LFM+F33<n4=.M+Q1F>6.<Q1=QR=1,+.F4/.<4D=+,,+FMQ.4,4N3,@33FHJKPL=+M+N=31F>O.FPD1<,+Q+D1,+FMQ.4,4CR4,N3>.QRC3F,3>+F,f+443Q,+.F./,f3L4,+C1,3/.<Co ?3D1<1,3=.M+Q+4<3hR+<3>/.<31Qf+,3C@f+Qf+4D1<,=-+F3=+M+N=3/.<HJK/RF>+FM.<+4<3hR+<3>/.<,f3Q.F4,<RQ,+.F./1F+F3=+M+N=3+,3C63=3C3F,./,f3D<.p3Q,o B,3CqW U34Q<+D,+.F./LFM+F33<n40.M+QWS?333r1CD=344f.@F+F,f3BF4,<RQ,+.F4V Immm^`__
XYG888
X7Y8G888
XP XY8G888
X788G888
stuvtuwux uuyzuu
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects Attachment C
Community and Stakeholder Outreach
Report
!
!
"#
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
#"M!
N#M"
OJ-./&0.F293JF(G&-.5&0LP.8G0+5@4J)+Q5)&40).)&R
SJC.4,(&23?)J?(3&6.2G0L-./&0.F293J)+-&<+579&J
TJ-&<+579&JF(G&-.5&0U?(3&6.2G0LC2&5?)J)+?VWOSX
YJP.8G0+5@4JF(G&-.5&0U?(3&6.2G0L-&<+579&J)+-./&0.F293J
Z#"M!
N#M"
XJ:.2<79&JF(G&-.5&0L[5(9&40()*79&J)+?14(5;?)J
\J-./&0.V.(2$4.(2/B2)(W[0&:.)%L?14(5;?)J?).)(+5)+](52&*79&J ^J:.0.3&5.79&JW'+22(&4:.4GW/.4(1+0.722&*F(8*82&U:&3&0)4(.5V+B)&0L/.4(1+0.?)J _[12.53?)J)+:.0.3&5.79&J_?14(5;?)J
RJC.)&0(3&V3F(G&-.5&0U?(3&6.2G0L:.4G-5J)+:.*0+5V3J
'+58&1)B.23&0(;506&4&3&9&2+1&3,+4&.8%14+I&8),+4)4.,,(88.2<(5;AK(8*82&A.531&3&0)4(.5
0.,&)*<&.0B4&0J75+B)4&.8%12.56.03&9&2+1&3)+&5;.;&.,,&8)&34&0(3&5)0A.;&58(&0A.53 .8)(9&)4.501+4).)(+514+1+5&5)0J$%(04&1+4)0B<<.4(`&0)%&8+<<B5()*.530).G&%+23&4 +B)4&.8%&,,+4)0,+4)%&-./&0.F(G&.53?(3&6.2G'+55&8)(+5014+I&8).53)%&,&&3K.8G 14+9(3&3A6%(8%6(22(5,+4<)%&'()*D0,B)B4&12.50)+1B40B&.33()(+5.2,B53(5;,+43&0(;5.53 8+50)4B8)(+5J
!
"#$% #&
&# $
'())*+,-./+01-/234(5036(*-63/748(6-439/:31/;,23/+0<,0=/52'(++37-,(+1>6(?37- ,+75*030/@/6,3-.(8)30,/0,1-6,A*-,(+1,+75*0,+B/>6(?37-=3A>/B3C)/,5361C1(7,/5)30,/>(1-1C 1*[email protected]/+07())*+,-.3+B/B3)3+-1311,(+1D
E030,7/-30>6(?37-=3A>/B3=/1/0030-(-43',-.F1=3A1,-3-(136@3/1/73+-6/54*A(8>6(?37- ,+8(6)/-,(+8(6G
HI6(?37-+(-,73J03176,>-,(+
HK6/+-8*+0,+B(8-43>6(?37-
HL,7,+,-.)/>18(63/1-/+0=31-1,03>6(?37-1
HI6(?37-,)>6(@3)3+-1/+0/5-36+/-,@3103176,>-,(+1
H'(+73>-*/5031,B+>5/+1
HM+B/B3)3+-1311,(+117430*53
H'())*+,-.>/6-+361
N5.361=363)/,530-(631,03+-1=,-4,+-43@,7,+,-.(8-43>6(?37-1C=4,740,637-30-43)-(/ 030,7/-30>6(?37-=3A>/B3(+-43',-.F1=3A1,-3DI(1-1-(-43',-.F1=3A1,-3/+01(7,/5)30,/ >5/-8(6)1=363)/038(6-43>6(?37-+(-,73/+0,+8(6)/-,(+(+>*A5,7(*-63/743@3+-1D O43',-.(89/:31/,17(+0*7-,+B/@/6,3-.(87())*+,-./+01-/234(50363+B/B3)3+-1311,(+1 -(>6313+--437(+73>-*/5>6(?37-031,B+1/+07(5537-8330A/72(+-43>6(>(130/7-,@3 -6/+1>(6-/-,(+,)>6(@3)3+-1DO438(55(=,+B137-,(+1>6(@,03/1*))/6.(8-43(*-63/74388(6-1 ,+75*0,+B/>*A5,7(*-63/743@3+-/--43PQPR9/:31/M/6-4S/.N/,6/+0>6313+-/-,(+1-(-43 :(A,5,-.'()),11,(+/+0M+@,6(+)3+-/5<*1-/,+/A,5,-.'()),11,(+D
TUTVWXYZ[X\X]^_`XabXc]
O43',-.(89/:31/7(+0*7-30/>*A5,7(*-63/743@3+-8(6
-439/:31/;,23/+0<,0=/52'(++37-,(+1>6(?37-0*6,+B
-43PQPR9/:31/M/6-4S/.N/,64350/-:/7E6-4*6I/62
(+E>6,5PQCPQPRDd31,03+-1=363/A53-(@,1,--439/:31/
I*A5,7e(621S3>/6-)3+-F1A((-4-(G
HL,3=7(+73>-*/5031,B+,)>6(@3)3+-1/+0
/5-36+/-,@31(8-433,B4-9:;<e'>6(?37-1
HS,17*11-43>(-3+-,/51/83-.)3/1*631=,-4-43
>6(?37--3/)C=4,74,+75*030',-.1-/88/+0-43
7(+1*5-/+-031,B+1*A?37-)/--363f>36-1
HI6(@,038330A/720,637-5.(+-43>6(?37-
A(/601(6-46(*B4=6,--3+7())3+-7/601
!"
#$ %% $
& $%
&
%$ '
(
) $& $(%$&$$*
(!
$
(
"& $%
&
%$ '
+,%!(
*(*$
$
!
-$
#%$ '
+ ($.
!(! /$
/
(
(!
00
$!(
*
&(
$ $(&
,
$
-,
1/#
#/$(
#%$ '
+ ($.
2 $0 $3
"
00
1$
/$(+!
&!!
00
($
3%$
#$ %% $
$ %%
& $%
&
456789%$ '
.
/# !"/
#
#"
, &
#40
:"
(
;(
-
<$"+-
!(
(
/(!-%$ '
/$$
(
(
(! $",
!!
&+(
-
%
(!
0%$ "0
(!
*
#(
%$ '
$$ $.
2 !! /
*
#
$(
#"
1 #%$ '
+ ($(
00
($/$*
(!!,
(
$(
(
!
$
$
$.:
(!!,1
#/$
00
&$ 0
#%$ '
+ ($(
00
($/$*
=.
>#$ !
&
#&+(
-
!!
&$ 0
#4(5(
?($
#<(,% +!
$(
#"
($%$
& $(
#
%$ '
#& !! /
*$% $
.
!"
#$%
&'()*+(,*-./0(1*23-45()*6(,72.8(9:
;./0346,:*00<49=90(0*6(4>72.1(>(6:,.6)*
+(,*-./0(1*23?2.>@*95,.6A241(:.
B6:(2,:*:(CD&'(72.8(9:4,(E7(9:(3:.<(*6
46:(24>4>72.1(>(6:/6:40?/:/2(>/0:4>.3*0
4>72.1(>(6:,9*6<(9.6,:2/9:(3*,7*2:.?:'(
0.6F(2:(2>)*+(,*-./0(1*23G.>70(:(
H:2((:,I0*672.8(9:D&;.9.69(7:/*03(,4F6
*0:(26*:41(,;(2(3(1(0.7(3DJ0:(26*:41(J
2(,:247(3:'(9.2243.2:.*33<45(0*6(,;4:'46:'(
(E4,:46F2.*3;*=;'40(2(:*4646F.6K,:2((:
7*2546FDJ0:(26*:41(-4690/3(,2(>.146F2*4,(3
>(34*6,*632(,:24746F:.*33<45(0*6(,;4:'*
</??(2<(:;((6:'(<45(0*6(*631('49/0*2:2*1(0
0*6(;'40(2(:*4646F.6K,:2((:7*2546FD
L((3<*959.00(9:(33/246F:'(7/<049./:2(*9'
(1(6:4690/3(3646(MNO1.:(,?.2J0:(26*:41(-P
,4EMQO1.:(,?.2J0:(26*:41(JP*63*7.,:K466.:(
9.>>(6::.*33JAJ9/2<M2*>7,O*::'(
46:(2,(9:4.6.?)*+(,*-./0(1*23*63@*95,.6
A241(?.27(.70(46;'((09'*42,:.*1.43F.46F
46:.:'(46:(2,(9:4.6D
R!S# "TU!UT#"V $
&'(W*2?4(03H:2((:H43(;*05,72.8(9:;./03
46,:*007(3(,:24*64>72.1(>(6:,.6W*2?4(03
H:2((:?2.>)(>.6J1(6/(:.)*+(,*
-./0(1*23:.9.66(9:,9'..0,*632(,43(6:4*0
*2(*,;4:':'(2(F4.6*0:2*6,4:9.2243.2*0.6F)*
+(,*-./0(1*23D&'(72.8(9:;./0346,:*00JAJK
9.>704*6:,43(;*05,P9/2<2*>7,P*63
3241(;*=,DL((3<*959.00(9:(33/246F:'(7/<049
./:2(*9'(1(6:4690/3(3,(1(6MXO1.:(,46?*1.2
.?:'(72.8(9:D
!"#"$% $&"'!#
()*+*,-./0*.1*234567-.89:0*5-99:;-9<47:;*.=:>:*;?@=)*A:=@->+4B*74474.49*4 <):5)5-1C;?*.*>:=>9-,:,DC*,*.=4=:-.->=94>>:554C,:.EF?:5@5C*F4.;D*;*7=9:4.74>*=@ ,*4719*7GH-=*.=:4C:,D9-0*,*.=7:;*.=:>:*;>-9+*,-./0*.1*>9-,IC*.J=9**==-J=4=*K-1=* LMN:.5C1;*O
P(4?C*=-D:.=*97*5=:-.4=I49>:*C;J=9**=
PQ.)4.5*;D*;*7=9:4.59-77:.E7<:=)519?D-DR-1=74=S--;J=9**=4.;34567-.89:0* PK*;15=:-.->D-7=*;7D**;C:,:=D*9/77*,?C@T:CCUV
PH-7=:.E4D*9,4.*.==9156<*:E)=9*7=9:5=:-.
PW,D9-0*;C:E)=:.E4.;*.>-95*,*.=17:.E7,49=7=9**=C:E)=7
PX*:E)?-9)--;*.=9@,-.1,*.=Y7Z<:=)5):54.*Y7Z
PH*9,4.*.=94;497D**;>**;?4567:E.7
PX499-<*9[7\1**]*;^=94>>:5C4.*7<:=)):E)R0:7:?:C:=@*;E*C:.*7 P/8/R5-,DC:4.=7:;*<4C674.;;9:0*<[email protected]=)7:;*->7=9**=
P8*;:54=*;?:6*C4.*7:.?-=);:9*5=:-.7<:=).--.R7=9**=D496:.E H9:-9=-=)*M_MU+4B*74Q49=)84@`4:9F=)*
A:=@)4;,4:C*;47190*@=-9*7:;*.=74C-.E=)*
D9-a*5=5-99:;-9=-5-CC*5=>**;?456-.D-=*.=:4C
:,D9-0*,*.=7GK*7:;*.=7<*9*4?C*=-:.;:54=*
71DD-9=F.--D:.:-.F-9-DD-7:=:-.=-*45)
D9-D-7*;74>*=@,*4719*74.;)4;7D45*=-
D9-0:;*4;;:=:-.4C5-,,*.=7GK*7D-.;*.=7)4;
=)*-D=:-.=-9*=19.=)*7190*@?@*,4:CFD-7=
,4:CF)4.;;*C:0*9@=-+4B*74A:=@b4CCF-9
*C*5=9-.:54CC@=)9-1E)4.-.C:.*7190*@=)4=<47
455*77:?C*?@<*?C:.6-9cK5-;*G819:.E=)*
M_MU+4B*74Q49=)84@`4:9F9*7:;*.=7<)-
)4;.-=@*=D9-0:;*;49*7D-.7*=-=)*,4:C*;7190*@<*9*E:0*.4.-=)*9D4D*97190*@4.; ;:9*5=*;=-=)*-.C:.*7190*@cK5-;*G`**;?4565-CC*5=*;;19:.E=)*D1?C:5-1=9*45)*0*.= :.5C1;*;.:.*YdZ0-=*7:.>40-9->=)*D9-a*5=4.;7:eYfZ4;;:=:-.4C7=:[email protected]=*5-,,*.=7>-9O LGH1=D496:.E:.=):749*4Y4C-.EB4;:7-./0*ZF,4@?*,-0*59-77<4C6Y>9-,.-9=)C*E-> +*,-./0*gB4;:7-./0*Z=-)*9*Y*47=C*E->+*,-./0*gB4;:7-./0*Z MGX**;7=-D7:E.)*9*YVR<4@7=-D4=+*,-./0*g34567-.89Z
VGHC*47*9*719>45*+*,-./0*?*=<**.T4.59->=894.;<*7=*.;
UGK*719>45*34567-.89.*49I9-77,-.=A*.=*9F=)*A*.=*9->+4B*74 NG34567-.897=9:D:.E:7:,D-9=4.=>-974>*=@
fGI49>:*C;J=g+*,-./0*:.=*97*5=:-.<:=)94:7*;D*;*7=9:4.59-77:.E:7:,D-9=4.=
/71,,49@->=)*+*,-./0*.1*234567-.89:0*A-99:;-9J190*@:7D9-0:;*;:./==45),*.=`G
!"# "$
"
%& %"'(
)*+,-./0123456+75/+8-2+0-29:59+;-</
=41>+.?;1@<9520?-<<A5.B.<+-29=+9+0?45-2
5C=416+C+2?012,-./0123456+D41C8+C12
E6+2@+?18-F+0-71@<+6-49?1.122+.?
4+059+2?5-<-4+-0-29?*+8+C12E6+2@+
G<+C+2?-4B:.*11<?1?*+4+H512-<?4-205?-29
.1CC+4.5-<.1445914-<12H8-F+0-71@<+6-49I
);1.12.+=?@-<9+05H2-<?+42-?56+0;+4+
9+6+<1=+9IE<?+42-?56+E52.<@9+0E3EJ
.1C=<5-2?059+;-</0K.@4A4-C=0K-29
9456+;-B0;5?*0*-4+9A5/+<-2+0K;*5<+
4+?4-5252H12J0?4++?=-4/52HIIE<?+42-?56+7
52.<@9+0E3EJ.1C=<5-2?059+;-</0K.@44-C=0K
-299456+;-B0;5?*9+95.-?+A5/+<-2+0K-A@DD+4
A+?;++2?*+A5/+<-2+-296+*5.<+<-2+K;*5<+
+<5C52-?52H12J0?4++?=-4/52HI
L++9A-./.1<<+.?+99@452H?*+=@A<5.1@?4+-.*
+6+2?52.<@9+905MNOP61?+0D14E<?+42-?56+7K
D56+NQP61?+0D14E<?+42-?56+EK-29-0?5./B21?+
.1CC+2??121?4+C16+=-4/52H9@+?14+059+2?0
2++952H=-4/52HI
R(ST!"
U"# "$
"
)*+V-<CE6+2@+75/+8-2+0=41>+.?;1@<9
=41659+-214?*J01@?*41@?+-<12HV-<CE6+2@+
D41CW256+405?BE6+2@+?1:=452H:?4++?I)*50
=41>+.?;1@<9=41659+-<1;+4J61<@C+K<1;+4J
0=++9-<?+42-?56+?1:=452H:?4++?D14A5.B.<50?0
?4-6+<52HA+?;++2W256+405?BE6+2@+12?*+
214?*-29741-9;-B12?*+01@?*I);1
.12.+=?@-<9+05H2-<?+42-?56+0;+4+9+6+<1=+9I
E<?+42-?56+E52.<@9+00*-4+9A5.B.<+<-2+052
A1?*?*+214?*A1@29-2901@?*A1@29954+.?5120K
;5?*12J0?4++?=-4/52H?14+C-5212A1?*059+01D
?*+0?4++?IE<?+42-?56+752.<@9+0-0*-4+9
A5.B.<+<-2+01@?*A1@29K-9+95.-?+A5.B.<+<-2+
214?*A1@29;*+4+?*+41-9;-B;59?*50
-6-5<-A<+K;5?*12J0?4++?=-4/52H=4+0+46+912
A1?*059+01D?*+0?4++?I
!"#$% &'! #
! "
&
($ #$
!)($*+,(
)-
". "$ #(/0
1 *2,(
)-
". "$ #(.0$ &"*3,
# #
$ '
) 4# $
55$ )-
"6
789'"
!"
$: 5.($!
28.
"
))1
;5#4
"
))#$%
$
: 5.($! <
#":"
38<
$)#" =)
$%: 5.($!*)
#
"
! ,
>?@AB?C?DEFG?DE@HEIDJKBAL?IM
N&OP)Q# N"# P! #4R): &'"
S
1 ! #$) $
" &4)
! &5! #4!)' & &
1 ! '"
(#$ "$ #(
1
#$%
"#
#$%
$T'"#$%T " 0
$$
#
$ 1$T'"#$%
T " $ &OP)/
! ("N"$)#
T #
$)0$ "$)#
))-
" &U
V#
$#%&
"&
)8N&'"
S
1 ! )
$$
#
=
"
! )
&1) $
1 &
!""$ =!$"! # #WT'"#$%T " N"$)#
T #
$
)!'' 5$ &!)=$
$) "#$
OP)/
! ("N"$)# T #
$8N1
$
' ! )#%$ "$ #()1"(
'0
#$
!#$%)#5! #
$)
- &#--"$ ' &
"
))4
)
#
$)$- !")8. "$ #(.#$
!) &
5! #4!)' &
1# &#$$1$X#) #$%
<# ="#%& 4
-41=$V #XY "Z#) "#
)5$ 8N&' &1
! '"
(#
!"(#$%
)
$#
"
! 1# &"#%
"
))#$%$&# )!'
[\%"8. "$ #(/#$
!) &5! #4
!)' &
1# &#$T$Z#%
P "
'
# $
N"$)# T=) 5*PNT,"#%& 4
-41=0'"
$1)
- &T$Z#%
N"
=8N&' &
1 ! '"
(#- "$5
"#"
"
! 0
&
1("# 1
! #$
)"'"
X#5# =
&
"
= "
)8
!"#$% &'! #
! "
&
($ #$
!27(
)-
". "$ #(.0)#X*],
(
)-
". "$ #(/0$)#X*],# #
$
'
) 4# $
55$ )-
"6
78.$#%&
"&
))'
#$ )
Z
.($!
!" !!#$$
%%&!
'%#(!
'
'"#
(
)*!"
(
'
#%#+
',$"!%%-#(.'!
#$
+(#%
(
'%
"!/0#''
1&"
1'"
'2"#%
'1'#'
!
'
"%
$'
!!+1&"
1'"
'#3
1'"
'4
53
"&"
!"
',' #6#%#
#7#8&
92
%0('
"#'
:
;4
:
%8!"
"
$'#(
%%
(
:#'
!
#
<
!" !!#$$
%%&!
'%
=>?>@AB>CDABEAFGHIIJAK=>KLFM>KJNH?>CIIAOPJQOQIA>B@=A@A?RKJ>BSHERA? 2 6#%#
#:
/
TU!((
"6#".T
*#"
&!%#((
,;
$,$(
#6
%'"
#7!/'
%
&"!V
$'-!/(
%'#((
#%'W-
%'
$,$(
#
&
%'"
#$!
$'
!%+"!8'
'
"%
$'
!!+
*#"
&!%#1'"
'#X&(#1'"
'Y-
%'#(!
*#"
&!%#((
,' "!/
U#((
"6#".Y##(!
6#%#
#:
/
'!1&"
1'"
'2
&"!V
$'
-!/(&"!:
#"!/'
'!'
1&"
1'"
'
2"#%
'1'#'
!##$$
%%'!#(!-W%'"
%%Z&#".W
'!W&#".[
.
#-#(.
(
.
'-
U!((
"
6#".#\/$#(,&'/%6#".
2 6#%#
#:
/
8&"!:
8 '%-!/(
%'#((#]W$!8&(
#'#$$
%%"#8&'!
$!
$'6#%#
#:
/
'!1&"
1'"
'Y
-%
-#(.#(!
6#%#
#:
/
'!6#(8 :
/
'!&"!:
#$!
$'
!
'-
'
&"!&!%
#$$
%%"#8&#U!((
"6#".Y
-
%
-#(.#(!
1&"
1'"
'%!/' !+'
&"!&!%
#$$
%%"#8&Y#&
%'"
#$"!%%
8&"!:
8 '%^
#$.$!((
$'
/"
'
&/ (
$!/'"
#$
:
'
$(/
'-!%'
$.,!'
$!88
'%+!"_
`a!'
$
%%#",+!"'
%
!" !!
b(,
'!$!
$''!U!((
"6#".
c
8 '
+
'+!"'
8!
,
2 U!((
"6#".
8&"!:
8 '%-!/(
$(/
#8
'
%#+
%
%#(!
'
8/('
W/%
&#'
'"#:
"%
'
!"'
!+U!((
"6#".#V#$
'
'!6#%#
#:
/
'-
6#(8:
/
#^!/"' 1'"
'd8&"!:
8 '%
$(/
#
%'#
"-#,$!
$'
'
&#".
(!''!'
8/('
W
/%
&#' Y:
-&!
'
$
%Y(
'
Y##
"
'#
-#((^
#$.$!((
$'
/"
'
!
" # $
$
% %
$ &'(#
$)!#
)
"
*
!$%
+
&,(!%%
$!-
./
$
00 $
-)
1 '234$!4 )
5 6! .
$6!07# $
,28 "
- %$4!
$46!07# $
9+
$
!% -4$!
$!
# -)
:!
-!6!-
+ % #
%;$
%$4
-0!
$-
)
" %)) $
0$!
$ !0
!$%-
! +!/
$$
$4<
"3
!$%
=!$%3
29"-
*
+
% $"!$
"
5
/
)>!: -!?-
-
! +!/-/-
0;
!/
) %
!-@-
-
! -A;+"
"+
$-
! %
)!
!
)
%
!))
"
4"!%*!
$
$ 4"
"
%-27
$!
# 7$
% -!+%
%
-
! +!/!
"!
$4-% !$!
+
-+
"B!
.-
/ !027
$!
# C$
% -!
$!
+ %
-
! +!/!
"!
$4-% !+%
-+
"B!
.-
/ !0
$
" + -
-%
)
"
+!.+!/)
+ %/!$!
+ -+
"B!
.
-
/ !0
$
" !-
-%
)
" +!.+!/2C
"
!
$!
# -$
% !$ +-% +!.
$$
$4
"
0$!
$-
! +!/!$% !0
"
:!
-!3
!$%=!$%3
$
-
$2
< %!
.
%% $4
"
!
"
# $
$
% % 4"
&D(#
-)
7
$!
# C;
-E&F(#
-)
7
$!
# 7;!$%)# &G(
!%%
$!-
./$
00 $
-)
1 '2H
"
$2H
$ %)
!
$$
$
"
/" 2I$-
"
"! !
)
" $ 4"
"
%
,2H
" 2J -
/-
"
"! !
)
" $ 4"
"
%
K2H
" 2H
$ %)
"
$$
$2I$-
"! !
)
" $ 4"
"
%23 $%0
$ /
- +" 2
L2H
"
G2M-- $
! % -
!$+!.+!/
NOPQRSTQUVOTWSXQYOZQROZT[STQ\O]XR
9" ^!
-% I
!%C. >!$ -!$%3% +!.-
*
+
%
0
!4!$
"
/
!$%
% -
!$)!
-!
$4^!
-% I
!%
+ $6! .>!$ !$%6!/-
$I
!%29"-
+
%
#%
$$
#
/)
0 " 3 $4
3 %
#!^!
-% I
!%_I# !J #
! "
#
$%&'
(! ) *
+ , - .
/.
0-! 1 $"&%'
.%%23 %.
#4546$*%.
' ".%3
#$& 2 .*
# '
.
$
(
#.',.
$ '".
(
(
.( # .
(".%%#.
'&%7 %$.
08.''
.%
'2.$3
! 1 $".
,' '
27 '
'&
(! &2%$& .$! ,
0
9:;<=<>?@:AA<BB<:C
-! ).D
.E3 .
'/' ".%3F
$
G 1 $ ".
'! D2%7
F**
5 $ *2 HIHJ.
'4 %HIHK0
4! 5 $ *2 *
(.
&2$** ".
.
' , ".
'$**
.%
$
$
! (! 1 $
#!
$**
.
&**. L '
4.$!*
M0-!
.
$%&' '.
, , "
! N
O F.%
.- .
.
F**
PF-FQ4$, - .
.
G ( .* P4-GQ( .
&
'
( R& *
O 5
(
.%
.,
! (!)DE/SF%.
( 1 $
O /$
/ ,$
O F**&
7.
'/.3 !%' T& .$!
O /$! '&% .
'5 %, .2%
4 %%"6&
.
U&
HIHK
$%&' '.
&**. 7
!
'2.$3$%% $ '
*
'
'&
(! HIHK).D
.M. !5.7V. .
'
& , 7
&%
! ) *
4,
& W
U.$3
5 , $ ' * , *
! D2%7F**
0-! D2%7F**
, '
& ! 1 $#"!$
'
.% $**
'.
#.! (&%. *
(
U&
X#
HIHK0
YCZ<[:CA\C>]=^_B>]<C];<=<>?@:AA<BB<:C
-! ).D
.E3 .
'/' ".%3F
$
G 1 $".
'! M
,
*
.%
/&
.
.2%7F**
.! *
(
5 $ *2 `a#HIHJ.
'.
&2$** ".
.
' , ".
'$**
.%$
$
! (! 1 $
.!.* 08"
$**
" $ , '
*!
&2$** 0-! M
,
*
.%/&
.
.2%7F**
, '
& ! 1 $.! (&%. *
(
D.7HI#HIHK0
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects Attachment D
Public Comment Summary
1 LA MESA BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS PROJECT-PLANNING PHASE
PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY
Date By Comment
5/16/24 K. Wilson I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Mariposa Mall ramp and stairs project off of Upland St. It seems to me to be a large waste of money. I understand the premise is to provide pedestrian access from the neighborhood east of Upland St to the Spring Street trolley station.
I've lived in this neighborhood for 27 years. I walk my dog almost every morning. I do not see neighbors who appear to be heading to the trolley.
Most are out for morning exercise. There doesn't seem to be any clambering for a giant ramp through a quiet neighborhood to get to a trolley that few people ride. And if someone did want to walk to the trolley station, it is just as easy to walk down Upland St and through the beautiful new park. I walk down that way regularly, both directions. Honestly, I think it would be easier to walk up the street than climb the set of stairs you are proposing. It is more of a gentle slope than climbing that hill, which is very steep. That is evident on how long the ramp is and how many steps are proposed.
The residents who live along this pathway will now have a large concrete monstrosity in front of their currently quiet and secluded homes. Not to mention the invitation for no-gooders to pass through and possibly set up camp. I hope you would consider directing the funds elsewhere where they are more needed. This just seems like a lot of disruption for no good reason.
4/20/24 P. & V.
Basaran
We live behind the placement of the “decorative” bridge [proposed for the Water Main Alternative of the La Mesa Rail Trail]. We have concerns with privacy, access to the gulley and backyard. We have concerns with additional lighting. What landscaping will be added [?] Based on the current information we oppose both plans.
2 Date By Comment
4/16/24 R. Hops I was just informed of many new projects in our city and I object to one of them very much. What time and where is this community design workshop being held on 4/20? How will the $4 million funds be allocated? I adamantly oppose the Mariposa alley sidewalk project. There is no need to connect 4th St to Uplands and I hope the funds can be allocated to other projects in La Mesa. This monstrosity of a wall will destroy the character of an old La Mesa neighborhood. No more houses will be built in that area so there is not going to be increased traffic and no need for this large-scale project that I reckon will take most of the $4mm budget. There are no other sidewalks on Uplands or Mariposa so it serves no purpose and will be an eyesore to the neighborhood. This project should be cancelled, and the grant should be allocated elsewhere to better service the tax paying citizens of La Mesa. I'd like to see more pedestrian protections surrounding Lemon Ave elementary school and making it safer for kids and parents.
How do I voice my concerns to the city council?
5/16/24 D. Pitard To whom it may concern: I have received a flier stating there will be some improvements to our street and adding a bike path along Nebo dr. While I see the pictures and it will make it much more beautiful and more useful I have some serious concerns and I would like to see if I can get these addressed as they would impact us and our property values. But the most important would be neighborhood safety of our kids and the kids in the surrounding blocks.
The drawing shows the bike/ped path having a bump out into Nebo drive around the MTS sub-station. This street is already narrow and has a speeding issue. There is not enough room for two cars to pass through.
This bump out is directly in front of my and my neighbors house. I would not like to see our street parking be impacted further by this. I have many concerns about the traffic issues with this street already and seeing this as another issue. The speeding and short cutting through the neighborhood is already an issue; the space required to take a path that meets state guidelines for a bike path would put the path into the street by many feet. I have serious concerns about how this will impact traffic and the flow of the neighborhood. Will Nebo drive be made into a one way street to accommodate this bump out and traffic issue?
This is a separate issue but related and could be tackled or impacted by these changes. This being said we already have an issue with speeding and short cutting through the alley behind our house. There are 6 families with kids that live and play in just the alley behind the substation. Due to the potential traffic change, the fact we can’t have speed bumps in the alley with the water drainage issues I would ask if we can make the alleys one way. The one from Finley heading south to Pasadena would be south only and Finley to Lemon heading north would be north only (Cont. on next page).
3 Date By Comment
This will greatly stop the short cutting and speeding due to the alleys flowing in opposite directions. There is a blind spot on top of the hill on the south end of the street and I have had way too many close calls with people speeding and not being able to see as they crest the hill. I could see neighbors being upset because it will impact the way they travel in and out because my main concern is my kids and the other kids' safety. I could see that people would want to short cut even more if the street traffic is impacted.
What is going to be done for the drainage issues? Currently the intersection of Nebo and Finley is flooded with the rain. All of the water that comes from the hill all comes down to that intersection and the two tiny drains can’t handle the water flow and the streets flood. In my 12 years here I have seen a few cars get totaled due to water damage. The last few rains have flooded the drains so bad that it undercut the road where the ditch and road meet. The ditch has water flow year round due to the natural springs. The drains that run west to east from the hills also drain into that ditch. If you are to cover the ditch with a walkway there will be more added drainage issues.
The house of 8925 Pasadenas garage and hillside flooded with the rains.
The water from the hillside comes down the hill and directly to the house.
They have sand bags outside all year long to combat the flooding and poor engineering of the water flow from the hills. This should be a major consideration and red flag, the quality of life for this family is impacted with any rains let alone the storms of this last year. I would beg the city to come out and meet with the neighbors to see how protection for their house and family could be added into this project and stop the flooding that happens year after year. This is a serious quality of life issue for them and could very easily be solved with some consideration from the city.
There is no better time to help a local family and make improvements then during a project with the scope as this.
The valley below the Pasadena house is always impacted by the rains and usually is a large lake and mud pit. Hopefully this can be addressed as well.
With increased foot traffic in these areas there will no doubt be increased crime. Are there any plans on how to mitigate this? Will there be lighting that will impact our homes? We currently do not have street lights and the light pollution is kept at a minimum. Could there be a path lifting included in the project to keep the area bright enough to keep the area safe but not shine light into our homes?
Will there be cameras that will be recording 2/47? We already have issues with people cutting through the neighborhood after committing crimes or nefarious acts (Cont. on next page).
4 Date By Comment
The city should very much consider having a small meeting with just the neighbors on the block of Nebo Drive to discuss concerns with the neighbors being that we are the ones who are the most impacted but this. I think this would be extremely valuable not only to us the neighbors but to you the city as well. The city would not want the community to feel left out and have disdain for the project.
Now to be perfectly clear I am onboard with the project as a cyclist and supporter of all things La Mesa. This will not only bring beauty to our street but provide a fun and safe area for the kids to get outside and ride safely. I just have very serious concerns and considerations to be addressed.
I look forward to hearing from you on this very soon.
6/18/24 K. Luera To whom it may concern,
My name is Kate Luera, and I live at 8295 Pasadena Ave, La Mesa, CA 91941; the top of Nebo, first house on the left side by the trolley. I am writing because tonight I had the chance to meet Phil Kern and Carly Cubberley to discuss the project with neighbors. It was made clear that my concerns are better heard in writing. Before I go into my concerns I'd like to introduce myself. I am married to Ramiro, Jay Luera, who is cc'd. We have lived at this address for just over 11 years. We have two children and bought this home because our daughter was turning one and we wanted to move into this amazing community. Our kids are now 12 and
8. My husband is a Navy Vet and currently works as a sales executive. I am a teacher for SDUSD and we both volunteer as coaches for youth sports.
Since moving to our home we have called the police numerous times for homeless encampments in the canyon along the trolley. We have had homeless living in the palm tree brush along the trolley. When trying to get assistance with the problem no one wanted to take responsibility for the area. The city said it was the water districts and the water district said it was the metros. Then when we continued pushing we were told rare birds live in the trees so they had to stay. I cannot recall who finally stepped in but I can recall it not being easy. Due to these experiences my first concern is more people being exposed to the canyon and thinking it would be great for homeless camps. My second concern is maintenance and responsibility of taking care of any issues that may arise. In addition to these issues, we have had our house tagged on the trolley side, found used condoms under our deck and watched teens and young adults do drugs. I am scared that more foot traffic will make my home a target for more crime. I am concerned that this foot traffic will see into my home and be an issue for my family's safety. Another concern I have is terrain/climate. Part of the year that area is very wet due to the extremely poor drainage on my street. The other part of the year it is full of
5 Date By Comment
dead brush making it a fire hazard. I am scared of the possible effects of construction in the area and erosion caused by it (Cont. on next page).
I am also nervous that anyone could smoke on a walking/bike trail, toss a cigarette and create a detrimental fire in the canyon. Finally, I am confused about the need. I understand people wanting to come into La Mesa from Lemon Grove.
However, I do not see a need for anyone to go the opposite way as the terrain is steep and there are no shops or schools to get to. We currently have two trolley stops within blocks of each other. If someone needed to get across they could use the Spring Street sidewalk or take the trolley one more exit.
I have a few thoughts that I am not sure how to best fit this into my email but I think it should be noted. Since living here I have seen someone trying to commit suicide on the track. There would need to be constant surveillance if this project goes through. Additionally, we have received complaints about our patio lights. How can you light the walkway if we cannot even light our back porch? Also, a few years ago a house was robbed and my husband called the cops because the kids that robbed it were running through the canyon escaping. And when the Denny's was robbed they tried to escape by running from Denny's through the canyon and up our street...also caught. Some people will see this walkway as an exercise route or walking path but I think a lot will also see it as an escape route, a bridge to live under or a place to escape and hang out.
I love the idea of a community area and walkway but not in the canyon connecting the trolley stations. I truly believe in my heart will invite more crime in my area, increase areas for homeless hiding, and I am terrified that there will be a lack of maintenance, upkeep and accountability when things do not go as planned. Please reach out if you have any follow up questions, or would like to discuss helping with the drainage since we got left high and dry after Jack Chiaramonte retired.
Lastly, please, please invite people of Nebo and Pasadena to speak on this if it comes up at city council meetings. Community voice of those directly affected should be heard! My understanding is that this was brought up at an Earth Day event at McArthur Park and those comments were allowed to be recorded. Those directly affected where they park and live should be heard and prioritized. Thank you!
6 Date By Comment
6/18/24 J.
Niehaus
Hello, I am one of the Nebo Drive residents (4518 Nebo Drive) who just met with you to discuss the possible addition of a walkway/bikepath along Nebo Drive. First of all, thank you for coming out to talk to us. I know it is frustrating listening to (sometimes conflicting) complaints.
My concerns are:
1) WHY??? Why waste money to connect two parts of the city that very few people would use. There is simply no reason for the path since there is little of interest for us to be walking over to Gateside Road. The only logical reason would be to decrease the walk distance to a trolley station for a VERY FEW people (do they even use the trolley), This decrease in distance would be about one city block as opposed to walking to the downtown station.
2) Spring Street already connects the two areas, and I see very few people using it. Why build another connector? If you say it is for safety reasons, I rode my bike down Palm Ave. the two times that I did travel to that side of town.
3) I like that my house is part of an "enclosed area". I know my neighbors, and we talk to each other often. I don't want more strangers walking by my house. PS - I walk my dog twice a day down Nebo, and I like that I know all my neighbors by name. I do not want to sound exclusive, but I moved here because I want to feel part of a neighborhood, and I do. 4) You will have to put in lights, and I am not interested in bright street lights shining into my house and ruining the view of the valley and Mount Helix.
5) You will have to make Nebo a one way street to legally accommodate the path and the trolley power station in the middle of the block. 6/21/24 P.
Basaran
I live at 8287 Pasadena Ave, La Mesa. My home backs up to the trolley line so I will be directly affected by the proposed rail trail connecting La Mesa and Spring trolley stations.
I do not support the rail trail for the following reasons:
• Safety - easy access to my backyard and house.
• Lighting - I assume the trail will be lighted to ensure the safety of the trail users. This will negatively affect the view from my patio, and the enjoyment of my back ground.
• Maintenance - there is a history of no agency taking responsibility for the gully between the trolley line and our property line. The addition of the trail is likely to exacerbate rather than resolve this issue.
I moved to La Mesa in 2023. The trolley was not a negative, however if I had known there were prospects of a trail being added beside the trolley line, I would have reconsidered my purchase decision. I understand the desire to encourage use of the trolley line however I do not believe that the expense to build the proposed trail justified this desire.
7 Date By Comment
6/27/24 D. Pitard To whom it may concern, I thank you for taking the time to read this. As we know it takes 5 positive comments to outweigh 1 negative comment. But as we all know the negative comments are the vocal majority. We rarely get positive feedback for things that are good. I truly believe this is one of those situations. The negative responses are going to outweigh the positive. I am 100% in support of the bike path that is proposed on Nebo drive. I live on Nebo and would be directly affected by it. My wife and I, the neighbors on both sides of us all support it. As well as a few not so vocal families. We feel that it is a great chance to clean up the ugly dirt and weeds across from us that no one will take responsibility for, it’s a true standoff. The city says it’s MTS responsibility, MTS says it’s Helix water district, Helix water says it’s the city. And not a single group will maintain it.
Everyone is quick to spray weed killer and poison the ground and us. I fully understand my neighbors feelings and concerns about safety and privacy. I support them standing in opposition to the path. But I feel there can be some improvements that would make the neighborhood safer. Make Nebo one way from Finley heading south only. Provide path lighting. Improve the design and maintenance of the area. Provide additional patrols and visibility of police and MTS. The drainage on Nebo is horrible. The street floods every time it rains, even if it’s just a small amount.
My neighbors at the top of the street get flooded every time and the city has done nothing to help them or improve this situation. The drainage at the bottom of the street is impacted as well. But we know there is no money earmarked for these projects. I believe this bike path could solve all these issues, beautify and improve safety all in one program. But I feel this will all be overshadowed but the negative impacts that can be addressed and made better for our community. I believe in progress and I believe in compromise. And I feel that both of these things are possible. The people all expressed the same thing about their safety and security. And I agree that is our main concern. One of the family’s will be directly affected and they should be the ones that we should look out for the most. I’m sure there is a way to make this path a reality and protect those who are directly affected. There has to be a way to give them the safety and security and provide this much needed update to our street. I would like to thank everyone for their time and effort on this and I am grateful for having a chance to put my words down.
Note: This summary includes comments received via mail and email only during the public comment period. Comments received online, via mail and email as part of the Lemon/Jackson survey and outreach are presented separately in these attachments.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects Attachment E
Commissioner’s Comment Summary
1 LA MESA BIKE AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS-PLANNING PHASE PROJECTS COMMISSIONER’S COMMENT SUMMARY
Date By Comment
3/07/24 D. Justice At our Mobility Commission meeting yesterday, the Commission was treated to an expanded explanation of the updated La Mesa Blvd Complete Streets project, along with an update on the LSRP. It is really helpful to see and hear about the plans.
To that end, in response to your questions, I have to answer that I do believe the community would support these projects, and that the facilities would most definitely be used.
As far as suggestions, as I am a daily walker of the streets of La Mesa, I will certainly keep the overview and concept plans close at hand so as to jot down ideas as they come to me. I look forward to sitting down with other members to share ideas so that we can arrive at specific recommendations.
Thanks so much for all this good info… it is exciting to see what all is being floated out there as we work to improve our city’s mobility. 4/13/24
4/22/24
D. Justice Great to have you at the meeting last week… lots of good information. I think there are some excellent plans but also some that need a bit of adjustment.
I have quite a few thoughts re: the Pasadena “pass-through” from Upland to 4th… and I also have received a great deal of input from neighbors.
Is it best to email you, or is there an upcoming forum? Some neighbors mentioned receiving mailed info but I have not seen anything.
Thanks, Carly… I have an event at SDSU tomorrow which conflicts with the Earth Day gatherings, otherwise I would definitely be there. I know some folks in the immediate area plan on visiting to provide feedback.
My concerns relate to the design and cost of the [Pasadena/Mariposa] project… seems like a whole lot of effort and material for something that should be a little more straightforward and easy on the eye. I understand that new infrastructure must comply with certain requirements, but the design depicts the finished product as rather unsightly. Additionally, a neighbor heard a figure of $4M for this one, which seems excessive, but I will wait to hear from you before I repeat that rumor! ���� Thanks for what you are doing… I know it is never easy, especially when one must operate under the microscope that is civic engagement.
2 Date By Comment
3/07/24 D.
Nichols
First off, thank you for including me in the evaluation for safe cycling on the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Plans. I am proud that you have reached out for my input and hope that this becomes best practices for the future, as I and many of my riding colleagues ride these routes regularly and have experiences riding bicycles throughout the world. Understanding the nuances of safe cycling takes years of experience. My first suggestion would be to go out and ride these sections at different times of the day to better understand them. I would be happy to go with you and even provide a bike if needed. Below are my recommendations for the two projects along Palm Avenue from Broadway to University Avenue, followed with my recommendations for La Mesa Blvd. from Jackson Drive to the Interstate 8 onramp.
With the plans presented as is, I feel that the community would support construction as well as utilize these facilities after completion. Personally, both have been my preferred routes for decades, even with very little cycling safety features. As is, my preference is Alternate B in both sections, as I will elaborate below. I do, however, believe that both present problematic issues with existing road widths. While I am providing a rough outline of suggestions, my preference would be to meet with you personally, as visual guidelines can be more easily explained.
Palm Avenue: While this is listed as a connection between Broadway and University, I could not find a plan for the section along Spring Street passing under 125. As this is a Caltrans area, it would be very important to have their input, as I see this as the most dangerous section for vulnerable road users. In my opinion, a Class II Bikeway should be along this section of Spring Street, with considerable signage and conflict striping included.
An alternative would be to continue a Class III Bikeway, with sharrows, across Spring Street along Gateside Road, turning into Riviera Drive.
Gateside Road does present an elevation change that traditional cyclist may avoid, but as power assist cycles continue to increase, that will become a more desired alternative. Another alternative would be to connect High Street to Nebo Dr. along the west side of the trolley tracks, also providing a safer access to the transit center. I believe that there is a plan for this, but would present a considerable expense.
Along Palm Avenue, a roadway width of 40' presents considerable obstacles if parking is continued on both sides of the roadway. Proper clearance for parked cars, including space allotted for the door zone, should be a minimum of 10'. Placing a road user inside of that zone is, at best, dangerous. By elimination of parking along the west side of Palm, it would allow for a 13' Class III Bikeway/travel lane traveling south downhill, an 11' vehicle travel lane and a 6' Class II Bikeway traveling uphill north, along with a 7' street parking and 3' door zone buffer. While not pictured on the provided documents, there are parallel alleys on both sides of Palm Avenue with ample garages and parking (Cont. on next page).
3 Date By Comment
With minor reconfiguration in the alleys, parking accessibility could actually be increased and parking not impacted more than it currently is.
A speed limit of 30mph along the southern section is not needed as Spring Street is easily assessable 1 block away and parallel. It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered to 25mph, which is consistent with the section to the north.
Intersection at Palm & Spring: This shows a bike box at the southbound lanes extending the entire width. The bike box should only be in the left turn/through lane to the far right, as it should not be encouraged for a cyclist to turn left from the far left lane where two lanes turn, due to the danger created after the turn. Better still would be a two stage turn box, which would also accommodate cyclists traveling uphill along Spring Street wishing to make a left turn to Gateway Road.
Specific to Alt A: A 12' Class III Bikeway/travel lane, especially on the uphill northbound side, presents the potential for motor vehicles to attempt to squeeze by, placing the vulnerable road user at elevated risk.
There are also additional risks to this scenario involving lane positioning/usage for novice cyclists as well as motorists. The southern, downhill section does not present this problem to the same magnitude due to the increased speed for cyclists.
Specific to Alt B: A 10' travel lane is narrow for large trucks. Accompanied with a 7' parking zone, southbound vehicles will be traveling in the door zone.
La Mesa Blvd. Many of the same issues exist along this stretch of roadway that are present along Palm Ave. Again, I believe that these would be better explained in person. There is an alley as well as parking lots with ample parking along the way. The roadway is too narrow for 2 travel lanes in each direction, a turn lane, bikeways and parking on both sides of the street.
Additionally, I believe that the plans for re-development of this section calls for back-in parking and one lane in each direction. My recommendation is to look at those plans and do some of it now. I ride this section frequently and have never seen it impacted with traffic. A lane reduction in each direction would allow for an
8'/3'/6'/2'/14'/14'/14'/2'/6'/3'/8' lane configuration. Or, it could even provide for back-in angled parking on the south side with an 8'/2'/6'/1'/12'/12'/12'/1'/6'/2'/19' lane configuration north to south, or even duplicate what is planned for La Mesa Blvd. west of Jackson with a separated Class IV Bikeway.
https://publamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=12847
4 Date By Comment
Your use of conflict striping is good, but needs to be extended even further into conflict areas where crashes most commonly occur with right hooks and left crosses. (at Grossmont Boulevard traveling west, crossing Hayes, Wilson & Garfield)
At Jackson Drive, 3 crosswalks have raised medians, requiring handicap users to go out into the intersection when crossing. These need to be removed.
At Jackson traveling west and Hawley traveling east, the curb should be red 20 feet before the intersection. (AB413, new to California in 2024) Bike boxes in the right hand lane at Jackson and Grossmont Boulevard traveling west and the I-8 onramp traveling east would enable vehicles turning right. Additionally, two stage turn boxes at both intersections on all four corners would allow cyclists to avoid the transition of two through lanes getting to the left turn lanes.
Specific to Alt. B: While a 2' buffer is good on a bike lane. Studies have shown that more injuries occur due to dooring than hit from behind. If there is room, buffers should be on both sides of a bike lane, but buffers on the parked car side should occur first. Additionally, there should be a crosshatch line every few feet between the buffer lines to help alert all to the danger present. In this case, due to limited road width, I would recommend a 2.5' buffer between parked cars, a 1.5' buffer between the roadway and a 4' bike lane (this is not standard, but will help cyclists understand where they should be riding.
Once again, thank you for including me on this. I look forward to your response and/or meeting/riding with you personally.
5 Date By Comment
3/25/24 D.
Nichols
My apologies for being tardy on my response. An issue came up requiring surgery & I am only now able to work at my computer. After reviewing the attachments for Gateside & Garfield, it is my belief that the community as a whole would be in favor of the improvements, as it completes a pedestrian link. It is also possible that some of those living along the streets may have issues if their property is impacted with the removal of existing improvements. An example would be at 4949 Garfield, a nicely kept yard with a wall and plants along the street that would need to be removed. My question is, have the residents, specifically along the streets in question, been contacted or surveyed? I also believe that the improved facilities would be used by those in the surrounding area, as both of these streets represent traveling corridors.
For Garfield, I believe that Alternative B would be best. The majority of streets in the area do not have sidewalks and are not heavily traveled by motor vehicles. Having an ADA-compliant sidewalk on the west side would suffice and would also provide a better access to Lemon Ave. Elementary and the Little League Field.
For Gateside, while the plans show ample line markings, there are no measurements included. My memory is that this is a relatively narrow street to begin with, as well as having an elevation gain traveling south from Spring Street. My suggestion would be to have a Class II Bikeway traveling south up the grade and a Class III Bikeway, with sharrows, traveling north.
Finally, I'm still interested in meeting in person to discuss all plans, as well as experiencing the actual locations on bikes.
4/01/24 D.
Nichols
Thanks for sending all of these. It gives a better perspective for all that is planned. Overall, I'm impressed with the designs and goals presented and look forward to their completion. Below is my evaluation & suggestions for each. In addition, in response to meeting the week of April 15, I am available the 17th from 8AM-10:30 as well as the 18th & 19th. However, as I told you, I had a mishap requiring surgery, I tore my bicep and will not be riding a bike until clearance from my doctor, hopefully after April 23. Let me know if you'd still like to meet.
Rail Trail Water Main Alternate A & Rail Trail Railroad Alternate B: I applaud this section as I believe that it is a needed link to providing a safe and efficient route to downtown San Diego and South Bay. I have been suggesting & advocating for this for years. I would also like to see Lemon Grove and San Diego become involved to create a Class 1 Bikeway along the Trolley corridor all the way to downtown San Diego, similar to what has been done on the Inland Rail Trail from Oceanside to Escondido. Because this would serve predominantly as a commuter route, my choice would be for Alternate B. Although Alternate A would provide a more scenic route, altitude change on a bicycle tends to discourage cyclists (Cont. on next page).
6 Date By Comment
I also suggest that the Bikeway be extended along the sidewalk to High Street to complete that segment.
Lemon Avenue: The raised intersection and buffered bike lanes are perfect. I do question how the curb pop-outs and bike lanes will be integrated through the intersection at Wood Street. I would also like to see a crosswalk and conflict striping at the freeway entrance. Without a stop or signal, free moving vehicles present a right hook and left cross hazard.
This segment is a common cycling route leading to Bancroft and Mt. Helix, continuing the segment to Bancroft would complete the safety corridor. I believe that the majority of this would fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. An effort should be made to work with them.
Jackson Drive Alternate A & B: With very few houses facing Jackson and those that do with ample street parking on the side streets and alleys, my recommendation for this segment is Alternate B. In addition, with no street parking along Lemon to the east of Jackson, this adds continuity. At La Mesa Blvd. parking is sometimes impacted. An option would be to place pull-in parking on the west side of Jackson just south of La Mesa Blvd.
At the intersection of La Mesa Blvd. & Jackson, traveling north I recommend the addition of sharrows after the bike lane ends, along a two stage bike box at the intersection in all four directions. Traveling south, the bike lane should begin at the intersection with conflict striping crossing the entry to the parking lot on the south-west corner.
As noted in the first of 5 plans for La Mesa Blvd. At Jackson Drive, 3 crosswalks have raised medians, requiring handicap users to go out into the intersection when crossing. These need to be removed.
Pasadena Avenue - Collier Park - Mariposa Alley Bicycle & Pedestrian Route: Creating access from Spring Street to Collier Park and the surrounding neighborhoods makes sense and the design looks good. A path through the north end of Collier Park also works. I must say that I don't grasp the grand stair connecting 4th with Mariposa and the low stress "park to park" concept. Traveling around 4th to Upland does not add an appreciable distance and has basically the same usage as the rest of the route. It is my belief that the cost of the stairs could be better utilized.
Additionally, it is unlikely that cyclists will be able to use the facility, needing to walk their bikes around the tight turns. Between the two parks there are no sidewalks, other than the bridge crossing 125, or bike paths. Additionally, the roadway is steep in the section leading to Bancroft. While this is a common route for those wishing to travel east and avoid the 125/Spring Street area, those usually come from the north, traveling the 4th - Fresno - Upland - Mariposa route. If this is done, a class III Bikeway, with appropriate sharrows and signage, would help.
7 Date By Comment
Note: These comments were submitted by members of a
subcommittee appointed by the City of La Mesa’s Mobility Commission in December 2023. A similar subcommittee was appointed by the City’s Environmental Sustainability Commission; however, no written comments were received from that
subcommittee.
City of La Mesa | Bike and Sidewalk Connections Planning Phase Projects Attachment F
Lemon Avenue/ Jackson Drive Corridor
Survey
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The City of La Mesa applied for and was awarded a Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant from the State of California Department of Transportation, through an allocation of the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) share of regional ATP funding, for the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections (LMBSWC) project. The purpose of the project is to improve accessibility and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
The Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive corridor was identified by the City of La Mesa as an area which could benefit from implementation of traffic calming, bicycle, and pedestrian safety measures. As part of the Planning phase of the LMBSWC project, a conceptual design for improvements along Lemon Avenue from Glen Street to State Route 125 (SR-125) was developed to present to residents for feedback. A project area map with a conceptual representation of the measures included is provided on the following page.
SURVEY
A survey was conducted to collect feedback from
residents along the Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive
corridor to gain input on which safety measures they
would support or oppose. Surveys were mailed to
residents with the option to return them by email, post mail, hand delivery to La Mesa City Hall, or electronically through a online survey that was accessible by web link or QR code. Survey respondents were directed to indicate
their support, no opinion, or opposition to the following pedestrian and bicycle safety measures.
Tabletop intersection at Garfield Street:
Raised intersections reduce “roll-throughs” at stop
signs and improve safety at pedestrian crossings.
Enhanced pedestrian crossing with curb extension:
Generally, drivers reduce their speed when approaching
pedestrian crossings and narrower roadway sections.
Reduction of posted speed limit: Posted speed limits can be reduced under specific conditions per CA Assembly Bill 43. Posting of a permanent truck weight restriction: Reduction of heavy truck traffic improves traffic flow, reduces noise & emissions, and can improve safety. Improved lighting using smart street lights: Lighting reduces nighttime collisions and smart street lights can be used to monitor traffic conditions. Neighborhood entry monuments with chicanes: Alerting drivers at neighborhood entries commands their attention and generally reduces speeds
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 3
Permanent radar speed feedback signs: Speed monitoring and feedback signs inform drivers when they are traveling over the posted limit.
Narrower traffic lanes with high visibility edge lines: Most drivers reduce their speed on roadways where they perceive narrower lanes or other restrictions. Construct sidewalk on north side of Lemon Ave: Sidewalks on both sides of the street provide improved pedestrian circulation and safer walking routes. Dedicated bike lanes with no on-street parking: Separate bike lanes with or without buffers improve bicyclist safety and no parking improves sight distance for those entering and leaving driveways.
A total of 38 surveys were mailed to residents. As of May 31, 2024 there have been 18 respondents, indicating a 47% response rate. There were 13 online survey responses, 4 mailed survey responses, and 1 emailed response. The chart below summarizes the survey results for each safety measure. Green indicates support, grey indicates no opinion, and red indicates opposition. Generally, residents supported the majority of safety measures proposed.
Sidewalks on the north side of Lemon Avenue, Enhanced pedestrian crossings with curb extension, permanent truck weight restriction, smart street lights, and narrower traffic lanes with high visibility edge lines received the most support. Permanent radar speed feedback signs and dedicated bike lanes with no on-street parking received the most opposition and no opinion. It is noted that one survey respondent checked both the support and oppose boxes for the dedicated bike lanes with no on-street parking measure.
15 16
15 16
16 13
11 16
17 10
1 1
1 1
3 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
2 3
2 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Tabletop intersection at Garfield St
Enhanced pedestrian crossing with curb extension
Reduction of posted speed limit
Posting of a permanent truck weight restriction
Improved lighting using smart street lights
Neighborhood entry monuments with chicanes
Permanent radar speed feedback signs
Narrower traffic lanes with high visibility edge lines
Construct sidewalk on north side of Lemon Ave
Dedicated bike lanes with no on‐street parking
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor
Survey Results
Support No Opinion Oppose
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 4
The surveys included space for respondents to provide additional comments, which are provided in the following table by resident address. Generally, respondents were concerned with the corridor being used as a bypass for freeway traffic, speeding and traffic sign violations, noise from heavy vehicles, the potential elimination of on-street parking for bike lanes, and the need for enforcement of speeding / stop-sign running, reduced speed limits, and sidewalks. Four of the responses at the end of the table were provided by residents who do not live directly on the Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive project corridor.
ADDRESS COMMENTS
9015 Lemon Ave Our family is very excited to see some or all of these ideas come to fruition. Thank you! 8998 Lemon Ave
I am happy to see movement on our neighborhood requests for fixing and improving our streets. I have lived here for over 20 years and experienced the increased traffic of autos and large trucks, especially semis and their accompanying noise. Sometimes my windows rattle! I would like to see safety for pedestrians come to Lemon Ave, especially for children going to Lemon Ave Elementary. There is no where safe to cross Lemon from Wood Ave to Garfield, also Jackson. This is important for the young families who are making our area home. I am sure you are aware of the increased number of auto collisions but not the near misses. Trying to get out of your driveway on Lemon can be a real challenge. I am not for bike lanes, I think if traffic is controlled they aren't needed on our small street. I am against eliminating parking on Lemon Ave. as we all have service providers who need to park while they provide service, also, what about our family and guests who need to park while visiting us? I like the proposed use of chicane and neighborhood monument, also, the other measures proposed. I would suggest that in notifying trucksthat Lemon is not a truck route be placed in areas where it can be seen before the trucks are already committed to using Lemon Ave (the 125 exit ramp and on Jackson and La Mesa Blvd). Thank you
8988 Lemon Ave
The Lemon/Jackson corridor would most definitely benefit from traffic calming and bike/pedestrian safety measures, as supported by over 7 years of documented emails, incident reports and public comments from residents. The provisions of AB 73 and AB 43 are welcome and needed to mitigate the worsening traffic and road conditions in this corridor. In addition, enhanced law enforcement (excessive speed, truck size limits, stop sign violations) would help restore these residential blocks, adjacent to an elementary school, to a safe neighborhood that is more accessible to safe walking and biking. Safe streets are known to improve community health, increase interactions between residents, and improve local economies. While poor infrastructure (unmaintained streets, crosswalks, pedestrian traffic signals) and poor road designs that prioritize speed are dangerous to walkers and bikers. The ten (10) Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Measures proposed address the majority of our concerns and we support and appreciate your efforts. 100% support all with stars for: Enhanced pedestrian crossing with curb extension, Reduction of posted speed limit, Neighborhood entry monuments with chicanes, and Construct sidewalk on north side of Lemon Ave.
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 5
ADDRESS COMMENTS
8975 Lemon Ave
A 3‐way stop at Lemon Ave and Wood Street would reduce speeds, make turning from Wood onto Lemon safe (right now it's a very dangeroussemi‐blind turn into high speed traffic), and make pedestrian crossing safe. Enforcement! In 23 years at this house, I have seen speed enforcement maybe four or five times. Added additional safety measures and marked "Support" for "Enforcement of speed limit" and "Stop sign at Wood and Lemon".
8931 Lemon Ave
Monitoring the 4 way stop at Garfield and Lemon during morning and evening commute times is crucial. A motorcycle officer off to the south side of Garfield should be able to catch the offenders. The driver will not see the officer until it's too late. Too many drivers slide through on the tail of the car in front and do not wait their turn.
Thank you for your consideration.
8917 Lemon Ave
Agree 100% with this idea, please move forward with this proposal. Finally, something getting done in La Mesa that doesn’t center around weed shops and hipster eateries.
It has always boggled my mind why there is such a heavily trafficked vein onto a highway running through the middle of a residential neighborhood and past an elementary school when there’s an on‐ramp less than a half mile away located in an actual business district; the on‐ramp and off‐ramp to the 125 near Lemon and Jackson should just be shut‐down but if no one has the courage to do that then this is probably the next best thing.
In the 9 months that we’ve lived here, I’ve had well over 10 close calls in getting t‐ boned trying to simply back out of my driveway and I have had to tell my 4 young boys to not play near the front yard of our house on Lemon (just east of Garfield) because the drivers that are just rushing through here to get onto the freeway do not respect people in the neighborhood that live here and would like to enjoy it without fearing for their lives. I’m sick and tired of getting honked at or threatened just for trying to get my kids to school because drivers that just see the pot of gold on the 125 think their right to drive 55 mph down Lemon Ave trumps mine.
Drivers do not respect the 35 mph zone that is a joke to begin with—being a residential area and so close to the elementary school this should have downgraded decades ago—and they laugh at the no commercial trucks sign too because if a city employee stood in front of my driveway for a half hour they would see 15 semi‐trucks go by evading the more appropriate Grossmont Blvd access point to/from the freeway. In addition to what’s being proposed, there needs to be speed bumps added on Lemon Ave in between Garfield and the 125 and more law enforcement presence.
It should be a joy to live in such a great neighborhood, instead you have to keep your head on a swivel to save life and limb for yourself and loved ones and deal with exorbitant levels of car noise and exhaust pollution, on top of the frequent rattling of walls and windows that is fantastic to wake up to as yet another Walmart trucker pulls through with disregard. Please fix the civic planning failure that is Lemon Ave.
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 6
ADDRESS COMMENTS
8916 Lemon Ave
Please do something NOW ‐ We've lived here for 34 years. We've had 3 cars totaled trying to get in our own driveway. A lot of people run Garfield stop, then they proceed to 90 miles down our street. Please help us protect the Jewel of Hills again. Thank you.
Wrote "Cameras Attached" in response to permanent radar speed feedback signs safety measure.
8888 Lemon Ave
Anything is better than nothing but I believe without more enforcement people will still drive 35mph on Lemon, blow through the Lemon/Garfield intersection without stopping. Commercial "18‐wheeler" trucks will still travel this route though they're not supposed to. 1) MUST add speed bumps on Lemon!!! 1.b.) Increase enforcement!!! 2) Reduce speed limit E of Garfield on Lemon to 25 mph 3) Continue sidewalks North on Garfield from Lemon 4) Add crosswalk bars at Lemon/Madison intersection. 5) Continuous sidewalk going west from Lemon/Garfield intersection all the way to Downtown La Mesa 6) Continuous sidewalks both sides on Jackson from Lemon all the way to Grossmont Center. Support improved lighting using smart street lights only if cameras are added/used to enforce traffic laws. Need striping diversion to reduce speed. Don't need monument sign (use $$ elsewhere). Not sure it'll work (permanent radar speed feedback signs). Increase enforcement! Support constructing sidewalk on north side of Lemon Ave ‐ and more!!! Oppose dedicated bike lanes with no on‐street parking. Keep speed limits 25 mph and add "bike can use full lane signs". Don't take away street pkg!
8858 Lemon Ave
100% Yes, Yes, Yes to all of the proposed changes! This has been a long time coming! Lemon and Jackson intersection is a pedestrian fatality waiting to happen. This would make our neighborhood so much safer for all. Thank you for making this happen.
Please call me if you have questions regarding the traffic issues in this area. These are much‐needed safety improvements. Yesto all purposed safety measure. Non‐residents use this traffic corridor to bypass freeway traffic from the 8 to the 125 and it causes a safety nightmare. Most people do not follow the speed limit, they disregard stop signs, and there are frequent accidents or near‐accidents at Lemon and Jackson. These improvements would be amazing for our neighborhood. Thank you! 8851 Lemon Ave
There should be a 3 way stop at Jackson and Lemon with a in ground flashing crosswalk activated by a button same as the one on Jackson nearby. Posted speed should be 25 from Glen and Lemon to 125 freeway on‐ramp.
Do not get rid of any on street parking. Little League games and school requires all the on street parking available.
4972 Jackson Dr
I'm emailing regarding the proposed projectsfor La Mesa. I received a letter in the mail and wanted to make sure that I was able to respond to the proposal. I live at 4972 Jackson Dr. I'm firmly against removing parking from my street. So much so that I will be forced to sell and move if we no longer have parking. Myself and my neighbors have been complaining relentlessly about the traffic. People cut through the neighborhood to avoid the 125 backup. What is being done about that? Recently the city wasted money painting white lines which has changed nothing. The only thing I was in favor of
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 7
ADDRESS COMMENTS
is sidewalks. I'd like to be aware of what will be done and what won't. Like I mentioned before if parking is removed I need to sell my house and move. 8849 Madison Ave
Sidewalks along Jackson from Lemon to La Mesa Blvd would also be nice. I can say as the homeowner on the corner of Jackson and Madison, I would very much welcome a sidewalk along my property.
8849 Madison Ave
Please consider extending the sidewalk to Madison Avenue. Also, please do MORE to address the excessive speeding on Jackson between La Mesa Blvd and Lemon. I have witnessed 5 collisions as well as the death of a dog at the intersection of Madison and Jackson. People speed down that hill to cut over to the 125 and aren't paying attention.
I consider that intersection very dangerous, especially with a school right around the corner.
5140 Harmony Ln
The rolled stop signs on Garfield are from drivers who are trying to avoid the 125s merge from the 8. When drivers exit the 125 south freeway at Grossmont and use Garfield as a cut through to get back on the 125 south at Lemon it causes back up and congestion. Others will exit Jackson off the 8 and then use Jackson to Lemon as the cut through to bypass the bridge from the 8 east to 125 south. Furthermore, the traffic on Jefferson, Madison, Wood and Moissan are all from the congestion at Jackson and Lemon and Garfield. Drivers are looking for a quick solution to the immediate traffic in front of them and then speed through the side streets to try and get around it and when they get to the traffic on Garfield they roll the stop signs to avoid being caught in traffic again. It’s a cause and effect. We need to stop people from using Jackson, Garfield and the other side streets as a cut through.
4909 Wood St
Thank you, please make this happen, it looks great. We have been waiting 20 years for these changes.
Please also consider a right turn only from Wood St to Lemon Ave between 3pm‐6pm, Wazers trying to beat freeway traffic race through the quiet neighborhood. So many accidents here!
4909 Wood St
1‐100% vote for sidewalks on the North side of Lemon Avenue. This is a major concern as Lemon Avenue is a major thoroughfare into La Mesa and nearby Lemon Avenue Elementary.
2‐ I also STRONGLY suggest a NO LEFT TURN sign from Wood Street onto Lemon Avenue from 3‐7pm M‐F. There have been so many accidents at this intersection.
Luckily, at least to my knowledge, no one has died yet but it's only a matter of time. 3‐ STRONGLY suggest that the speed limit be reduced to 25 mph on Lemon Avenue.
Again, this section of Lemon Avenue feeds residents to Lemon Avenue Elementary and there are so many children and pedestrians at all hours of the day. People just drive too fast and it's getting worse, not better.
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 8
ADDRESS COMMENTS
4457 4th St Do not remove on street parking for bike lanes, that is a bad idea. There is hardly any cyclists and they can share the road with the cars. Do not take away street parking.
Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive Corridor Survey 9
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
The City of La Mesa conducted public outreach for the La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections project during the 2024 La Mesa Earth Day event held at MacArthur Park on April 20, 2024.
Residents were able to view the conceptual design for improvements along Lemon Avenue, discuss the potential safety measures with the project team, and provide feedback on the project board. Residents were who had not yet provided a response to the mailed survey were given another paper survey and also directed to online survey QR code. A photo of the Lemon Avenue / Jackson Drive corridor project board and a summary of the feedback collected is provided below. Nine residents voted in support of the project by placing a green circle sticker on the board Comments collected on post-it notes that were added to the project board include:
1. Put parking in this area (along Madison Ave), maybe move crosswalk (from north leg of Lemon Ave & Madison Ave) to here (east leg of Lemon Ave & Madison Ave)
2. Need stop sign here (3-way stop at Lemon Ave & Jackson Dr)
3. Please resurface Lemon Ave between Bancroft Dr and west end
4. Resurface Jackson Dr near Grossmont Center, the Center of La Mesa
5. Jackson Dr striping is important for safety
6. Garfield St & Lemon Ave intersection with raised pedestrian crossing is important
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 13, 2025
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.28.030 OF
THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING
EXCEPTIONS TO EL PASO STREET AS A THROUGH
STREET
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City of La Mesa approve a Resolution Amending Subsection 12.28.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, establishing exceptions to El Paso Street as a through Street at Dalhart Avenue to read as follows:
“El Paso Street a through street between Lake Murray Boulevard and Jackson Drive, except at its intersection with Dalhart Avenue.” Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution amending Subsection 12.28.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, establishing exceptions to El Paso Street as a through Street to read as follows:
“El Paso Street a through street between Lake Murray Boulevard and Jackson Drive, except at its intersection with Dalhart Avenue.” Fiscal Impact:
Funds for the installation of the all-way stop are available in Public Works Operations account 3107-6420.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 2 of 3
City’s Strategic Goals:
Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe. Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community. Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request for the installation of stop signs on the El Paso Street approach at Dalhart Avenue. Currently, only the Dalhart Avenue approach at El Paso Street has a stop sign (controlled) and the El Paso Street approach at Dalhart has crosswalks with pedestrian warning signs.
DISCUSSION:
An all-way stop analysis was performed at this intersection. The analysis reviews existing conditions and traffic data including collision information to prepare a warrant study for stop control justification. The warrant study (Attachment C) recommended stop control on the El Paso Street approaches due to limited visibility of the intersection not meeting minimum stopping sight distance requirements and a very high number of pedestrians crossing El Paso Street near the intersection with those pedestrians being of primarily elementary school-aged children. Attachment B provides a layout of the proposed all-way stop. The analysis was reviewed and supported by the Mobility Commission in August 2024 as part of their overall review of the draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending Subsection 12.28.030 of The La Mesa Municipal code, establishing an all-way stop at the intersection of El Paso Street and Dalhart Avenue.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 13, 2025
Page: 3 of 3
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Brianda De La Torre
Assistant Engineer
Attachments: A – Resolution – Amendment to Subsection 12.28.030 (15.2) B – Exhibit – All Way Stop
C – Stop Warrant Study
RESOLUTION NO. 2025
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.28.030 OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING
EXCEPTIONS TO EL PASO STREET AS A THROUGH STREET
WHEREAS, an all-way stop control warrant study (Kimley-Horn May 6, 2024) of the intersection of El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue concluded that stop control on the El Paso Street approaches is warranted due to limited visibility of the intersection not meeting minimum stopping sight distance requirements and a very high number of pedestrians crossing El Paso Street near the intersection with those pedestrians being of primarily elementary school-aged children; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa may establish all-way stop control at intersections proving to be warranted of said traffic control measures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that
Subsection 12.28.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“EL PASO STREET as a through street between Lake Murray Boulevard and Jackson Drive, except at its intersection with Dalhart Avenue.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 13th day of May 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2025 , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
Feet 0 60 120 Page 165 of 2604
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 May 6, 2024
Mr. Michael Kinnard
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa CA 91942
RE: Multi-Way Stop Analysis at El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue Dear Mr. Kinnard,
In accordance with your request, Kimley-Horn and Associates have prepared this memo to provide a comprehensive multi-way stop analysis for the intersection of El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue, a threelegged intersection with the southbound approach stop-controlled and the westbound/eastbound approaches free. This multi-way stop analysis was prepared using 24-hour vehicular/pedestrian/bicycle intersection counts collected on Thursday, April 11, 2024, when schools were in session. Subsequently, 24-hour speed/volume counts were conducted on Tuesday, April 16, 2024. A site visit was conducted on Monday, April 8, 2024. Existing counts are included as an attachment. The intersection is located adjacent to Murray Manor Elementary School and near Jackson Park.
ALL-WAY STOP ANALYSIS
Per direction from the City of La Mesa, all components outlined in the Department of Public Works Guidelines for Installation of All-Way Stop (April 8, 2003) were addressed when performing this all-way stop analysis. The City of La Mesa Guidelines for Installation of All-Way Stop control lists five cases that must be considered within an engineering study. Generally, all-way stops are installed where traffic signals are warranted and/or accident history has been indicated by reported accidents of a type susceptible to correction by an all-way stop. Points are assigned to each warrant. The installation of an all-way stop control is justified with a minimum of 45 points. A summary of each warrant is provided with the corresponding calculations for the intersection analysis, when applicable.
Case 1
Within the City of La Mesa guidelines, the point system is not applicable if Caltrans’ Traffic Manual Criteria is met. In Chapter 4, Signs, refers to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Part 2. Section 2B.07 of the CA-MUTCD, Multi-Way Stop Applications, lists four criteria that should be considered within an engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation. Generally, multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. When an intersection meets one or more of the criteria, it should be considered for a multi-way STOP sign installation. A summary of each CA-MUTCD criteria with the corresponding calculations for the El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue intersection analysis, when applicable, is included as an attachment.
The intersection of El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue does not meet any of the criteria for a multi-way STOP sign installation based on CA-MUTCD guidance, therefore Case 1 is not satisfied.
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Case 2 (10 bonus points)
Within the City of La Mesa guidelines, the subject intersection shall receive 10 points if the four conditions below are met. A summary of each condition is provided with the corresponding calculations for the El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue intersection analysis, when applicable. a) The street to be controlled is within a residence district Based on Section 515 of the California Vehicle Code, El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue is not within a residence district due to the limited residential driveways along El Paso Street. b) The street to be controlled is classified/functioning as a collector According to the City of La Mesa General Plan, El Paso Street is classified as a Local Collector and Dalhart Avenue is classified as a Local Street.
c) The subject intersection is not within 600 feet from the nearest controlled intersection along the collector
The nearest controlled intersection (El Paso Street at Jackson Drive) is approximately 425 feet from the intersection of El Paso Street at Dalhart Avenue. d) There is a parallel arterial highway that can be used as an alternative route Dallas Street can be used as an alternative route but is not classified as an arterial highway.
Conditions a, c, and d are not met.
POINTS: 0
1. Accident Warrant (25 points)
Five points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by an all-way stop control during any 12-month period prior to the investigation date.
Per SWITRS collision data, the 5-year data was taken between 01/01/2018 and 12/31/2023 and is included as an attachment. According to SWITRS collision data, one crash was reported during the 5- year study period. However, the crash involved a motor vehicle and fixed object and would not be correctable by multi-way stop installation.
Total number of accidents correctable by all-way stop: 0 POINTS: 0
2. Unusual Condition Warrant (21 points)
Where unusual conditions exist, points are assigned based on engineering judgment. Unusual conditions shall be considered only if within 500 feet of the subject intersection. The 45-point minimum requirement may be waived and an all-way stop may be installed only if less restrictive controls have not corrected a documented problem.
kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 All-way stops may be justified based on projected volumes and accident frequency when traffic signals are warranted and will be installed within a specified period of time.
Unusual Conditions:
A. Adjacent school, fire station, playground, senior center and/or amusement park 7 Points – The intersection is directly adjacent to Murray Manor Elementary School.
B. Any visibility obstructions which result in limited stopping sight distance based on either the posted speed limit or the 85% ile speed.
3 Points – There are visibility obstructions that result in limited sight distance at the intersection based on 85th percentile speeds of 30 mph and 200 foot stopping sight distance requirement:
Eastbound traffic looking north at vehicles traveling southbound ~ 180 feet (90%) Westbound traffic looking north at vehicles traveling southbound ~ 155 feet (78%) A sight distance graphic and intersection photos are included as an attachment.
C. An intersection leading to an arterial from an interior (circular) collector. 2 Points – El Paso Street is a local collector and provides access to Lake Murray Boulevard and Jackson Drive, which are both arterials located to the east and west of the intersection.
D. Intersection with steep grades within 500 feet from the intersection on the downhill approach 1 Points – There is above six percent grade in the vicinity of the intersection.
E. Intersection is on “Suggested Route To School” and no other controlled crossing is located within 600’
7 Points – Intersection is adjacent to Murray Manor Elementary School. The Murray Manor Elementary Suggested Routes to School Map is included as an attachment.
F. High Approach Speeds
4 Point – Per the traffic speed data collected at the intersection, the 85th percentile speed is 31 mph, which is 6 mph above the posted speed. Speed Survey is included as an attachment.
G. Curbside Facilities/Services
0 Points – There is not bus drop-off along El Paso Street.
POINTS: 21