La Mesa City Council
March 24, 2026

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 27 Project Analysis
No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is developed and does not contain nor is it adjacent to suitable aquatic or terrestrial habitat. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat, and no impact would occur. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant projectspecific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.6 NOISE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing
noise levels? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Exposure of people to
severe noise levels? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR concluded that the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates the levels of noise generation permitted both in the short term (involving construction activities) and in the long term (involving operational activities at the Specific Plan developments), would eliminate the potential for significant noise impacts. The EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in increases in existing noise levels and determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. A Noise Analysis was prepared for the project by HELIX (2025c), which included an assessment of existing ambient noise levels in the project area and potential noise impacts resulting from project construction and operation. All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels with A-weighting (dBA), to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ and represent a one-hour noise level unless listed with a specified duration.

Construction noise exceeding 10 dBA above ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would generally be considered a significant increase. Per the City Noise Ordinance, operational impacts would be significant if the project would generate noise levels exceeding 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 60 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at the property line of any property zoned Commercial, or would generate noise levels exceeding 60 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 55 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 28 7:00 a.m. at the property line of any property zoned Residential Business. In addition, impacts would be significant if the project’s air conditioning units would exceed the ambient base noise level by more than 5 dBA.

Construction
As stated above, an increase in noise from project construction would be considered significant if construction noise would exceed ambient noise levels by more than 10 dBA, which is considered a doubling of noise.

The magnitude of construction noise would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of each construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening structures. Construction would generate elevated noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including the Sharp Grossmont Hospital located approximately 50 feet east of the project site across Heath Center Circle. To account for the fact that construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location and would not be in constant use during the eight-hour operating day, noise from construction activity was modeled at a distance of 300 feet, which is the approximate distance from the center of the on-site building closest to the property line to be demolished and the nearest façade for the off-site hospital.

The loudest phase of construction, demolition, is expected to result in sound levels of 68 dBA LEQ at the Sharp Grossmont Hospital cancer treatment center, located approximately 110 feet east of the project site, and 59 dBA LEQ at the main entrance to the Sharp Grossmont Hospital, located approximately 270 feet east of the project site. Existing ambient noise levels at these locations were calculated to be 62 dBA LEQ and 50 dBA LEQ, respectively. Therefore, noise levels for the loudest phase of construction would result in an increase in ambient noise of less than 10 dBA.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with City construction noise standards and would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the EIR.

Operation
The proposed project’s operational noise sources would primarily consist of mechanical equipment associated with the project. As the project would result in a net decrease in ADT, off-site transportation noise would decrease compared to existing conditions with implementation of the project.

The project building would generate operational noise from the use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. According to the respective manufacturers, the proposed air handling unit is expected to generate a sound power level of 93 dBA, and the proposed air-source heat pump is expected to generate a sound power level of 90 dBA. The combined noise levels of the equipment would generate levels between 21 dBA and 49 dBA at the surrounding properties, which would not exceed the City’s nighttime allowable hourly limit of 60 dBA for nearby commercial property lines. In addition, due to the proximity of nearby roadways, which result in noise levels between 50 and 69 Community Noise Equivalent Level at nearby land uses, the HVAC noise would not exceed ambient conditions by 5 dBA.

Therefore, the installation of HVAC systems would not result in conflicts with City noise regulations and would not result in significant increases in ambient noise during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 29 Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. b) Will the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR concluded that the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates the levels of noise generation permitted both in the short-term (involving construction activities) and in the long-term (involving operational activities at the new Specific Plan developments), would eliminate the potential for significant noise impacts. The EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in exposure of people to severe noise levels and determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Noise Analysis prepared for the project (HELIX 2025c) concluded that the project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City’s Noise Ordinance. As discussed under item (a), the project would result in a net decrease in ADT, and off-site transportation noise would decrease compared to existing conditions with implementation of the project. In addition, the project would not be located within the noise contours of any nearby airport and would not expose people in the project area to excessive noise from a nearby airport (HELIX 2025c).

Therefore, the project would not result in exposure of people to severe noise levels, and consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.7 LIGHT AND GLARE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal:
a) Produce new light or
glare? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 30 a) Will the proposal produce new light or glare?
EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR determined that future development implemented under the Specific Plan would likely contain site and building lighting, which could affect adjacent properties.

However, the City requires that all lighting be shielded so that it does not illuminate adjacent properties.

Therefore, the EIR determined that the Specific Plan would not produce new light or glare causing adverse effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. Consistent with the analysis in the EIR, the project would be required to comply with the development regulations for commercial zones in La Mesa Municipal Code Section

24.06.030, which includes requirements for shielding to ensure that lighting is projected primarily on the owner's property. In addition, the project would involve similar types of lighting as the existing development on site. Proposed building materials would include wood-look aluminum siding, painted concrete (light gray and off-white), black anodized aluminum fins, and glass windows, and would not introduce any building material that would cause substantial glare. As such, the project would not produce new light or glare and would result in less than significant impacts similar to the analysis in the EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.8 LAND USE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration
of the present or
planned land use of
an area?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR concluded that while developments implemented under the Specific Plan could result in land use incompatibilities or create aesthetic impacts due to poor design, existing zoning controls, including buffering sensitive land uses from higher intensity uses permitted under the Specific Plan and both the site plan and design review processes for all new developments, would reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance. With existing review policies and

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 31 zoning controls, the Specific Plan was determined to not result in substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would involve the demolition of a 12,700-SF medical office building, a 34,400-SF medical office building, and the 52,500-SF acute care facility building. An existing 42,500-SF medical office building would remain, and a new 52,900-SF medical office building would be constructed. As such, the project would result in a net reduction of approximately 46,700 SF of building space on the project site. The Specific Plan states that future plans for the project site (Site 20) may involve the removal of the 52,500 SF acute care facility (referred to as the convalescent facility in the Specific Plan) and construction of an additional 100,000 SF of medical office space. As such, the reduction in building space and continued use of the project site for medical office building uses with the project would be consistent with the planned land use for the project site that was established in the Specific Plan and analyzed in the EIR. The project is also required to undergo the City’s standard site plan and design review processes to ensure conformance with applicable development regulations.

Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant projectspecific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.9 NATURAL RESOURCES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of
use of any natural
resources?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR determined that future development within the Specific Plan area would involve incremental increases in the utilization of natural resources, such as lumber during construction, and the consumption of fossil fuels for energy in the operation of various businesses and in the increased use of automobiles. However, the EIR concluded that these increases are regionally insignificant and the level of development under the Specific Plan would be consistent with the City's General Plan and SANDAG's growth projections for the City. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 32 Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. As anticipated in the EIR, construction of the proposed project would require the use of renewable resources such as lumber and other forest products, which could be expected to be replenished over the lifetime of the project as sustainably harvested lumber supplies are increased as seedlings mature into trees. As discussed further in Section 4.15, Energy, although project construction activities would consume energy, there are no known conditions within the project site that would require non-standard equipment or construction practices that would be less energyefficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the state. In addition, although operation of the project would require the use of energy, the project would result in a net decrease in building area on the project site and would therefore require less energy usage compared to existing conditions.

The proposed building would also be constructed in accordance with current building codes, which require greater levels of energy efficiency than were required when the existing buildings were constructed. As discussed further in Section 4.13, Transportation/Circulation, the project would result in a net decrease of 108 ADT (LLG 2026), which would reduce fuel consumption attributable to the project compared to existing conditions. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the rate of use of natural resources, and impacts would be less than significant. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.10 RISK OF UPSET
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal involve:
a) A risk of an explosion
or the release of
hazardous substances
(including, but not
limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation) in the
event of an accident
or upset conditions?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Possible interference
with an emergency
response plan or an
emergency
evacuation plan?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 33 a) Will the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR determined that potential risks do not exceed existing conditions in a typical urban area, and that the development anticipated in the Specific Plan does not involve industrial uses that might involve the primary manufacturing or handling of hazardous substances or wastes. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. Limited quantities of hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel, oils, and lubricants may be required to operate project construction equipment. However, construction activities would be short-term, and the use of these materials would cease once construction is complete. The transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous substances used during construction would be required to occur in compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding these materials. The project does not propose industrial uses, and operation of the project is not anticipated to require the routine use of acutely hazardous materials. Standard cleaning and maintenance materials would be transported, stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local regulations. In the event of an accidental release during project construction or operation, containment and clean-up would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. A search of environmental databases, including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker (SWRCB 2025) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor (DTSC 2025), was conducted pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. According to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, there are no sites with an “open case” status on the project site or within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest open case is the Chevron Parking Lot Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Site located approximately 0.95 mile northwest of the project site. In addition, according to the DTSC EnviroStor database, there are no sites with an “active” status on the project site or within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest active site is the Millar Ave Project Voluntary Cleanup Site, located approximately two miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant offsite or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. b) Will the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR determined that the Specific Plan would not involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and concluded that no impact would occur.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 34 Project Analysis
No Impact. During project construction activities that could disrupt traffic flow on City streets, the City would require the preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan, which would address emergency access conditions. Once operational, site access would be provided via the two existing driveways along Grossmont Center Drive, a driveway along Center Drive, and the existing driveway along Healthcare Drive, which would connect to the internal project roadways and parking areas. The project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code to ensure that internal site circulation elements are properly sized and located to facilitate emergency vehicle access and the positioning of emergency response crews during emergencies. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not involve interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant offsite or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.11 POPULATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal:
a) Alter the location,
distribution, density,
or growth rate of the
human population of
an area?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The project proposes a medical office building and would not develop any residential uses.

The project would involve the demolition of two medical office buildings and one acute care facility on site and would not result in the displacement of any residents. The acute care facility does provide longterm rehabilitation care to patients and could be considered a residential facility. Although the facility has housed long-term patients, any relocation needs for patients of the facility would be addressed through applicable healthcare regulations and patient-transfer protocols. Although the project would offer employment opportunities, it would result in a net decrease in building area on the project site and would not indirectly cause population growth via changes in employment opportunities. As such,

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 35 consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.12 HOUSING
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal:
a) Affect existing
housing, or create a
demand for additional
housing?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing, and no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.11, Population, the project would not include any residential uses and would not result in the reduction of any housing in the area. The project would involve the demolition of the acute care facility that houses long-term patients; however, any relocation needs for patients of the facility would be addressed through applicable healthcare regulations and patient-transfer protocols with nearby existing rehabilitation facilities and would not affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. Although the project would offer employment opportunities, it would result in a net decrease in building area on the project site and would not create a demand for additional housing. As such, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing, and no impact would occur.

Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 36 4.13 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of
substantial additional
vehicular movement?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Effects on existing
parking facilities, or
demand for new
parking?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
c) Substantial impact
upon existing
transportation
systems?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
d) Alterations to present
patterns of circulation
or movement of
people and/or goods?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
e) Alterations to
waterborne, rail, or
air traffic?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
f) Increase in traffic
hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The EIR concluded that the development projects under the Specific Plan could create a significant impact to the surrounding circulation system by reducing the level of service (LOS) to the surrounding streets and intersections below a LOS D. As such, the EIR identified a variety of street improvements which would be incorporated into the conditions of approval for relevant development projects implemented under the Specific Plan and include the following:

1. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the potential future widening of Grossmont Center Drive between Murray Drive and Interstate 8.

2. A raised median shall be constructed on Grossmont Center Drive from Murray Drive to Interstate 8.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 37 3. Driveway exits on Grossmont Center Drive between Murray Drive and Interstate 8 shall be restricted to right turns. Left turns into properties may be permitted by pockets in the medians if the design is approved by the City.

4. The Hospital shall construct the Murray Drive connector and install a traffic signal at this intersection.

5. The eastbound approach from the Grossmont Shopping Center (vacated Center Drive) to Grossmont Center Drive shall be striped to provide dual left-turn lanes, one through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane.

6. The eastbound approach of the Grossmont Center Drive/Center Drive intersection shall be widened to provide adequate lanes for the eastbound left-turning vehicles.

7. The Jackson Drive corridor between Interstate 8 and Fletcher Parkway shall be redesigned to include right-of-way dedication, street widening, and striping changes to provide the following improvements:
a. Jackson Drive shall be provided with six travel lanes from Fletcher Parkway to Interstate

8. b. The westbound and eastbound legs of Center Drive shall be striped to provide dual leftturn lanes, one through lane, and a through/right turn lane at Jackson Drive. c. The westbound leg of Murray Drive shall provide a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane at Jackson Drive.
d. The eastbound I-8 off-ramp shall provide dual left-turn lanes and a through/right-turn lane at Murray Drive.

The identified street improvements were determined necessary for maintaining a minimum LOS D on the street segments and intersections within the Specific Plan area. With implementation of this mitigation by future projects under the Specific Plan, the EIR determined that the Specific Plan would not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. A Transportation Assessment was prepared for the project by LLG (2026), which evaluated the potential transportation effects of the proposed project and its consistency with the Specific Plan and the EIR. According to the Transportation Assessment, the project would result in a net decrease of 108 ADT compared to existing conditions. The EIR traffic analysis assumed 85,000 SF of medical office buildings existed on the site, and future development of an additional 100,000 SF of medical office buildings would occur in conjunction with removal of the convalescent facility. In other words, the EIR traffic analysis considered trips from a total of 185,000 SF of medical office buildings on the project site. Compared to what was assumed and analyzed for the project site in the EIR, the proposed project would result in 3,048 ADT less than what was analyzed in the EIR and approved with the Specific Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 38 As discussed above, the EIR identified potentially significant impacts to traffic circulation, and mitigation measures were required to improve the LOS of surrounding streets and intersections to LOS D or better.

The project Traffic Assessment included a review of each of the EIR mitigation measures to determine if any have not yet been completed. The first mitigation measure identified in the EIR was related to rightof-way dedication and was not analyzed in the Transportation Assessment. Of the six remaining measures, three have not yet been completed. However, as the project would result in a net decrease in ADT compared to existing conditions, none of the mitigation measures that have not yet been completed would be required of the project. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts without mitigation. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria, and no impact would occur.
b) Will the proposal result in effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR did not include a discussion of Specific Plan effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking but noted that a majority of the Specific Plan area was already developed with parking lots serving existing commercial land uses in the Specific Plan area.

Therefore, impacts to parking facilities are considered less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include internal roadways providing access to approximately 427 parking stalls for employees and patients of the proposed medical office building, and the existing office building to remain on the site. The proposed number of parking spaces would be less than the number of parking spaces required on the project site (450 parking spaces) per La Mesa Municipal Code Section 24.04.050. However, the project site is located within 0.5 mile of the Grossmont Trolley Station and is therefore exempt from minimum parking space requirements per Assembly Bill 2097. As such, consistent with the EIR, the project would not result in effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. c) Will the proposal result in a substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed under item (a) above, the EIR concluded that the Specific Plan could create a significant impact to existing transportation systems by reducing operation of surrounding streets and intersections below LOS D. As such, mitigation measures in the EIR identified a variety of street improvements which would be incorporated into the conditions of approval for development projects implemented under the Specific Plan to maintain LOS D or better. With the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, and impacts would be less than significant.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 39 Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under item (a) above, the Transportation Assessment prepared for the project (LLG 2026) determined that the project would result in a net decrease of 108 ADT compared to existing conditions, and a net decrease of 3,048 ADT compared to what was analyzed for the project site in the EIR and approved with the Specific Plan. As the project would result in a net decrease in ADT, none of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that have not yet been completed would be required of the project. In addition, the project would not alter the existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of the project site. The project would not result in a substantial impact on existing transportation systems, and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. d) Will the proposal result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed under item (a) above, the EIR considered changes in trip generation resulting from Specific Plan development and concluded that resulting changes in circulation patterns could result in a significant impact to the LOS of surrounding streets and intersections. As such, mitigation measures in the EIR identified a variety of street improvements that would be incorporated into the conditions of approval for development projects implemented under the Specific Plan to maintain LOS D or better. With the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods adversely affecting the circulation system and concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under item (a) above, the Transportation Assessment prepared for the project (LLG 2026) determined that the project would result in a net decrease of 108 ADT compared to existing conditions, and a net decrease of 3,048 ADT compared to what was analyzed for the project site in the EIR and approved with the Specific Plan. As the project would result in a net decrease in ADT, none of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that have not yet been completed would be required of the project. Further, the project would not alter existing roadways or construct new roadways or other transportation facilities that would change vehicular and non-vehicular circulation in the vicinity of the project site. The project would not result in adverse effects as a result of alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods, and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 40 e) Will the proposal result in alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The project proposes the development of a medical office building consistent with the existing use of the site, and would not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic. There are no navigable waterways in the project vicinity. The Orange Line light rail corridor occurs approximately 400 feet to the north, but the project would not affect trolley operations along this rail corridor. The closest airport to the project site is Gillespie Field in El Cajon, approximately 3.75 miles to the northeast. The project would not affect air traffic at this airport or any other airport in the region. Consistent with the conclusion made in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b).
f) Will the proposal result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The project would include internal paved roadways and pedestrian pathways, which would be designed and constructed in compliance with state and local regulations related to safety. During the project review process, the City would review the design of project circulation elements for adequacy of access drives and sight distance. During construction, the project may involve temporary lane closures or other circulation alterations in the vicinity of the project site to accommodate construction in public rights-of-way. However, the City would require the preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan prior to the initiation of project construction activities that could disrupt traffic flow on City streets, which would reduce potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians during construction.

Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians, and, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, no impact would occur. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 41 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered
governmental services in
any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Police protection? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
c) Schools? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
d) Parks or other
recreational facilities? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
e) Maintenance of public
facilities, including
roads?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
f) Other governmental
services? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection facilities, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The project would continue to be served by the La Mesa Fire Department as is the case under existing conditions. The closest City fire station to the project site is La Mesa Fire Department Station 13, which is located at 9110 Grossmont Boulevard, approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the project site. La Mesa Fire Department Station 13 currently provides fire protection services to the project area, and the project would not add new land to the jurisdiction of the La Mesa Fire Department that was not previously serviced. Rather, the project would result in a net decrease in building area on the site. The project does not represent a unique land use or type of construction that would require additional fire resources, would not have a significant impact involving fire response times, and would not otherwise create a substantially greater need for fire protection services than already exists.

Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection facilities, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 42 b) Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered police protection services?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection facilities, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The project would continue to be served by the La Mesa Police Department, as is the case under existing conditions. The closest City police station to the project site is located at 8085 University Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the project site. The La Mesa Police Department currently provides police protection services to the project area, and the project would not add new land to the jurisdiction of the police department that was not previously serviced. Rather, the project would result in a net decrease in building area on the site. The project would not have a significant impact on police response times and would not create a substantially greater need for police protection services than already exists. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection facilities, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant projectspecific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.
c) Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered school services? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The project proposes the redevelopment of a site comprised of commercial uses (medical office and acute care) with similar land uses and is not anticipated to result in changes to the demand for schools in the area, as no residential or growth-inducing uses are proposed. As discussed in Section

4.11, Population, the project would offer employment opportunities but would result in a net decrease in building area on the project site and would therefore not indirectly cause population growth.

Therefore, the project would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered school facilities, and consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, no impact would occur. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 43 d) Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities?
EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR did not include a discussion of Specific Plan effects on existing parks or other recreational facilities or a need for new or altered parks or recreational facilities.

However, the EIR noted that the Specific Plan does not propose recreational uses. In addition, the Specific Plan would not induce growth such that implementation of the Specific Plan would have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts to parks or other recreational facilities are considered less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. Similar to the discussion in the EIR, the project does not propose any parks or other recreational uses. As discussed in Section 4.11, Population, the project would result in a net decrease in building area on the site and would not induce population growth that would require the need for new or altered parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. e) Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in under item (a) in Section 4.13, Transportation/ Circulation, the EIR concluded that with implementation of mitigation involving various street improvements which would ensure a minimum LOS D on the street segments and intersections within the Specific Plan area, the Specific Plan would not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered maintenance of public facilities, including roads. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed further under item (a) in Section 4.13, Transportation/ Circulation, the project would result in a net decrease of 108 ADT compared to existing conditions and 3,048 ADT less than what was analyzed in the EIR and approved with the Specific Plan (LLG 2026). In addition, the project does not propose any new roadways, which would require additional maintenance compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 44 f) Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered other governmental services?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered other governmental services, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. As discussed above, the project proposes the redevelopment of a site that is currently served by governmental services. As the project proposes a net decrease in building area on the project site and would maintain a similar land use, the project would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.15 ENERGY
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial
amounts of fuel or
energy?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Substantial increase in
demand upon existing
sources of energy, or
require the
development of new
sources of energy?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR concluded that although there would be short-term consumption of additional fuel associated with construction activities and an overall increase in the consumption of gasoline and electricity with implementation of the Specific Plan, these increases would not be significant relative to existing consumption levels for the City. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 45 Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Assessment report prepared for the project (HELIX 2025b) included an assessment of project-specific energy consumption.

Project-related construction activities would consume energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel and gasoline (for mobile construction equipment, for on-road vehicles used to transport supplies, and for construction worker commute trips) and electricity (for power tools and temporary construction offices). There are no known conditions within the project site that would require non-standard equipment or construction practices that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the state.

During operation of the project, energy would be consumed in the form of gasoline used by vehicles traveling to and from the project site and electricity required to operate the medical office building and electric vehicle charging stations. As discussed above, the project would result in a net decrease in building area on the project site and would therefore decrease energy usage compared to existing conditions. In addition, the proposed project would be built and operated in accordance with existing, applicable building regulations at the time of construction, as mandated by Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Title 24 Part 11 (CALGreen). The project would be consistent with the requirements of Title 24 through the implementation of energy-reduction measures, such as energyefficient lighting and appliances, water-efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures, and water-efficient landscaping and irrigation. The project’s energy consumption would be typical of similar medical office building uses, and implementation of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. b) Will the proposal result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. As discussed above, the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Assessment report prepared for the project (HELIX 2025b) found that although project construction activities would consume energy, there are no known conditions within the project site that would require non-standard equipment or construction practices that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the state. In addition, although operation of the project would require the use of energy, the project would result in a net decrease in building area on the project site and would therefore require less energy than under existing conditions. As such, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy, and no impact would occur.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 46 Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems,
or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Communications
systems?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
c) Water? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
d) Sewer or septic tanks? LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
e) Storm water
drainage? LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
f) Solid waste and
disposal? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in a need for new power or natural gas systems, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas facilities?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in a need for new power or natural gas systems, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas utilities, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The proposed medical office building would connect to the existing natural gas connection in Center Drive and existing power lines in the vicinity of the site. The existing buildings on the project site are currently being serviced by San Diego Gas & Electric, and the project would represent a net decrease in demand for power and natural gas, given the proposed decrease in building area and similar land use type compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not result in a need for new power or natural gas systems, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas facilities. Consistent with the EIR, no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 47 b) Will the proposal result in a need for new communication systems, or substantial alterations to communications systems?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in a need for new communication systems, or substantial alterations to communication systems, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The project proposes the redevelopment of an existing site that is currently serviced by communications systems and facilities within the vicinity of the project site. The project would construct new connections to these existing facilities but would not result in a need for new communication systems or substantial alterations to communication systems. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant offsite or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. c) Will the proposal result in a need for new water systems, or substantial alterations to water systems?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in a need for new water systems, or substantial alterations to water utilities, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. The water service provider for the project would be Helix Water District, which serves the commercial buildings that currently occupy the site. As the project site is currently adequately served by Helix Water District and the project would represent a similar land use type and a net decrease in building area on the site, the project would result in a decrease in water demand compared to existing conditions and would not result in a need for new water systems or substantial alterations to water utilities. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.
d) Will the proposal result in a need for new sewer or septic tank systems, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic tank systems?
EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The Specific Plan area is within the Alvarado Sewer Basin, which feeds into the Alvarado Trunk Line, and the EIR noted that the City's Sewer Master Plan had identified portions of the downstream Alvarado Trunk Line as inadequate to transport peak dry weather flows.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 48 The EIR stated that, as the City planned to replace those sections of the Trunk Line that were undersized through its Capital Improvements Program within five years of certification of the EIR, improvements were therefore not a required mitigation measure for the Specific Plan. The EIR additionally concluded that the existing sewer system is adequate to accommodate the projected development levels in the Specific Plan with the exception of a 470-foot section of the public sewer main located in the northeast quadrant of the Grossmont Shopping Center. The EIR identified mitigation for potential impacts to the sewer main in the Grossmont Shopping Center which included the replacement of the existing 8-inch main between the Target Department Store (formerly the Bullock's Department Store) and the intersection of Grossmont Center Drive and Center Drive with a 10-inch main, or the installation of a new 8-inch sewer main in Grossmont Center Drive from Center Drive to Murray Drive. In addition, the EIR concluded that there is existing capacity within the existing agreement with the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant to accommodate the increased sewage to be generated by the projected growth in the Specific Plan area and that no mitigation is needed for sewage transport or treatment outside of the City’s boundaries.

With implementation of the mitigation related to the sewer main in the Grossmont Shopping Center, the EIR found that the Specific Plan would not result in a need for new sewer or septic tank systems, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic tanks. The EIR additionally identified that any future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to pay the standard sewer connection fees required by the City to fund sewer system improvements. Therefore, the EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would require the construction of new connections to the existing sewer lines located in Center Drive and Grossmont Center Drive. The existing development on the project site is currently adequately served by existing sewer facilities. The proposed project would result in a similar land use type and a net decrease in building area on the site and therefore a decrease in demand for sewer facilities compared to existing conditions. In addition, the project would be required to pay the standard sewer connection fees to the City, which would be considered standard regulatory compliance and would not be mitigation under CEQA. As the project would not increase sewer flows compared to existing conditions, the project also would not be required to implement the mitigation identified in the EIR involving the upsizing and/or replacement of sewer mains in the Grossmont Shopping Center. Therefore, the project would not result in a need for new sewer or septic tank systems, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic tanks, and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. e) Will the proposal result in a need for new storm water drainage systems, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage systems?
EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Refer to Section 4.3, Water, item (b). The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would require the upgrade of the Jackson Drive storm drain system. However, it was determined that this would be accomplished as part of the City's Capital Improvements Program and not

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 49 an EIR mitigation measure, as the Specific Plan would not increase drainage into the system and therefore would not create significant adverse impacts. In addition, the EIR determined that the existing storm drain outfall on the property at the western end of Campina Drive (identified as Site 17 in the Specific Plan) may create erosion problems for future development on the site, and mitigation would be required. Therefore, future development of Site 17 would be required to extend the storm drain northward to the Alvarado Channel storm drain system. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the Specific Plan was found to not result in a need for new storm water drainage systems, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage systems, and the impact was determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.3, Water, the redevelopment of the project site would result in an increase in pervious area on the site and would result in reduced peak flows compared to existing conditions (Ware Malcomb 2025). In addition, the project would mimic the existing site drainage patterns to the maximum extent practicable. The Preliminary Hydrology Study concluded that because peak flows would decrease with implementation of the project, the project would not require alterations of existing storm drain facilities. In addition, the Stormwater Management Investigation prepared for the project by GEOCON Inc. (2025b) identified various design recommendations for stormwater management on the site, which would be implemented by the project to collect and manage site runoff in accordance with La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 7.18 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control). The project is proposed on Site 20 of the Specific Plan and would therefore not be required to implement the mitigation identified in the EIR, as it is specific to Site

17. The project would not result in a need for new storm water drainage systems or substantial alterations to storm water drainage systems, and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria. f) Will the proposal result in a need for new solid waste and disposal systems, or substantial alterations to solid waste and disposal systems?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in a need for new solid waste and disposal systems, or substantial alterations to solid waste and disposal systems, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. Development of the project would require solid waste and disposal services, which would be provided by EDCO Waste & Recycling Services. During construction, the project would be required to comply with the standard construction waste diversion regulations outlined in La Mesa Municipal Code Section 14.27.070 (Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris). As the existing commercial buildings on the site are currently being serviced by EDCO, and the project would represent a similar land use type and a net decrease in building area and therefore a decrease in waste generation on the project site, it is not expected that the project would result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to solid waste and disposal services. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, no

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 50 impact would occur. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.17 HUMAN HEALTH
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Informati
on, More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal
result in:
a) Creation of any
health hazard or
potential health
hazard (excluding
mental health)?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Exposure of
people to
potential health
hazards?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. During the project construction period, hazardous substances used to maintain and operate construction equipment (such as fuel, lubricants, adhesives, and solvents) would be present. The use of these materials could potentially result in significant impacts through accidental discharge associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials. The project proposes a medical office building similar to those on the site under existing conditions. Although the medical office building use could involve the use of biohazardous material, sharps, and pharmaceutical waste, the use and disposal of these materials would occur in compliance with applicable federal and state laws. Further, it is not expected to routinely use substantial quantities of acutely hazardous materials. Some common hazardous substances, such as cleaning and maintenance products, would be used but would not be of the type or quantity that would create a significant health hazard. The transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and/or wastes during project construction and operation would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. As such, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, and no impact would occur. Therefore,

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 51 the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant projectspecific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.
b) Will the proposal result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. As discussed under item (a) above, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and/or wastes would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and operation of the project would not be expected to routinely use substantial quantities of acutely hazardous materials. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.18 AESTHETICS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Informati
on, More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result
in:
a) The obstruction of
any scenic vista or
view open to the
public?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) The creation of an
aesthetically
offensive site open
to public view?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 52 a) Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. According to Figure LD-10 of the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan (City 2012), there are no designated scenic vistas or views on the project site or within the project vicinity. The project proposes the construction of a two-story, 36-foot-tall building, which would be similar in bulk and scale to the existing on-site and surrounding development in the project area.

Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in the obstruction of a scenic vista or view open to the public, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.
b) Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. As discussed in item (a) above, the project proposes a two-story, 36-foot-tall building, which would be similar in bulk and scale to the existing on-site and surrounding development in the project area. Proposed building materials would include wood-look aluminum siding, painted concrete (light gray and off-white), black anodized aluminum fins, and glass windows. The project would comply with the City’s development regulations and be reviewed by City staff as well as the Design Review Board. As such, the project would not result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, and consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 53 4.19 RECREATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal result in:
a) Impact upon the
quality or quantity of
existing recreational
opportunities?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
EIR Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. The EIR did not include a discussion of Specific Plan effects on existing recreational opportunities. However, the EIR noted that the Specific Plan does not propose recreational uses. In addition, the Specific Plan would not induce growth such that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities.

Therefore, impacts to parks or other recreational facilities are considered less than significant.

Project Analysis
Less Than Significant Impact. Similar to the discussion in the EIR, the project does not propose any recreational opportunities and would not result in population growth that would result in an impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

4.20 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Will the proposal:
a) Result in the
alteration of or the
destruction of a
prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 54 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
b) Result in adverse
physical or aesthetic
effects to a
prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or
object?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
c) Have the potential to
cause a physical
change which would
affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
d) Restrict existing
religious or sacred
uses within the
potential impact
area?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. An Archaeological Study report was prepared for the project by HELIX (2025a), which included a records search for the project site and a one-mile radius surrounding it from the CHRIS held at the SCIC; reviewing aerial photographs and historic topographic maps of the project site; requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File through the NAHC; and completing a site visit to determine the level of ground disturbance that has previously occurred on the property and if any areas of the project site maintain the potential for cultural resource finds. The Archaeological Study concluded that, based on a negative archaeological site visit, the extensive previous disturbance of the project area, and negative results from the CHRIS records search and NAHC Sacred Lands File search, no impacts to archaeological resources are expected to result from the proposed project. As such, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 55 b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object, and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. A Historic Resources Study was prepared for the project by BFSA Environmental Services (2026) due to the age of the acute care facility, which is proposed for demolition. The Historic Resources Study concluded that the acute care facility that is proposed for demolition is not historically or architecturally important and is not eligible for listing on the La Mesa Register, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places under any significance criteria. As such, consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant projectspecific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.
c) Will the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values and determined that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No Impact. As discussed under item (a) above, the Archaeological Study and Historic Resources Study reports prepared for the project concluded that the project would not result in impacts to archaeological resources or historic buildings on the project site. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, the project would not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? EIR Analysis
No Impact. The EIR determined that the Specific Plan would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area, and concluded that no impact would occur.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 56 Project Analysis
No Impact. The project proposes the development of a medical office building on a site that is already developed with medical office building uses and an acute care facility, and would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses, given that none occur on the project site. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIR, there would be no impact. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site, a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the EIR, a new significant off-site or cumulative impact, or a more severe adverse impact due to substantial new information. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) criteria.

5.0 APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
As discussed in Section 4, none of the mitigation measures from the EIR are applicable to the proposed project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 57 6.0 REFERENCES
BFSA Environmental Services. 2026. Historic Resources Study for 8787 Center Drive. February 11.

California Department of Conservation. 2020. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed November 18, 2025.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9. Accessed November 24.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed December 1.

California Geological Survey. 2017. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Western San Diego County Production-Consumption Region, California. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/publications/specialreports/SR_240-MLC-WesternSanDiegoPCR-2017-Plate01-MRZs.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Panels 06073C1644H and 06073C1642F. May 16. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.

GEOCON Inc. 2025a. Geotechnical Investigation for the Cushman Medical Plaza. May 15. 2025b. Stormwater Management Investigation for the Cushman Medical Plaza. May 15.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2025a. Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project Archaeological Study, San Diego County, California. November 21. 2025b. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Assessment for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project. November 21.
2025c. Noise Analysis for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project. November 25.

La Mesa, City of (City). 2012. General Plan. Adopted July 9, 2013. Available at:
https://www.cityoflamesa.gov/953/General-Plan.
1994. Grossmont Specific Plan. Adopted April 12. Available at:
https://www.cityoflamesa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2192/Grossmont-Specific-Plan?bidId=. 1993. Grossmont Specific Plan Final Master Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 1993021023.

December. Available at: https://www.cityoflamesa.gov/837/City-Specific-Plans.

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). 2026. Cush Medical Plaza Transportation Assessment.

February 6.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed December 1.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist for the Cush Medical Plaza Office Building Project | February 2026 58 Ware Malcomb. 2025. Preliminary Hydrology Study for the Cush Medical Plaza. May 1.

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: March 23, 2026
SUBJECT: PROJECT NO. 2025-1013 – 8250 LA MESA

BOULEVARD (GOODWILL INDUSTRIES)
DESCRIPTION: RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S

APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED REDESIGN OF AN
EXTERIOR FAÇADE RENOVATION FOR AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 8250 LA MESA

BOULEVARD IN THE CD-D (DOWNTOWN

COMMERCIAL/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council ratify the Design Review Board’s determination that the proposed redesign of the project as designed meets the intent of the Urban Design Program policies and the Downtown Village Specific Plan? Recommendation:

That the City Council ratify the Design Review Board Certificate of Action (Attachment A).

Fiscal Impact:

There is no impact to the General Fund related to this project. The City’s policy is to recover 100% of the cost of staff time through application processing fees.

Environmental Review:

The project is exempt from environmental review in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 24, 2026
Page: 2 of 5
Section 15301 states that “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures…” are exempt. The project meets all the conditions necessary to qualify for the exemption and none of the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 apply.

BACKGROUND:

Facade renovations for the existing two-story, 16,006 square-foot commercial building, was initially reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board on September 22, 2025 and ratified by City Council on October 14, 2025.

In response to community feedback, Goodwill has elected to submit a revised design for consideration, as illustrated in the renderings provided in Attachment B. If the City Council does not ratify the proposed redesign, the applicant may proceed with the previously approved design, as illustrated in the renderings included in Attachment C.

The proposed project is a recipient of the La Mesa Façade and Property Improvement Grant Program, which provides financial assistance to local businesses for exterior and site enhancements. The program is intended to enhance the appearance of business-use properties, improve overall economic vitality and visual character of the City.

On February 23rd, 2026, the DRB determined that the proposed redesign project is consistent with the Urban Design Program and the Downtown Village Specific Plan (DVSP) design guidelines, and that the project meets all the underlying development standards of the CD-D zone, including but not limited to building height, setbacks, and

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 24, 2026
Page: 3 of 5
density. The DRB unanimously approved the proposed project. The DRB staff report and Certificate of Action are provided in Attachment D with site photographs provided as Attachment E.

DISCUSSION:

No interior renovations are proposed as part of the redesign proposal. Project plans are provided as Attachment F and a color and materials board is included as Attachment G.

DVSP AND URBAN DESIGN PROGRAM
The DVSP identifies visual enhancement as essential to downtown revitalization. The DVSP and the Urban Design Program share consistent requirements and guidelines, with the Urban Design Program, which places emphasis on several key elements such as:
rooftop treatments that screen mechanical equipment from view; architecturally distinctive, pedestrian-oriented front facades along both La Mesa Blvd and Spring Street; and alley frontages that continue the quality and design character of the primary elevations. The DRB determined that the proposed redesign reflects the high design standards envisioned for the Downtown Village area.

Design Principles
The proposed redesign provides variety, scale, and rhythm using architectural projections, varied roof parapets, columns, and a covered walkway. Along La Mesa Blvd, the new parapets will match the height of the existing parapets and incorporate a central pitched-roof projection, along with additional varied projections stepping down from the central element. Along Spring St, the redesigned parapets will introduce height variation adjacent to the clock tower, and the façade will feature additional faux windows to maintain the decorative variety and rhythm seen along La Mesa Blvd. Proposed lighting fixtures will be installed on either side of key faux windows on the second story.

Architecture
The proposed redesign shifts away from a more conventional retail aesthetic toward a design that better aligns with the downtown Village character. The DRB determined that the proposed modernized facades and materials provide visual appeal and an enhanced connection of the building to the vibrant and eclectic character of the Village. The project diversifies architecture through updated design elements that are intended to honor and preserve the distinctive clock tower and maintain pedestrian-scale storefronts.

Building Form and Scale
The proposed facade improvements utilize varied proportions and architectural elements

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 24, 2026
Page: 4 of 5
to divide the wall plane into human-scale portions. Although the existing building sits on the property lines along La Mesa Blvd, Spring Street., and an alley, proposed architectural recesses and projections, and the the approximately 11 feet recessed entrance, reduce the apparent height and bulk of the building. Column projections at the corner clock tower extend along the Spring Street frontage, with stone veneer bases, ranging from 6.5 to 4 feet high, at the tower with stucco and siding above in varied colors and textures. The Design Review Board determined that architectural details such as mid-section windows with decorative shutters, and articulated columns, and varied projections further reduce vertical massing and enhance the overall building form and scale.

Pedestrian Emphasis
The proposed renovations intend to provide a higher quality pedestrian environment along both street frontages through active building interfaces. The covered walkway will continue to provide protection from the elements while creating a more inviting and active ground level environment with display windows and a more clearly defined primary entrance. The ground-floor entry doors will be relocated to the center of the front recessed area and will be flanked by display windows. The DRB determined that the covered pedestrian walkway would further strengthen the pedestrian experience and improve storefront interaction along La Mesa Blvd consistent with the DVSP.

Colors and Materials
The proposed redesign utilizes siding board and stucco as the primary façade materials, complemented by stone veneer at the base of the facades, columns, and clock tower, along with metal awnings along La Mesa Blvd. Compared to the approved design, which relied largely on stucco with minimal accent materials, the redesign introduces a more varied material palette with two textures of siding in addition to stucco and stone veneer.

The materials were chosen as durable and sustainable options with a sense of permanence.

The color scheme also expands to a more varied, earth-toned palette featuring cream beige as the primary color with sage green, muted terracotta, gray and cream trim, and dark charcoal gray awnings that coordinate with the stone veneer. The DRB determined that these colors align with the DVSP’s emphasis on pastel and natural earth tones and are consistent with surrounding Village buildings. The DRB approved the use of the charcoal accent color as it provides continuity between the newer accessory features of the building and the wrought iron fencing associated with the sidewalk cafes within the Village.

CONCLUSION:

That the City Council ratify the Design Review Board’s determination the project

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 24, 2026
Page: 5 of 5
(Project 2025-1013) as proposed meets the Downtown Village Specific Plan and Urban Design Program Guidelines.

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

A. Draft Resolution City Council Ratification
B. Proposed Redesign Renderings
C. Approved Design Renderings, ratified on October 14, 2025 D. Project 2025-1013 DRB Staff Report and Certificate of Action E. Site Photographs
F. Project Plans
G. Color and Materials Board

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA RATIFYING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF PROJECT 2025-1013 (GOODWILL INDUSTRIES) – A REDESIGN OF AN EXTERIOR FAÇADE RENOVATION AT 8250 LA MESA BOULEVARD, IN THE CD-D (DOWNTOWN

COMMERCIAL/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board received and considered a staff report on a redesign of an existing exterior façade renovation at 8250 La Mesa Boulevard (Project); WHEREAS, the Design Review Board held a duly noticed public meeting on February 23rd, 2026, and determined that the project meets the intent of the Urban Design Program and the Design Guidelines for Properties in the Downtown Village Specific Plan and Urban Design Overlay;
WHEREAS, the Design Review approved the Certificate of Action for the Project, subject to City Council ratification;
WHEREAS, the City Council received and considered a staff report on the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on March 24, 2026, and accepted public testimony in considering the Project.

THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

1. The proposed design meets the intent of the Urban Design Program and the Design Guidelines for Properties in the Downtown Village Specific Plan and Urban Design Overlay.

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

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

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

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 24th day of March 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2026-___, 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)

Exhibit A

Taunting Micrometer

Taunting Micrometer

Taunting Micrometer

Toni Giffin; President and CEO
03/02/2626
03/02/2026

ATTACHMENT
E

ATTACHMENT
E

ATTACHMENT
E

EXISTING SITE PLAN
1"=10'-0"
A
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION

AS NOTED
c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
T1.0

COVER SHEET / SITE

PLAN / VICINITY MAP

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK.

2. EXISTING CONCRETE CURB.3. EXISTING CURB-CUT RAMP.

4. EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT AND LIGHT POLE COMBO.

5. EXISTING BOLLARDS.6. EXISTING PARKING METER.7. EXISTING MANSARD ROOF / AWNING COLUMNS TO BE REMOVED. (SMALL DASH LINE)8. EXISTING MANSARD ROOF / AWNING PROJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED (SMALL DASH LINE)9. EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE.

10. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT.11. EXISTING PARKING STRIP.12. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OVER RIGHT OF AWAY (SHADED ELEMENTS), FOR CLARITY REFER TO FLOOR PLANS ON SHEETS A1.0 & A1.1, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ON SHEET A2.0 & A3.1 AND CROSS SECTIONS ON SHEET A4.0.

13. PROJECTION OF NEW BUILDING ELEMENTS OVER NEW SOLID AWNING. (CROSS HATCHED), FOR CLARITY REFER TO FLOOR PLANS A1.0 & A1.1, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ON SHEET A2.0 & A3.1 AND CROSS SECTIONS ON SHEET A4.0.

14. PROPOSED NEW BUILDING SURFACE FINISHES, FOR CLARITY REFER TO FLOOR PLANS A1.0 & A1.1, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ON SHEET A2.0 & A3.1 AND CROSS SECTIONS ON SHEET A4.0.

15. PROJECTION OF NEW SOLID AWNING (MEDDASH LINE), FOR CLARITY REFER TO FLOOR PLANS A1.0 & A1.1, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ON SHEET A2.0 & A3.1 AND CROSS SECTIONS ON SHEET A4.0.
#
A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR:
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942

GOODWILL

VICINITY MAP

DESCRIPTION

PLAN SUBMITTAL LOG

PLAN DATE
06-10-25 SUBMITTAL TO PLANNING. DEPT. - 1st REVIEW
2 COVER SHEET, SITE PLAN & VICINITY MAP

ROOF PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN WITH FACADE IMPROVEMENT ELEMENTSDEMOLITION AT NORTH ELEVATION DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN

ARCHITECTURAL SECTION
A1.0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN WITH FACADE IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENTSA3.0A2.0A1.1D2.0D2.1T1.0D1.0

DEMOLITION AT SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS

SHEET INDEX

REFER TO PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND WORK TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THIS PERMIT NOTE:

THE PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

1. DEMOLITION: a. REMOVAL OF EXISTING EXTERIOR MANSARD ROOFING PROJECTIONS AND COLUMNS ABOVE STOREFRONT / ENTRANCE OVER SOUTH ELEVATION.
b. REMOVAL OF MANSARD ROOFING PROJECTIONS ABOVE WINDOWS OVER EAST ELEVATION. c. REMOVAL OF EXISTING WALL-SIDING.

2. EXTERIOR WORK: a. FURRING-OUT WALLS OVER SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS. b. NEW METAL AWNINGS, FAUX WINDOWS AND WALL MOUNTED FIXTURES PER PLANS. c. NEW COLUMNS AND FOOTINGS OVER SOUTH SIDEWALK TO SUPPORT NEW METAL AWNING STRUCTURE.
d. NEW WALL FINISHES PER PLANS.

SCOPE OF WORK
NORTH
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'

EXISTING BUILDING
16,006 S.F.

OCC: M (RETAIL)
ICL
ALLEY
23'-0" 9'-11"
20'-0" 11'-2" 1
4 3 5 7 9 6 6
7'-8" 8
10 11
26'-7"
1 28888

LA MESA BLVD
CIL

SPRING ST
494-402-07-00 & 08-00

APN NUMBER

SITE ANALYSIS

SITE AREA

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

SITE ANALYSIS

SQUARE FEET
V-B
10,000

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 1,2, 3, 4,BLOCK 1LA MESA SPRINGSMAP 786
EXISTING BUILDING AREA 16,006 SQUARE FEETFULLY SPRINKLED NOZONING: DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY) CD-DGENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: DOWN TOWN COMMERCIALCURRENT LAN USE: COMMERCIALBUILDING OCCUPANCY

M (RETAIL)
NUMBER OF STORIES AND HEIGHT 2 STORY 27'-2" MAX HGT.

OWNER
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES3663 ROSECRANS ST, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

FACADE RENOVATION AT SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS
A3.1 FACADE RENOVATION AT NORTH ELEVATION A4.0 CROSS SECTIONS 08-04-25 SUBMITTAL TO PLANNING. DEPT. - 2nd REVIEW
1'-6"
12 TYP.
121212
1'-0"
6"
1'-0"
12 12
02-05-26 SUBMITTAL TO PLANNING. DEPT. - 1st REVIEW
(REVISION OF APPROVED DESIGN)
14 14
7'-2" 15
3'-0" 15

REF
MICRO
BREAK

AREA OFFICE

STORAGE

RETAIL AREA

STORAGE

WOMEN'S
RESTRM.

ALL

GENDERS

LANDING
LOBBY
PHONE RM.

ELECTRIC RM.

ELEVATOR
UP
UP

RETAIL AREA

OFFICES
(E) 3068

CASHIER
FITTING RM.

FITTING RM.
2 FITTING RM.
7 72" HT. TYP.

LOBBY

WOMEN'S
RESTRM.

DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN
3/16"=1'-0" A
NORTH
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
D1.0

DEMOLITION FLOOR
PLAN

DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS AND ITEMSITEMS TO BE DEMOLISHED

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK.

2. EXISTING CONCRETE CURB.3. EXISTING CURB-CUT RAMP.

4. EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT AND LIGHT POLE COMBO.

5. EXISTING BOLLARDS.6. EXISTING PARKING METER.7. EXISTING MANSARD ROOF / AWNING COLUMNS TO BE DEMOLISHED.8. EXISTING MANSARD ROOF / AWNING PROJECTIONS TO BE DEMOLISHED.9. EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE.

10. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT.11. EXISTING PARKING STRIP.12. EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMN TO REMAIN AS IS.13. EXISTING PORTION OF STOREFRONT TO BE REMOVED.14. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED.15. EXISTING SIDING TO BE REMOVED.16. EXISTING TILE TO BE REMOVED.17. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED. #
2 1
2 1
3 4
5 7 6 6
888
10 9 11
12 14 14
15 15
15 15
8 EXISTING STORE
13 16 16
1717

44'-5 1/8"

EXISTIG CLOCK TOWER
28'-3"

EXISTING WALL CREATIVECLOCKTOWER

EXECUTIVE SUITES
# 300 A to Z
±3" ±3"
11'-10"

GOODWILL
Plaza 8250
23'-4 1/8"

EXISTING WALL
44'-5 1/8"

EXISTIG CLOCK TOWER
11'-10"
±3.5" ±3.5" ±3.5"
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
D2.0

DEMOLITION AT

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS AND ITEMSITEMS TO BE DEMOLISHED

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. EXISTING MANSARD ROOF COLUMNS TO BE DEMOLISHED.

2. EXISTING MANSARD ROOF PROJECTIONS TO BE DEMOLISHED.3. EXISTING SIDING TO BE REMOVED.

4. PORTION OF CLOCK TOWER TO BE REMOVED, G.C. TO MAKE SURE TO SAVE CLOCK ELEMENTS SO IT CAN BE INSTALLED BACK UNDER NEW IMPROVEMENTS.

5. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED.6. EXISTING STOREFRONT TO BE REPLACED.7. EXISTING STOREFRONT PORTION TO BE REMOVED.8. EXISTING DOOR.9. EXISTING SIGN TO BE REMOVED.

10. EXISTING CORNICE / COPING TO BE REMOVED.11. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION TO BE REMOVED.12. EXISTING ADDRESS NUMBERS TO BE REMOVED. #

DEMOLITION AT SOUTH ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0" A (LA MESA BLVD)

DEMOLITION AT WEST ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0" B (SPRING ST)
1 2
3 1 1 1 1
4 6 7 6 8
10 11 2 9
3 5
2 2 2
5 3 2 1
4 10
2 2 2
12 9

23'-4"

EXISTING WALL
4'-0"
26'-8"

EXISTING WALL
GOODWILL 8250
2'-6"
11'-10"

GOODWILL
Plaza
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
D2.1

DEMOLITION AT

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS AND ITEMSITEMS TO BE DEMOLISHED

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. NOT USED.

2. EXISTING MANSARD ROOF PROJECTIONS TO BE DEMOLISHED (BEYOND).3. EXISTING SIDING TO BE REMOVED.

4. PORTION OF CLOCK TOWER TO BE REMOVED (BEYOND), G.C. TO MAKE SURE TO SAVE CLOCK ELEMENTS SO IT CAN BE INSTALLED BACK UNDER NEW IMPROVEMENTS.

5. EXISTING WINDOW, NO CHANGE.6. NOT USED.7. NOT USED.8. EXISTING DOOR.9. EXISTING SIGN TO BE REMOVED.

10. EXISTING CORNICE / COPING TO BE REMOVED.11. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION TO BE REMOVED.12. EXISTING TILE TO BE REMOVED.13. EXISTING COLUMN EXTENSIONS TO BE REMOVED.14. EXISTING GOOSE NECK LIGHTING TO BE REMOVED, G.C. TO CAP ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AS REQUIRED.

15. EXISTING ROOF DOWNSPOUT.16. EXISTING KNOX BOX.
#

DEMOLITION AT NORTH ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0" A (ALLEY)
8 5 3
13 12
2 2 10
4 8 5
5 9
11 15 14 14
12 16

24'-1 7/8" 20'-0" 35'-2 1/8"
9'-5 5/8"
10'-0"
11'-2"
8'-5"
7'-2"
11'-7 7/8"
4'-0"
19'-8 1/2" 3'-0" 19'-8 1/2"
11'-2"
± 4'-0" CLR.
3'-0" 4'-0" 3'-0"
3'-0" 3'-5 5/8" 3'-0"
3"
2"
7'-2" 4'-0"
A
A4.0
B
A4.0
REF
MICRO
BREAK

AREA OFFICE

STORAGE

RETAIL AREA

STORAGE

WOMEN'S
RESTRM.

ALL

GENDERS

LANDING
LOBBY
PHONE RM.

ELECTRIC RM.

ELEVATOR
UP
UP

RETAIL AREA

OFFICES
(E) 3068

CASHIER
FITTING RM.

FITTING RM.
2 FITTING RM.
7 72" HT. TYP.

LOBBY

WOMEN'S
RESTRM.
3'-0"
5'-6"
1'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
9'-9 3/4"
6"
1'-0"
9'-5"
27'-0" 17'-9 7/8"
1'-6"
1'-8"
1'-6"
1'-8"
1'-6"
1'-8"
1'-6"
1'-8"
1'-6"
1'-8"
1'-6"
2'-0"
1'-6"
2'-0"
C
A4.0

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
3/16"=1'-0" A
NORTH
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
A1.0

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

FLOOR PLAN DESIGN LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS AND ITEMSNEW ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS

CORNER DETAIL
1/2"=1'-0" B
3'-0"

NEW STONE VENEER
4'-0"

NEW SIDING
3'-0"

NEW STONE VENEER
3'-0"

NEW STONE VENEER
3'-5 5/8"

NEW SIDING
3'-0"

NEW STONE VENEER
3"
3/4"

EXISTING WALL

SURFACE
1 1/4"
NOTE:NEW WALL FINISH MATERIAL TOENCROACH BETWEEN 2 OR 3 INCHES OVER SIDEWALK. (PLEASE ADVISE).

B
A1.0
CORNER
DETAIL

EXISTING TRAFFIC

SIGNAL BOX

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK.

2. EXISTING CONCRETE CURB.

3. EXISTING CURB-CUT RAMP.

4. EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT AND LIGHT POLE COMBO.

5. EXISTING BOLLARDS.6. EXISTING PARKING METER.7. NEW METAL AWNING COLUMNS, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.8. NEW SOLID METAL AWING PROJECTION (DASH LINE), REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS..9. EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE.

10. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT.11. EXISTING PARKING STRIP.12. EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMN TO REMAIN AS IS.13. NEW DOOR PER PLAN.14. FILL-IN STOREFRONT OPENING TO MATCH EXISTING.15. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED, FILL IN WALL OPENING.16. EXISTING STOREFRONT.17. NEW WALL FINISH MATERIAL, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.18. NEW FAUX WINDOW PER PLAN, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.19. NEW WALL / FUR-OUT PER PLAN.

20. NEW POP- OUT WALL PER PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.21. WRAP AROUND STONE VENEER OVER EXISTING WALL TO SIMULATE COLUMN BASE, REFER TO NORTH ELEVATION A/A3.1.

22. PROJECTION OF NEW ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE SUPPORTED BY NEW AWNING.# 2 2
3 4
5 6 6 7
15 10 9 11
12 2'-11 5/8"
3'-0" (N) DBL 3080
DOORS
13 14 14
16 16
1 17
8 (WITH FACADE IMPROVEMENTS)
17 17
15 2020
8 8
8 EXISTING STORE
21 8
1'-0"1'-0"
22 22
22 NEW ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
TO BE SUPPORTED BY NEW AWNING.
19171917

DN.

ELEVATOR
DN.

DN.

DN.

ALL

GENDERS
SUITE 200
300-I
300-F
300-E
300-D
300-C
300-B
300-A
SUITE-300

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES TENANT
@ 2ND FLOOR

ATTIC SPACE
(OVER T-BAR CEILING
9'-5 5/8"
10'-0" 19'-8 1/2" 3'-0"
24'-1 7/8" 20'-0" 35'-2 1/8"
A
A4.0
B
A4.0
C
A4.0
3'-0" 19'-8 1/2" 6'-11 3/8" 3'-0" 7'-1 3/8" 3'-0" 6'-11 3/8" 5'-6" 3'-0" 10"
3'-0" 5'-6"
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
A1.1

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
3/16"=1'-0" A
NORTH

FLOOR PLAN DESIGN LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS AND ITEMSNEW ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. NOT USED.

2. NEW SOLID METAL AWING (BELOW), REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.3. NEW WALL FINISH MATERIAL, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.

4. NEW FIXED FAUX WINDOW, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.

5. NEW WALL / FUR-OUT PER PLAN.6. NEW POP-OUT WALL.

7. NEW STORE SIGNAGE.
#
(WITH FACADE IMPROVEMENTS)
2 2
2 5 3
5 3
4 4 4
7 4
4 3
5 3
4 5
3 6
3 6
3 3
2 5 3
1'-6" 5'-8"
7'-2"
3'-0"
2'-6" 3'-2"
1'-6" 2'-6" 3'-2"
3 1'-0"1'-0"
6"
1'-0"
444
5 3
3

A
A4.0
B
A4.0
C
A4.0
1:14 1:14

NEW RIDGE
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
A2.0

ROOF PLAN

ROOF PLAN
3/16"=1'-0" A
NORTH

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. EXISTING PARAPET WALLS.

2. EXISTING BUILT-UP ROOF SYSTEM.3. EXISTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

4. EXISTING ROOF ACCESS HATCH.

5. EXISTING EXHAUST DUCT.6. NEW CORNICE WITH METAL COPING, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.

7. NEW CLOCK TOWER ROOF.

8. NEW PARAPET WALL, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.9. EXISTING EQUIPMENT CURB.

10. NEW FLAT BUILT-UP ROOF AREAS, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.11. NEW SOLID AWNING BEYOND. #
(WITH FACADE IMPROVEMENTS)
2 2
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
4 3
7 1
6 5 5
5 1 6
1 6
1 9
9 866
10 6 10 10 6 10 10
11 11
11 6

ROOF PLAN DESIGN LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS AND ITEMSNEW ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS

6'-9" 20'-3 3/8" 12'-3" 5'-6 1/4"
46'-0 3/8"

RENOVATED CLOCK TOWER
28'-3"

EXISTING WALL
9'-0 3/4"
XII I
II

III IIII

VI V VII VIII
IXX
XI
8250
12'-8 3/4"
+18"
+30"
A
A4.0
7'-2 1/4"
14'-10 3/8"
2'-9 1/2"
1'-2"
5'-0"
1'-3"
+18" +18"
+30"
C
A4.0
9'-0" 1'-0"
14'-1 1/2" 5'-4"
3'-10"
3'-10"
4'-4"
4'-10"
4'-10"
23'-4 1/8"
EXISTING WALL +12"
+12"
B
A4.0
XII I
II

III IIII

VI V VII VIII
IX
X
XI
+6"
4'-0"
7'-0"
4'-2"
3'-0" 24'-0" +12"
16'-2 1/4" 5'-4"
16'-1 1/8" 4'-4"
7'-0"

SIDE ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0" B
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
A2.0

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FRONT ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0" A
EXTERIOR ELEMENTS #

1. EXISTING WALL.

2. EXISTING DOOR.3. EXISTING STOREFRONT TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW CLEAR GLASS & ANODIZED DARK BRONZE FRAME.

4. EXISTING WINDOW.

5. EXISTING CLOCK.6. NEW BEAM.

7. NEW METAL COLUMN.

8. NEW SOLID METAL AWNING.9. NEW DOOR PER FLOOR PLAN.

10. NEW WALL FUR-OUT.11. NEW WALL POP-OUT.12. NEW FOAM CORNICE.13. NEW STONE VENEER, NATURAL STACKED STONE - LEDGER PANELS BY MSI SURFACES WITH WAINSCOT CAP.

14. NEW STUCCO.15. NEW LIGHT FIXTURE, GOOSENECK TYPE, SEE SPEC / DETAIL B/A3.1.16. NEW GOODWILL LOGO, THIS SIGN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND IT WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM UPDATE.

17. NEW EXPANSION JOINT AT STUCCO.18. NEW METAL COPING.19. NEW VERTICAL SIDING: HARDIE TRIM BATTEN - RUSTIC GRAIN 18" WIDE.

20. NEW HORIZONTAL SIDING: HARDIE ARTISAN SIDING V-GROOVE 8" WIDE.21. NEW FIXED FAUX WINDOW WITH ALUMINUM DARK BRONZE FRAME.22. NEW 2X ARCHITECTURAL TRIM.23. NEW GOODWILL SIGN, THIS SIGN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND IT WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM UPDATE.

24. NEW WINDOW SHUTTERS.25. NEW 6" CONCRETE CURB.26. NEW STANDING METAL ROOFING BY MBCI : BATTENLOCK - HS 12" WIDE COLOR:

BURNISHED SLATE.
9 3 2
G
7 F
22 C
18 16
C
26 5 12
13 3
10 B
14 D
20 17 13
C
22 (SOUTH)
(WEST)
C
12 TYP.
13 21
25 G
13 8
# EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIALS
A. SW 7029 AGREEABLE GRAY.

B. SW 7566 WESTHIGHLAND WHITE.

C. SW 6199 RARE GRAY.

D. SW 7715 POTTERY URN.E. SW 6200 LINK GRAY.F. SW 7570 EGRET WHITE.

G. SW 7096 IRON ORE
B
14 A
20 10
C
12 B
14 D
19 C
22 A
21 20
A
20 C
24 25
C
22 B
14 G
6 TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

A
1 A
1 G
8 13
C
22 G
8 E
19 TYP.
15 TYP.
26 15
F
10 22
B
14 21
A
20 C
24 E
19 TYP.

C
22 F
10 22
B
14 F
12 F
12 C
12 F
12 25
TYP.

TYP.

C
26 5 12
B
14 26
C
24 TYP.

C
22 10 10
E
19 C
12 15
TYP.

B
14 18
D
20 TYP.

C
21 21 22
C
22 B
11 B
11 A
20 13
TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.

B
12 18
TYP.
10

XII
I II
III
IIII
VI
V

VII VIII
IX X
XI
7'-0"
27'-4"

EXISTING WALL
23'-4"

EXISTING WALL
9'-0" 1'-0"
12'-0"
CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION

AS NOTED
c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
A2.1

EXTERIOR ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0"

A (REAR)
17 A
4 4 15 14
A
2 B 13 11
A
12 18
B
27 EXTERIOR ELEMENTS
#

1. EXISTING WALL.

2. EXISTING DOOR.3. EXISTING STOREFRONT TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW CLEAR GLASS & ANODIZED DARK BRONZE FRAME.

4. EXISTING WINDOW.

5. EXISTING CLOCK.6. NEW BEAM.

7. NEW METAL COLUMN.

8. NEW SOLID METAL AWNING.9. NEW DOOR PER FLOOR PLAN.

10. NEW WALL FUR-OUT.11. NEW WALL POP-OUT.12. NEW FOAM CORNICE.13. NEW STONE VENEER, NATURAL STACKED STONE - LEDGER PANELS BY MSI SURFACES WITH WAINSCOT CAP.

14. NEW STUCCO.15. NEW LIGHT FIXTURE, GOOSENECK TYPE, SEE SPEC / DETAIL B/A3.1.16. NEW GOODWILL LOGO, THIS SIGN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND IT WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM UPDATE.

17. NEW EXPANSION JOINT AT STUCCO.18. NEW METAL COPING.19. NEW VERTICAL SIDING: HARDIE TRIM BATTEN - RUSTIC GRAIN 18" WIDE.

20. NEW HORIZONTAL SIDING: HARDIE ARTISAN SIDING V-GROOVE 8" WIDE.21. NEW FIXED FAUX WINDOW WITH ALUMINUM DARK BRONZE FRAME.22. NEW 2X ARCHITECTURAL TRIM.23. NEW GOODWILL SIGN, THIS SIGN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND IT WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM UPDATE.

24. NEW WINDOW SHUTTERS.25. NEW 6" CONCRETE CURB.26. NEW STANDING METAL ROOFING BY MBCI : BATTENLOCK - HS 12" WIDE COLOR:

BURNISHED SLATE.

27. EXISTING COLUMN.28. EXISTING DOWNSPOUT.
# EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIALS
A. SW 7029 AGREEABLE GRAY.

B. SW 7566 WESTHIGHLAND WHITE.

C. SW 6199 RARE GRAY.

D. SW 7715 POTTERY URN.E. SW 6200 LINK GRAY.F. SW 7570 EGRET WHITE.

G. SW 7096 IRON ORE
A
12 18
TYP. TYP. TYP.

A
12 18
1 A14 1 A14 1 2 G
4 8 15
TYP. B
27 B27
A
28 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE

NOT TO SCALE
B
NOTE:

1. LIGHT FIXTURE SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY LIGHTING ORDINANCES AND TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS

10'-9 3/4"
12'-3 3/4"
8'-7 7/8"
1'-2" 20'-7 3/8"

NEW ROOF STRUCTURE
1'-5 7/8"
5'-0"
6"
6"
25'-6 1/2" 3'-0"
6"
9'-4 1/4"
VARIES
1'-2" 11'-9 1/4"

NEW STRUCTURE OVER AWNING
3'-0" 3'-6" CLIENT

PROJECT
NO. DATE

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION
AS NOTED c Copyright 2025, MPA Architects, Inc.. All rights reserved. DRAWN BY: DATE: CBJR 24181 PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER: DATABASE:

A PROPOSED FACADE RENOVATION FOR: 25-06-10
24181.DWG

GOODWILL

INDUSTRIES OF

SAN DIEGO
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA, 91942
P: (619) 225.2200
E: [email protected]

GOODWILL
8250 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA, CA 91942
3578 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
V. 619.236.0595
F. 619.236.0557
www.mpa-architects.com
A4.0

CROSS SECTIONS

CROSS SECTION
1/2"=1'-0" A CROSS SECTION 1/2"=1'-0" B

FLOOR PLAN WALL LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS AND ITEMSNEW ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS

SHEET KEYNOTES

1. NEW METAL AWNING COLUMNS, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.

2. NEW AWNING STRUCTURE.3. NEW FINISH MATERIAL, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.

4. NEW FAUX WINDOW PER PLAN, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.

5. NEW 2x WALL OR FUR-OUT PER PLAN.6. NEW ARCHITECTURAL TRIM, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.

7. NEW STORE SIGN SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND IT WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM UPDATE.

8. NEW CORNICE, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.9. NEW 6" CONC. CURB.

10. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED, FILL-IN WALL OPENING.11. EXISTING STOREFRONT.12. PROJECTION OF NEW WALLS BEYOND.13. NEW BUILT-UP ROOF.14. EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMN. #

EXISTING BUILDING
(HATCHED AREA)

EXISTING BUILDING
(HATCHED AREA)

ITEMS TO BE DEMOLISHED (SEE DEMOLITION PLANS)
1 (E) MAIN ENTRY (E) SIDEWALK
4 85
(E) STORE (E) SIDEWALK
86639
10 5
9 2
3 8
12 6
6 CROSS SECTION
1/2"=1'-0" C

EXISTING BUILDING
(HATCHED AREA)
466682
1 13
11 11
14 3
3 3
3 3

ATTACHMENT D

ATTACHMENT E

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE, INC. FOR THE

INSTALLATION OF ADVANCED TRAFFIC SIGNAL

DETECTION SYSTEMS ALONG THE SPRING STREET

CORRIDOR
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the annual traffic signal service agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc., for the installation of advanced traffic signal detection systems along the Spring Street Corridor?
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the annual traffic signal service agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc., for the installation of advanced traffic signal detection systems along the Spring Street Corridor.

Fiscal Impact:

Funding for the procurement and installation of advanced traffic signal detection systems is available in Capital Improvement Project Nos. 8316, Public Transportation Improvement Program, and 8321, Traffic Signal Improvement Program.

CIP Account REQUESTED AVAILABLE
8316 $65,047.62 $65,047.62
8321 $21,449.19 $550,462.04
TOTAL $86,496.81 $615,509.66

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 24, 2026
Page: 2 of 2
City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
 T-8: Improve Traffic Flow
BACKGROUND:

The existing signal detection systems at the intersections of La Mesa Boulevard and Spring Street and at Spring Street and Allison Avenue require replacement due to ongoing maintenance issues.

DISCUSSION:

The City recommends upgrading these 2 intersections with modern detection systems, which will reduce maintenance impact and help mitigate traffic congestion along this corridor. The Currux Detection Camera System was chosen for traffic signal detection due to its existing installation along the Spring Street corridor.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the annual traffic signal service agreement with Southwest Signal Services, Inc., for the installation of advanced traffic signal detection systems along the Spring Street Corridor.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. SWS Quote

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE, INC., FOR

THE INSTALLATION OF ADVANCED TRAFFIC SIGNAL DETECTION

SYSTEMS ALONG THE SPRING STREET CORRIDOR
_______________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, one of the City's strategic goals is to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa awarded a traffic maintenance contract to Southwest Signal Service, Inc. on June 11, 2024, and extended it to June 30, 2026; WHEREAS, the City has a need to replace existing signal detection systems at the intersections of La Mesa Boulevard and Spring Street and at Spring Street and Allison Avenue due to ongoing maintenance issues; and
WHEREAS, funds totaling $86,496.81 for the procurement and installation of advanced traffic signal detection systems are included in Capital Improvement Project Nos. 8316 (Public Transportation Improvement Program) and 8321 (Traffic Signal Improvement Program).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Second Amendment to the Traffic Signal Maintenance, Emergency Repairs, and Related Construction Services Agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc. is approved for the Installation of advanced traffic signal detection systems along the Spring Street Corridor.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 24th day of March 2026, 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. 2026-__, 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)

Southwest Signal Service
P.O. Box 1297
El Cajon, CA 92022
Phone: (619) 442-3343 Fax: (619) 442-4708
CSLB #451115 | Classifications A, B, C-10
DIR #1000004265
SLBE & DVBE Certification ID #11761

DATE: 2/4/2026
TO: Estimating
FROM: Southwest Signal Service
QUOTE: Quote La Mesa Currux
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Labor to Install Currux Detection Camera System (2 cameras) at Spring St and Allison Ave EA 1 13,680.00 $ 13,680.00 $
2 Furnish CURRUX Video Detection System for Spring St and Allison Ave. (See attached) EA 1 29,568.41 $ 29,568.41 $
3 Labor to Install Currux Detection Camera system (2 cameras) at Spring St and La Mesa Blvd EA 1 13,680.00 $ 13,680.00 $
4 Furnish CURRUX Video Detection System for Spring St and La Mesa Blvd (See attached) EA 1 29,568.41 $ 29,568.41 $
TOTAL BID: $ 86,496.81
COMMENTS:

Our time and material rates are: Laborer or Service tech- $ 165/Hr., Service Truck $ 25/HR, Compressor $ 25/hr., Bobcat $ 125/Hr.

Normal working hours only (7:30 am - 3:30 pm). Night work would be an additional cost of $ 2,000 per night.

ADDITIONAL TERMS & CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL:

THIS BID/PROPOSAL AND ALL ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BECOME A BINDING PART OF ANY SUBCONTRACT, PURCHASE ORDER OR OTHER AGREEMENT If this quote and the terms and conditions are acceptable please sign below and return.

Thanks,
Misael Michel
MADE WITH SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE.

Accepted by Date
Work Order/Purchase Order Number
Price does not include removal or replacement of any concrete or asphalt.

QUOTATION | Quote ID: QLMSA02426V1
Subject to the subcontract terms and conditions revision D dated 07 September 2023, attached.

Price for items 1 and 3 assumes that the existing conduit is in good usable conditions. Price does not include conduit installation.

Price for items 1 and 3 assumes that all existing conduits are in good usable condition and without obstruction to pull the wires and/or install new wire. Any encountered obstruction to be removed by others.

Traffic control provided by Southwest Signal Service is limited to 25 cones, 1 arrow board and 8 temporary traffic control signs. Any additional traffic control needs, including but not limited to: ramps closures, flaggers, attenuator trucks or light towers to be provided by others and determined on a per project basis.

Any necessary plans, traffic control plans, permits or fees to be obtained and paid for by others.

Price does not include to furnish any materials.

The price does not include MTS training.

DATE: March 24, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vice Mayor Lauren Cazares
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A $1,500 SPONSORSHIP FOR THE

HARVEY MILK DIVERSITY BREAKFAST AND AUTHORIZING

ATTENDANCE BY CITY COUNCIL, CITY STAFF, AND LA MESA

POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, IN RECOGNITION OF LA MESA

POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPTAIN KATY LYNCH, HONOREE AND

RECIPIENT OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF PHIL COLLUM LEADERSHIP AWARD

BACKGROUND
The Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast is an annual community event hosted by the International Imperial Court System, one of the oldest LGBTQ+ charitable organizations in the United States. Since its founding in 1965, the organization has raised millions of dollars for local nonprofits and has played a significant role in advancing equity, inclusion, and community support efforts. The event honors the legacy of Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay elected officials in the country, and recognizes individuals who demonstrate leadership, service, and a commitment to diversity and inclusion.

DETAILS
This year, La Mesa Police Department Captain Katy Lynch will be recognized as an honoree, receiving the Assistant Chief Phil Collum Leadership Award for her leadership and service to the community. Sponsoring a table at the Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast provides the City of La Mesa with an opportunity to formally recognize Captain Lynch’s achievement and demonstrate the City’s commitment to fostering an inclusive and supportive community. The sponsorship includes one (1) table with ten (10) tickets, allowing City Councilmembers, City management staff, and/or La Mesa Police Department personnel to attend and represent the City at the event.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a $1,500 sponsorship for the Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast and authorize attendance by City Councilmembers, City staff, and La Mesa Police Department personnel, in recognition of La Mesa Police Department Captain Katy Lynch as an honoree and recipient of the Assistant Chief Phil Collum Leadership Award.