Agenda packet — La Mesa City Council, June 9, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

ATTACHMENT
F

Page 112 of 209 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
from the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SWEEPING

CORPORATION OF AMERICA FOR STREET

SWEEPING SERVICES
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the first amendment to the agreement with Sweeping Corporation of America for street sweeping in the amount of $230,408.

Fiscal Impact:

Street sweeping services are budgeted in account number 3103-6430.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

BACKGROUND:

Street sweeping services consist of sweeping approximately 343 curb miles of city streets, 73,558 square feet of municipal parking lots, 1,926,620 square feet of City parking lots, 46 curb miles of raised median island curbs, and other special areas as needed.

On June 10, 2025, the City Council awarded a street sweeping contract to Sweeping Corporation of America for FY26. The award included an option to renew the contract for up to four one-year terms, contingent on satisfactory performance.

Page 113 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 2 of 2
DISCUSSION:

Sweeping Corporation of America has completed the first year of the street sweeping contract to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sweeping Corporation of America is requesting a 3.9% price increase for FY27 to match the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) as of May 2026.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City of La Mesa adopt a resolution approving the first amendment to the agreement with Sweeping Corporation of America for street sweeping services in the amount of $230,408.

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

Page 114 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH

SWEEPING CORPORATION OF AMERICA FOR STREET SWEEPING

SERVICES
_________________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, there is a need to maintain the cleanliness of the streets, parking lots, raised median island curbs, and other special areas within the City of La Mesa; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa awarded a contract for street sweeping services to Sweeping Corporation of America (SCA) on June 10, 2025; WHEREAS, this contract is for one year with the possibility of four one-year extensions based upon the satisfactory performance of work as determined by the City Engineer; WHEREAS, the City Engineer is satisfied with the level of service and quality of work the City has received;
WHEREAS, the contract for street sweeping services with SCA will be from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027; and
WHEREAS, funding for the First Amendment to the Street Sweeping Agreement with SCA is budgeted and available in the Street Cleaning Operating Account 3103-6430.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, approves the award of a one-year contract to Sweeping Corporation of America for street sweeping services with a total cost not to exceed $230,408 in FY27.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 115 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A

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)

Page 116 of 209 ends

May 18, 2026
Contract #062421-SWP
Jose Ornelas
Assistant Director of Public Works
City of La Mesa
8152 Commercial Street
La Mesa, CA 91942
Dear Jose,
SCA is pleased to provide the updated Sourcewell cooperative pricing for the City of La Mesa renewal period 2026/2027 The revised pricing reflects the 3.9% California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) adjustment.

Description Current Price New Price (+3.9%)
Street Sweeping
(per curb mile)
$36.50 $37.92
Parking Lot
Sweeping (per sq.
ft.)
$0.0011 $0.0011
Downtown Sidewalk
Cleaning (Each)
$170.45 $177.10
Special Sweeping
Services (Per Hour -
Day Shift)
$170.45 $177.10
Special Sweeping
Services (Per Hour -
Night Shift)
$210.23 $218.43
Emergency
Sweeping Services
(Per Hour - Day
Shift)
$170.45 $177.10
Emergency
Sweeping Services
(Per Hour - Night
Shift)
$210.23 $218.43
Terry Roberts
District Account Manager
Sweeping Corporation of America

ATTACHMENT B

Page 117 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT C
FY27 Cost Estimate for Street Sweeping
12 - Monthly Street Sweeping Services $209,884
12 - Monthly Lot Sweeping Services $20,024
Estimated FY27 Cost $229,908
Additional sweeping as needed $500
Total Contract Value $230,408

Page 118 of 209 ends

Page 119 of 209 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A TASK ORDER TO RICK

ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR DESIGN SERVICES

FOR THE HOFFMAN AVENUE STREET AND

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing a task order in the amount of $79,900 to Rick Engineering Company for roadway and site design services for the Hoffman Avenue Street and Sidewalk Improvements Project.

Fiscal Impact:

The project is eligible for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and will require a $79,900 budget transfer from CIP 8323, CDBG Sidewalk Infill, to CIP 8310, Hoffman Avenue Mobility Improvements.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.  Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.

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

The Sidewalk Master Plan was developed to identify gaps in the sidewalk network and identify where sidewalks are proposed. A portion of Hoffman Avenue between Massachusetts Avenue and Charles Street is identified in the Plan as an area where

Page 120 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 2 of 3
sidewalk can be installed and close a gap in the pedestrian network serving Vista La Mesa Elementary School. This area is eligible to receive CDBG funds, and Hoffman Avenue was listed in the Fiscal Year 2027 CDBG Sidewalk Improvements program.

In April 2024, the City advertised a request for qualifications RFQ 24-01 for as-needed engineering services. Rick Engineering Company was selected as a qualified firm and entered into a master agreement with the City to provide as-needed roadway and site design services. The terms of the master agreement allow for the issuance of task orders to authorize specific items of work on an as-needed basis for the selected consultants.

DISCUSSION:

The scope of the project is to develop a construction-ready plan set and specification package for curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on Hoffman Avenue between Charles Street and Massachusetts Avenue (see Figure 1 below).

City staff solicited a proposal from Rick Engineering Company for these services. The scope of work and fee were negotiated with Rick Engineering Company in the amount of $79,900.

Figure 1 Project Location
Project
Limits

Page 121 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 3 of 3
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing a task order in the amount of $79,900 to Rick Engineering Company for roadway and site design services for the Hoffman Avenue Street and Sidewalk Improvements Project.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Carly Cubberley
Carly Cubberley, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Proposal

Page 122 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO RICK

ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR ROADWAY AND SITE DESIGN SERVICES

FOR THE HOFFMAN AVENUE STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT
WHEREAS, The City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, Hoffman Avenue between Massachusetts Avenue and Charles Street does not have a continuous sidewalk;
WHEREAS, this section of street is identified in the Sidewalk Master Plan to receive sidewalk;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies it has adopted a Vision Zero Policy in September 2018, and installing sidewalk in this area is in line with activities of the policy; WHEREAS, in April 2024, the City advertised a request for qualifications RFQ 24-01 for as-needed engineering services;
WHEREAS, Rick Engineering Company was selected as a qualified firm to provide asneeded roadway and site design services; WHEREAS, a master service agreement was executed with Rick Engineering Company on October 17, 2024;
WHEREAS, a scope of work and fee were negotiated with Rick Engineering Company to provide roadway and site design services for the Hoffman Avenue Street and Sidewalk Improvements Project; and
WHEREAS, the project is eligible for Community Development Block Grant funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a task order in the amount of $79,900 with Rick Engineering Company to provide roadway and site design services for the Hoffman Avenue Street and Sidewalk Improvements Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funds for this task order will be transferred from CIP 8323, CDBG Sidewalk Infill, to CIP 8310, Hoffman Avenue Mobility Improvements.

Page 123 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9th day of June, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF THE 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)

Page 124 of 209 ends

June 02, 2026
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
Carly Cubberly
City of La Mesa Public Works-Engineering Department
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTING AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CITY OF

LA MESA HOFFMAN AVENUE STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Dear Carly,
Thanks for this opportunity to propose on City of La Mesa Hoffman Avenue Street and Sidewalk Project. As requested in a call with the City of La Mesa on March 25, 2026 and email clarifications dated March 31, 2026, the scope of services below is to provide civil engineering services for design and construction documents for street and sidewalk improvements for Hoffman Avenue between Charles Street and Massachusetts Avenue. The below services contain the conceptual and final engineering design efforts and deliverables for the Project.

I. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The project proposes to provide curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements on Hoffman Avenue between Charles Street and Massachusetts Avenue, approximately 1,000 linear feet of road, both sides.

The project seeks to optimize Hoffman Avenue’s typical street cross-section where possible to construct sidewalk and implement complete streets integrated design, without the necessity of additional right-of-way acquisition.

For the purposes of this base scope approval, we will assume the edge of the travelled way will be the proposed curb and gutter line. If the City finds they want to modify the street section (for the purpose of optimizing the right-of-way and parkway/sidewalk widths) additional street improvements and road striping may also need to be redesigned and is not included in this scope and fee.

Per City direction, the project should provide for full-width pavement rehabilitation (grind and overlay) which will be included as a base scope of the plans, but a Contractor bid alternative.

Segments of improved curb gutter and sidewalk will be assumed to be included in the base scope until it can be confirmed that design aligns with proposed design. It was also confirmed that existing newer sidewalk and popouts will remain when meeting current standards and feasible with new design.

The City will provide base field design surveys, topographic base map data, public right-of-way, easements, relevant property lines, and agency boundary for the project area. Based on a review of the City-provided information, the Consultant may need to perform supplemental field design

Page 125 of 209 ends

City of La Mesa Hoffman Ave Improv. Proposal
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
June 02, 2026

Page 2 of 8 ends

C:\RICK\Departments\Civil\SD-Land Development\TWG\_Pursuits\2026.067 LaMesa_Hoffman\2026.067 R2 SCP.docx surveys as needed to support design development, and scope has been included as a part of Additive Alternative Item D.1 below.

It is assumed that the City will provide a Geotechnical Evaluation including pavement recommendations.

II. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Preliminary Engineering

1. Research & Composite Base Mapping
Prepare a composite topographic base map incorporating:
• City of La Mesa-provided topography and field design surveys. • City of La Mesa provided As-builts or record plans Client. • GIS Data (where appropriate) i.e. utilities.
• Field Observations from one (1) site visit. Includes one (1) site visit by the project civil engineer. Identify other un-surveyed encroachments.
• Near Map Imagery
• Supplemental Design Field Surveys (see Additive Alternative D.1).

Excludes boundary surveys, and legal plotting of existing public and private easements and encumbrances. Excludes utility underground location, survey of utility mark out and potholing.

2. Preliminary Drainage Analysis Memo
Review the provided field design surveys and perform one site visit to evaluate the overall existing drainage conditions. Identify observable drainage issues and provide preliminary solutions to improve surface flows.

It was indicated by the City (pre-project) that a particular drainage issue may exist at Hoffman Avenue and Charles Street, and scope includes only limited and localized drainage improvements.

3. 30% Concept Plan
Utilizing typical cross-section or sections provided by the City, prepare a 30% concept plan at 1-in = 20-ft scale along Hoffman Avenue between Charles Street and Massachusetts Avenue which will be the basis of design for Construction Documents provided in Task B below. Concept Plan includes:
• Signing and striping,
• Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk,
• Limits of Asphalt removal and replacement (as required), • Concept Drainage & Green Streets recommendations, and • Dimensions.

A City review and adjustments will be made moving into 90% PS&E and Construction documents.

Page 126 of 209 ends

City of La Mesa Hoffman Ave Improv. Proposal
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
June 02, 2026

Page 3 of 8 ends

C:\RICK\Departments\Civil\SD-Land Development\TWG\_Pursuits\2026.067 LaMesa_Hoffman\2026.067 R2 SCP.docx B. 90%, 100%, & Final PS&E
Prepare and process the City of La Mesa Plans for review at the 90%, 100% and Final Construction Document plan stages, for Hoffman Avenue between Charles Street and Massachusetts Ave.

1. Demolition Plans
Project areas of street widening may require demolition activities. Prepare a demolition plan to show areas of pavement, curb & gutter to be removed. Identify areas to remain and be protected in place. Assume 1 sheet at 1-in = 40-ft scale are adequate for demolition plans.

2. Public Street Improvement Plans
Prepare a Public Improvement Plan for proposed sidewalks and street improvements.

Plans shall provide for the:
a. Horizontal and vertical control of proposed curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. b. Curb Ramp Details (assumes up to 14 ADA curb ramps). c. Alley Concrete Driveways (SDRSD G-14E) (assumes up to four (4) driveways) d. Cross-gutter design (as required).
e. Material specifications.
f. Street cross sections per block (assumes up to three (3) typical cross-sections).

It is assumed that the plans shall include: one (1) title sheet, one (1) key map and two (2) notes and detail sheets (five (5) sheets total), and three (3) sheets for the curb ramp details.

It is assumed that preparation of two (2) plan and profile sheets (20-scale) are required for approximately 1,000 linear feet of street, curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements for a total of ten (10) sheets.

Proposed sidewalks, parkways may result in minor slope grading, and minor private improvement reconstruction. It is assumed that no separate grading plan, or private improvement plan set will be needed and City will lead all efforts to coordinate with adjacent property owners.

Project will seek to avoid retaining walls and utility relocations, but an estimated scope and fees has been provided in Section E for Additive Alternatives: E.5 Project phasing plans, and other items related to Contractor means and methods to complete the work have been excluded from the project.

3. Signing and Striping Plans
Prepare signing and striping plans at 1-in = 40-ft scale per the latest edition of the California MUTCD and City of La Mesa standards. In general, the signing/striping designs will accommodate various bicycle facilities throughout the City’s identified project areas.

4. Erosion Control Plans
Project areas of sidewalk and street improvements will require ground disturbing activities.

Prepare Erosion Control Plans at 1-in = 40-ft scale to include temporary construction Best Management Practices (BMP’s) notes, plans and typical details as required by City of La Mesa submittal requirements.

Page 127 of 209 ends

City of La Mesa Hoffman Ave Improv. Proposal
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
June 02, 2026

Page 4 of 8 ends

C:\RICK\Departments\Civil\SD-Land Development\TWG\_Pursuits\2026.067 LaMesa_Hoffman\2026.067 R2 SCP.docx

5. Specifications Coordination
Coordination with the City of La Mesa and provide support for the City preparation of project specifications.

6. Address PS&E Comments (T&M)
At the 90%, 100% PS&E submittal levels, address City of La Mesa Engineering and Public Works and staff comments. Provide a formal response to comments with revisions to the plans (as applicable). At the Final PS&E submittal level, address minor comments to finalize the plans. Assumes 40 hours be billed on a time-and-materials basis.

7. Interagency Processing (T&M)
Provide support to the City for processing through other agencies (Helix Water District/SDGE/ATT/COX) outside of the City of La Mesa for work in easements and/or utility relocations. Scope is generally limited to project areas where street widening is proposed. Assumes 12 hours to be billed on a time-and-materials basis.

C. Project Management
For the assumed 6-month design and plans specifications and duration of the project, provide the following project management and related services:

1. Project Administration & Accounting (T&M)
For the assumed 6-month design duration of the project, provide project administration and accounting services as requested by the District. Work shall include project planning, accounting set-up, budget tracking, scope control and monitoring. Assumes two (2) hours per month for six (6) months (12 hours) to be billed on a time-and-materials basis.

2. Project Schedule
Prepare a project schedule with milestones. Schedules will include at a minimum: (1) Project kick-off, City Site Walk (2) Survey, Area Research and Base Mapping (3) 30%, 90% and 100% PS&E Preparation, and anticipated Agency review cycles. Provide one (1) update to the project schedule as needed.

3. Project Coordination (T&M)
For the assumed 6-month project design and construction document (PS&E) phase of the project provide coordination in the development of design and construction schedules, plans, specifications, cost estimates, and technical reports with the following project team members/consultants: Traffic Engineer, Civil Engineer Land Surveyor/Geographical Information System specialist, and City of La Mesa. RICK Coordination assumes an average of three (3) hours per month for six (6) months for a total of 18 hours to be billed on a time-and-materials basis.

4. Project Meetings (T&M)
During the 6-month design and PS&E phase of the project, attend meetings with the City.

Project Meetings include: one site walk with the City of Hoffman Avenue (b/w Charles and Massachusetts) attended by (1) Traffic Engineer and (1) Civil Engineer (assumes three (3) hours), one (1) monthly project virtual team meeting attended by Traffic Engineer, Civil Engineer plus meeting agendas and minutes (assumes 12 hours). Scope assumes a total of 15 hours to be billed on a time-and-materials basis.

Page 128 of 209 ends

City of La Mesa Hoffman Ave Improv. Proposal
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
June 02, 2026

Page 5 of 8 ends

C:\RICK\Departments\Civil\SD-Land Development\TWG\_Pursuits\2026.067 LaMesa_Hoffman\2026.067 R2 SCP.docx D. Reimbursable Expenses
Reimbursable expenses include copying, printing, report binding, delivery, mailing, and mileage expenses incurred for the items described within the scope of work of this proposal.

These expenses will be on a time and materials basis for a not-to-exceed amount below.

E. Additive Alternatives

1. Engineer’s Estimates
Prepare and process project estimates with the City of La Mesa. Estimates shall be refined (as needed) with the design at 30%, 90% and 100% submittals. Items of work identified in the 100% estimate may be utilized as the bid list in Contract Documents.

2. Supplemental Design Surveys
The City will provide base field design data for the project area. Based on a review of the City-provided information, the Consultant will perform supplemental field design surveys as needed to support design development. Supplemental survey efforts may include, but are not limited to, verification of existing conditions, collection of additional topographic data in areas not covered or insufficiently detailed in the base survey. Assumes two (2) days of survey by one (1) 2-man survey crew at prevailing wage.

3. Utility (City) Relocation Plans
Project areas of modified street sections or widening may require relocation of public and other agency owned utilities. We have allocated 40 hours for this task. This proposal includes utility relocation plans to identify relocation of City-owned utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm drain and water. Relocations of Helix Water District-owned water facilities and appurtenances is excluded. Relocations of SDGE, and other cable/communications company owned facilities and structures will be shown on the improvement plans as an identified need of the project, but separate Dry Utility Relocations plans (SDGE, Communications) are excluded.

4. Utility (Helix Water District) Relocation Plans
Project areas of modified street sections or widening may require relocation of public and other agency owned utilities. This proposal includes utility relocation plans to identify relocation of Helix Water District-owned utilities such as fire hydrants, water meters, and valves. It is assumed that relocations can be shown on the Public Improvement Plans and that a Helix Water District signature block would be added to sheets where applicable. We have allocated 40 hours for this task; 20 for plan preparation and 20 for HWD processing.

5. Retaining Wall Plans
Project areas of typical street cross-section modification or widening may require minor grading and/or retaining walls. Provide allowance for up to (approximately) 500 LF of Standard Drawing retaining walls to minimize impacts of the sidewalk construction.

Page 129 of 209 ends

City of La Mesa Hoffman Ave Improv. Proposal
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
June 02, 2026

Page 6 of 8 ends

C:\RICK\Departments\Civil\SD-Land Development\TWG\_Pursuits\2026.067 LaMesa_Hoffman\2026.067 R2 SCP.docx FEES AND BILLINGS:

We will perform the above scope of work on a fixed fee basis, except where noted below. Work performed will be per our attached schedule of hourly rates. We will not exceed a labor fee of $79,400.00 without further authorization. Materials and expenses will be billed against a separate miscellaneous expenses line item in the amount of $500.00. For billing purposes, this labor fee is divided as follows:

A. Preliminary Engineering

1. Research & Composite Base Mapping $ 3,500.00

2. Preliminary Drainage Analysis Memo $ 3,500.00

3. 30% Concept Plan $ 5,000.00
Subtotal $ 12,000.00
B. 90%, 100% & Final PS&E

1. Demolition Plans $ 2,500.00

2. Public Street Improvement Plans $ 34,000.00

3. Signing & Striping Plans $ 5,000.00

4. Erosion Control Plans $ 2,500.00

5. Specifications Coordination $ 1,400.00

6. Address PS&E Comments (T&M) $ 7,100.00

7. Interagency Processing (T&M) $ 2,600.00
Subtotal $ 55,100.00
C. Project Management

1. Project Administration & Accounting (T&M) $ 3,000.00

2. Project Schedule $ 1,000.00

3. Project Coordination (T&M) $ 4,500.00

4. Project Meetings (T&M) $ 3,800.00
Subtotal $ 12,300.00
D. Reimbursable Expenses $ 500.00
TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 79,900.00
E. Additive Alternatives

1. Engineer's Estimate $ 5,000.00

2. Supplemental Design Surveys $ 9,000.00

3. Utility (City) Relocation Plans $ 8,000.00

4. Utility (Helix Water District) Relocation Plans $ 8,000.00

5. Retaining Wall Plans $ 6,500.00
Subtotal $ 36,500.00

Page 130 of 209 ends

City of La Mesa Hoffman Ave Improv. Proposal
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
June 02, 2026

Page 7 of 8 ends

C:\RICK\Departments\Civil\SD-Land Development\TWG\_Pursuits\2026.067 LaMesa_Hoffman\2026.067 R2 SCP.docx ASSUMPTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, & EXCLUSIONS:

The following items are not included in the scope of work outlined above. Any additional work will require Client authorization and a separate scope and fee.

A. Changes in scope or design directed by the Client after the start of working drawings; in this case, the amount of extra work shall be that required to bring the revised work to the same stage of completion as the original work at the time of the change.

B. Work of a general or promotional nature not connected with the actual design, approval, or construction of the project.

C. Any other services performed at the direction of the Client which are not defined in the above listed services shall be in addition to that set forth in Section II of this agreement.

D. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

E. Dry Utility design or relocation services.

F. Boundary Surveys, calculated right-of-way, records of survey, street dedications, easements or easement vacations.

G. Post-construction monumentation and post-construction corner records.

H. Construction administration, support, surveying and staking.

I. Community Outreach, notifications and obtaining letters of permission from property owners.

J. Title Reports. It is assumed that the City will provide title reports as needed for appropriate plotting of street widening areas.

K. Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement recommendations.

L. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

M. Dry Utility design or relocation services.

N. Boundary Surveys, calculated right-of-way, records of survey, street dedications, easements or easement vacations.

O. Post-construction monumentation and post-construction corner records.

P. Construction administration, support, surveying and staking.

Q. Community Outreach, notifications and obtaining letters of permission from property owners.

R. Title Reports. It is assumed that the City will provide title reports as needed for appropriate plotting of street widening areas.

S. Environmental Work or services of any kind, CEQA Determination.

T. Traffic Control Plans.

U. Structural Engineering design and details
V. Landscape and Irrigation Plans.

W. Detention analysis – increase in peak flow is anticipated to be negligible compared to the overall tributary area.

X. Offsite drainage analysis and water quality BMP sizing.

Y. BMP as-built certification.

Page 131 of 209 ends

City of La Mesa Hoffman Ave Improv. Proposal
Doc ID: 2026.067 R2
June 02, 2026

Page 8 of 8 ends

C:\RICK\Departments\Civil\SD-Land Development\TWG\_Pursuits\2026.067 LaMesa_Hoffman\2026.067 R2 SCP.docx Z. Sidewalk & Streetscape Alternatives
AA. Cost Estimates
BB. Specifications
CC. PDP SWQMP Exempt Green Street Letter
DD. Drainage Letter
EE. Bid and Construction Support
STANDARD PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT:

The enclosed Standard Provisions of Agreement are incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement.

CONTRACT EXECUTION:

If notice is delayed for any reason beyond sixty (60) days, it is understood by the parties that the terms and conditions contained herein are subject to revision.

If you would like us to proceed with this work as outlined above, we ask that you please sign and return this agreement as our written authorization.

Upon signature by Client, this proposal and the attached terms become the agreement for services and the notice to proceed.

Thank you for requesting RICK to provide these services.

Sincerely,
RICK
Tim W. Gabrielson
R.C.E. 51503
Principal
APPROVED:

BY: DATE:

PRINT NAME:

Page 132 of 209 ends

Page 133 of 209 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
from the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT

TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST SIGNAL
SERVICE, INC., FOR STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE

AND EMERGENCY REPAIRS
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the third amendment to the agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc., for street light maintenance and emergency repairs in the amount of $93,330.

Fiscal Impact:

The City of La Mesa’s portion of the four-city contractual work is estimated to be $93,330 in FY27, with a 2.6% increase in unit costs. Funds are budgeted in account number 3106-6431.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

BACKGROUND:

The City of La Mesa participates in a consortium of local municipalities to reduce the cost of streetlight maintenance and repairs. By participating in the consortium with cities such as El Cajon, Lemon Grove, and Santee, the City of La Mesa can take advantage of favorable labor rates to maximize the use of funds budgeted for this area of public works.

On June 13, 2023, the City Council awarded a street light maintenance and emergency repairs contract to Southwest Signal Service, Inc. for FY24. The award included an option

Page 134 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 09, 2026
Page: 2 of 2
to renew the contract for up to four, one-year terms, contingent on satisfactory performance.

DISCUSSION:

Southwest Signal Service, Inc. has completed the third year of the street light maintenance and emergency repairs contract to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Southwest Signal Service, Inc. is requesting a 2.6% price increase for FY27 to match the San Diego Area Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as of January 2026.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City of La Mesa adopt a resolution approving the third amendment to the agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc., for street light maintenance and emergency repairs in the amount of $93,330.

Page 135 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE, INC., FOR STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE

AND EMERGENCY REPAIRS
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goals to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, there is a need to maintain, repair, or replace street light components within the City of La Mesa;
WHEREAS, the City La Mesa participated in a four-city consortium with El Cajon, Lemon Grove and Santee to advertise the need for street light maintenance services. Advertisements for street light maintenance, emergency repairs and related construction services were advertised by the City of El Cajon, the lead agency, on March 2, 2023; WHEREAS, the City of El Cajon received three bids on the bid opening date of April 12, 2023, and Southwest Signal Service, Inc. was found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa awarded a maintenance contract to Southwest Signal Service, Inc. on June 13, 2023;
WHEREAS, this maintenance contract is for one year with the possibility of four one-year extensions based upon satisfactory performance of work as determined by the City Engineer; WHEREAS, the City Engineer is satisfied with the level of service and quality of work the City has received; and
WHEREAS, funding for the Third Renewal Option of the Street Light Maintenance and Emergency Repairs contract with Southwest Signal Service, Inc. is budgeted and available in the Traffic Engineering Operation Account 3106-6431.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is authorized to approve the contract extension for a one-year period to Southwest Signal Service, Inc. for Annual Street Light Maintenance and Emergency Repairs up to and not to exceed the City's portion of the contract in the amount of $93,330. Said contract is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Page 136 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 137 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT B

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF LA MESA AND SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE, INC. FOR STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE

AND EMERGENCY REPAIRS
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT executed on , by and between the City of La Mesa, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and Southwest Signal Service, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Contractor.”

1. RECITALS:

1.1 The City and Contractor have entered into an Agreement for street light maintenance and emergency repair in the City (the “Agreement”). Said Agreement was executed pursuant to the City Council’s acceptance of Contractor’s low bid on June 13, 2023. The Agreement allows for four, one-year renewal terms. Due to increasing costs the City and Contractor desire to increase the total annual fees with a CPI adjustment in the contract unit prices.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

2. TERMS:

2.1 Section 8 of the Agreement entitled “COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR” shall be amended to read as follows:
“The City and Contractor desire to extend the term of the Agreement for one additional year from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, including a 2.6% CPI increase from last year’s unit costs under the contract. The total fee for professional services shall be billed on a time-and-material basis with a total amount not to exceed Ninety-Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($93,330).”
Remaining renewal terms shall be limited to price increases up to but not exceeding the CPI-U for the San Diego area.

2.2 Section 37 of the agreement entitled “PAYMENT BOND FOR PUBLIC WORKS” shall be added and read as follows:
“Per California Civil Code Section 9550, (a) A direct contractor that is awarded a public works contract involving an expenditure in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) shall, before commencement of work, give a payment bond to and approved by the officer or public entity by whom the contract was awarded. (b) A public entity shall state in its call for bids that a payment bond is required for a public works contract involving an expenditure in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). (c) A payment bond given and approved under this section will permit performance of and provide coverage for work pursuant to a public works contract that supplements the contract for which the bond is given, if the requirement of a new bond is waived by the public entity. (d) For the purpose of this section, a design professional is not deemed a direct contractor and is not required to give a payment bond. (e) This section does not apply to a public works contract with a “state entity” as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 7103 of the Public Contract Code.”

2.3 All other terms, condition and obligation contained in the Agreement other than those specified in this Second Amendment Agreement shall remain the in full force and effect.

Page 138 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT B
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Agreement as of the date first above written.

CONTRACTOR CITY OF LA MESA
Southwest Signal Service, Inc. A Municipal Corporation
By: __________________ By:___________________________________________ Ryan T. Clark, President Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
ATTEST:___________________________
Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
ATTEST:

Greg Humora, City Manager
ATTEST:

Michael Throne,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Glenn Sabine, City Attorney

Page 139 of 209 ends

Page 140 of 209 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
from the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND

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

SIGNAL MAINTENANCE, EMERGENCY REPAIRS, AND

RELATED CONSTRUCTION
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the second amendment to the agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc., for traffic signal maintenance, emergency repairs, and related construction in the amount of $181,672.

Fiscal Impact:

The City of La Mesa’s portion of the four-city contractual work is estimated at $181,672 in FY27, with a 2.6% increase in unit costs. Funds are budgeted in account numbers 3106-6431 and 3106-6450.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

BACKGROUND:

The City of La Mesa has participated in a consortium of local municipalities to help reduce the cost of maintenance and repairs to the traffic signal system. By participating in the consortium with cities such as El Cajon, Lemon Grove, and Santee, the City of La Mesa can take advantage of favorable labor rates and maximize the use of funds budgeted for this area within public works.

Page 141 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 2 of 2
On June 11, 2024, the City Council awarded a traffic signal contract to Southwest Signal Service, Inc. for FY25. Included in the award was an option to renew the contract up to four one-year terms with satisfactory performance.

DISCUSSION:

Southwest Signal Service, Inc. has completed the second year of the traffic signal repair contract to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Southwest Signal Service, Inc. is requesting a unit price increase for FY27 of 2.6% to match the San Diego Area Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) from January 2026. This amount is included in the contract value.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the second amendment to the agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc., for traffic signal maintenance, emergency repairs, and related construction in the amount of $181,672.

Page 142 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

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

MAINTENANCE, EMERGENCY REPAIRS, AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION

SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has a strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community;
WHEREAS, the four-city consortium consisting of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon and Santee desire to contract together for traffic signal maintenance services; WHEREAS, the City of El Cajon, the lead agency, solicited for and received three bids for Traffic Signal System Maintenance, Emergency Repairs, and related Construction Services which were publicly opened on April 15, 2024;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa awarded a maintenance contract to Southwest Signal Service, Inc. on June 11, 2024;
WHEREAS, this maintenance contract is for one year with the possibility of four oneyear extensions based upon satisfactory performance of work as determined by the City Engineer;
WHEREAS, the City Engineer is satisfied with the level of service and quality of work the City has received; and
WHEREAS, funding for the Second Renewal Option of the Traffic Signal Maintenance, Emergency Repairs, and Related Construction Services with Southwest Signal Service, Inc. is budgeted and available in the Traffic Engineering Operation Accounts 3106-6431 and 3106- 6450.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor and the City Clerk approve the contract extension for a one-year period to Southwest Signal Service, Inc. for Annual Traffic Signal Maintenance, Emergency Repairs and Related Construction Services up to and not to exceed the City's portion of the contract in the amount of $181,672. Said contract is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to accept and execute a contract and any future extensions with Southwest Signal Service, Inc. to perform the work at the prices set forth in said contract.

Page 143 of 209 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June 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)

Page 144 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT B

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF LA MESA AND SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICE, INC. FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL

MAINTENANCE, EMERGENCY REPAIRS, AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION

SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT executed on _____________, by and between the City of La Mesa, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and Southwest Traffic Signal Service, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Contractor.”

1. RECITALS:

1.1 The City and Contractor have entered into an Agreement for traffic signal maintenance, emergency repairs and related construction services in the City (the “Agreement”). Said Agreement was executed pursuant to the City Council’s acceptance of Contractor’s low bid on June 11, 2024. The Agreement allows for four, one-year renewal terms. Due to increasing costs the City and Contractor desire to increase the total annual fees with a CPI adjustment in the contract unit prices.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

2. TERMS:

2.1 Section 8 of the agreement entitled “COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR” shall be amended to read as follows:
“The City and Contractor desire to extend the term of the Agreement for one additional year from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, including a 2.6% CPI increase from last year’s unit costs under the contract.

The total fee for professional services shall be billed on a time-and-material basis with a total amount not to exceed One Hundred Eighty-One Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy-Two Dollars ($181,672).” Remaining renewal terms shall be limited to price increases up to but not exceeding the CPI-U for the San Diego area.”

2.2 Section 37 of the agreement entitled “PAYMENT BOND FOR PUBLIC WORKS” shall be added to read as follows:
“Per California Civil Code Section 9550, (a) A direct contractor that is awarded a public works contract involving an expenditure in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) shall, before commencement of work, give a payment bond to and approved by the officer or public entity by whom the contract was awarded. (b) A public entity shall state in its call for bids that a payment bond is required for a public works contract involving an expenditure in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). (c) A payment bond given and approved under this section will permit performance of and provide coverage for work pursuant to a public works contract that supplements the contract for which the bond is given, if the requirement of a new bond is waived by the public entity. (d) For the purpose of this section, a design professional is not deemed a direct contractor and is not required to give a payment bond. (e) This section does not apply to a public works contract with a “state entity” as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 7103 of the Public Contract Code.”

2.3 All other terms, conditions and obligations contained in the Agreement other than those specified in this First Amendment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Page 145 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT B
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Agreement as of the date first above written.

CONTRACTOR CITY OF LA MESA
Southwest Signal Service, Inc. A Municipal Corporation
By: By:

Ryan T. Clark, President Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
ATTEST:

Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
ATTEST:

Greg Humora, City Manager
ATTEST:

Michael Throne,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Glenn Sabine, City Attorney

Page 146 of 209 ends

Fund:
101
101

CERTIFICATE OF CITY/DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Certification of Unappropriated Reserves
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the money required for the appropriation of funds for the purpose as docketed is available in the Treasury, or is anticipated to come into the Treasury, and is otherwise unappropriated.

Amount$
Purpose:

Date
Director of Finance
City of La Mesa
By: ---------------
Unappropriated Reserves Available Balance
Certification of Unencumbered Balance
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the indebtedness and obligation as docketed can be incurred; that sufficient monies to meet the obligations are actually in the Treasury, or are anticipated to come into the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation from which the same are to be drawn; and that said monies now actually in the treasury, together with the monies anticipated to come into the Treasury, to the credit of said appropriation are otherwise unencumbered.

Amount Not to Exceed $18t672.00
Date: 06/09/2026
Dept. Account:
3106-6431
3106-6450
Purpose:

By: Michael Throne
Activity:
$109,072.00 from Account 3106-6431 (Available Balance $219,100) $72,600.00 from Account 3106-6450 (Available Balance $72,600.00) CERTIFICATE NO. 1984
Resolution Approving the Third Amendment to the Agreement with Southwest Signal Service, Inc. for Traffic Signal Maintenance, Emergency Repairs and Related Construction Services.

Page 147 of 209 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A

GRANT APPLICATION FOR CALTRANS ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 8 TO FUND

THE LEMON AVENUE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

CONNECTIONS PROJECT, AND IF AWARDED,

ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE

PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application to Caltrans for the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 8 to fund the Lemon Avenue Safe Routes to School Connections Project, and if awarded, accept and appropriate the amount of the award for the project.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost estimate for this project is $11.0 million. The City is seeking a maximum grant amount of $10.7 million from the program and, if awarded, will need to commit $295,000 in city funds as a local match. Matching funds will be programmed in FY28 in CIP 8308.

Staff negotiated a task order with Chen Ryan Associates for $40,500 to prepare the grant application. A budget transfer is required to transfer Road Maintenance Rehabilitation funds (SB1) from CIP 8322, Industrial Walkability Plan Study, to CIP 8308, Street Rehabilitation Project.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.  Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:

Page 148 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 2 of 3
 T-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Development  T-8: Improve Traffic Flow
BACKGROUND:

Jackson Drive from La Mesa Boulevard to Lemon Avenue, and Lemon Avenue from Glen Street to State Route 125 is heavily impacted by “cut through” traffic by southbound and eastbound drivers seeking to avoid congestion on State Route 125. The area functions as a primary multimodal transportation connection and provides critical access to four schools including Lemon Avenue Elementary School. This section of Lemon Avenue is La Mesa’s first adopted safety corridor.

In April 2024, the City advertised a request for qualifications RFQ 24-01 for as-needed engineering services. Chen Ryan Associates was selected as a qualified firm to enter into a master agreement to provide as-needed grant writing services. The terms of the master agreement allow for the issuance of task orders to authorize specific items of work on an as-needed basis for the selected consultants.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed project includes features supported by the residents including traffic calming, bicycle, and pedestrian safety measures (see Attachment B). A roundabout at Jackson Drive and Lemon Avenue, identified in the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Plan Segment 1 concept plan, will advance La Mesa’s Vision Zero goals by creating a connected network of safer intersections and speed management infrastructure. Other proposed include contiguous sidewalk, curb extensions, ADA curb ramps, crosswalks, one raised table intersection, radar speed feedback signs, island chicanes, Class III bike lanes, and upgraded streetlights.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing submittal of a grant application to Caltrans for the ATP Cycle 8 Program to fund the Lemon Avenue Safe Routes to School Connections Project, and if awarded, accept and appropriate the amount of the award for the project.

Staff recommends that $40,500 from CIP 8322 Road Maintenance Rehabilitation (SB1) Industrial Walkability Plan Study, be transferred to CIP 8308, Street Rehabilitation Project.

Page 149 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 3 of 3
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Carly Cubberley, PE
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Concept Plan

Page 150 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALTRANS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 8 TO FUND THE LEMON

AVENUE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CONNECTIONS PROJECT, AND IF

AWARDED, ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT ________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has strategic goals to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community and maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe; WHEREAS, approximately $574 million of Federal, State SB2, and State Highway Accounting funding for active transportation projects (ATP) is available to California jurisdictions through the ATP Program;
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa wishes to receive grant funding from Caltrans; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa certifies that it has adopted a Vision Zero Policy in September 2018, and the proposed project is in line with four of the activities of the policy; and WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa adopted a Climate Action Plan in March 2018 and updated it in 2024, which establishes a goal to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in 2025 and 85% in 2045 from the 2016 baseline.

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

1. That the City is authorized to submit an application to Caltrans for the ATP Cycle 8 Program in the amount of $11 million to fund the Lemon Avenue Safe Routes to School Connections Project.

2. That, if a grant award is made by Caltrans to fund $11 million, the City of La Mesa commits to providing the funds currently identified for street maintenance in the project area in Fiscal Year 2028 using Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation funds (SB1).

3. That the City of La Mesa understands and agrees that Caltrans shall not have liability for costs that may arise associated with the Project(s), which are not included in the grant agreement(s), including but not limited to costs stemming from claims, litigation, changes in law, or force majeure events.

4. That a budget transfer is authorized to transfer Road Maintenance Rehabilitation funds (SB1) from CIP 8322, Industrial Walkability Plan Study, to CIP 8308, Street Rehabilitation Project, for the issuance of a task order to Chen Ryan Associates for grant writing services.

5. That the City, if awarded the grant, appropriates funds in the amount of $11 million for the Lemon Avenue Safe Routes to School Connections Project; and that if the actual

Page 151 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
revenue received from the specified source is more or less than the amount stated herein, the appropriations shall be adjusted to match the amount actually received.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 152 of 209 ends

JACKSON DR MADISON AVE ALLEY ALLEY
10'
10'
10' JEFFERSON AVE
10'
10'
10'
10'
8' ALLEY
7' LA MESA BLVD
10'
10'

JACKSON DR
13' SCHOOL SCHOOL
SCHOOL
R/W

PARKLET

CURB EXTENSION AND NEW

RRFB CROSSING SYSTEM
R/W
R/W
R/W

REFRESH PAVEMENT MARKINGS

EXISTING RRFB TO REMAIN RRFB CROSSING SYSTEM

RRFB CROSSING SYSTEM

INSTALL

SPEED HUMP

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION

INSTALL NEW CURB RAMP

PROPOSED BUS STOP PAD

INSTALL NEW CURB RAMP

SOLAR STREET LIGHTING (TYP)

LA MESA BLVD

HAYES ST

BEGIN MERGE LANE

GLEN ST

LA MESA BLVD

BEGIN MERGE LANE
N
0' 40' 80'
SCALE 1" = 40'
JEFFERSON AVE 2026 SIDEWALK INFILL PROJECT

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 2

LEMON AVENUE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CONNECTIONS
Sheet 1 of 2

PROPOSED CONDITION
200'
240'
LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

RED COLORED BRICK MEDIAN INFILL

LANDSCAPING

PCC TRUCK APRON / RAISED INTERSECTION

SIDEWALK

PROPOSED SOLAR LIGHTING

SPEED HUMP

PEDESTRIAN RRFB CROSSING

PROPOSED CURB RAMP
A
A

Page 153 of 209 ends

5'
10'
10'
10'
7'
10'
10'
7'
5'

LEMON AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
10' 10' 10' 10'
5'
10'
10'
10'
10'

10.5'
10'

LEMON AVE
11'
5'
SCHOOL

ONLY SCHOOL

MID BLOCK CROSSING WITH RRFB
R/W

RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

WITH CURB EXTENSIONS
R/W
R/W
R/W

CURB EXTENSIONS, CURB RAMPS,

AND NEW CROSSING

TRENCH DRAIN

WIDEN EXISTING SIDEWALK TRENCH DRAIN

HARDSCAPE MEDIAN

SCHOOL DROPOFF AREA /

HARDSCAPE MEDIAN
5'
7'
10'
10'
7' WOOD ST
SB SR-125
NB SR-125

ISLAND CHICANE WITH

NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY MONUMENT

INSTALL PERMANENT RADAR

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNS
R/W

INSTALL SPEED HUMP

POSTED TRUCK

WEIGHT RESTRICTION

INSTALL PERMANENT RADAR

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNS

MID BLOCK CROSSING WITH RRFB

INSTALL NEW CURB RAMP

INSTALL NEW CURB

EXTENSION AND RAMPS

CITY OF LA MESA R/W
Sheet 2 of 2 MATCHLINE SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE SEE ABOVE RIGHT

MADISON AVE GARFIELD ST

JACKSON DR

GLEN ST
N
0' 40' 80'
SCALE 1" = 40'

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 1

LEMON AVE GLEN ST

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR LA MESA BIKE
AND SIDEWALK PROJECT - ATP CYCLE 5

CALTRANS R/W

LEMON AVENUE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CONNECTIONS

PROPOSED CONDITION
B
B
LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

RED COLORED BRICK MEDIAN INFILL

LANDSCAPING

PCC TRUCK APRON / RAISED INTERSECTION

SIDEWALK

PROPOSED SOLAR LIGHTING

SPEED HUMP

PEDESTRIAN RRFB CROSSING

PROPOSED CURB RAMP

Page 154 of 209 ends

LEMON AVENUE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CONNECTIONS

PROJECT CROSS SECTION

SECTION A-A

JACKSON DRIVE BETWEEN MADISON AND LEMON AVE

EXISTING CONDITION

SECTION B-B

LEMON AVE BETWEEN MADISON AND JACKSON DRIVE

EXISTING CONDITION

SECTION A-A

JACKSON DRIVE BETWEEN MADISON AND LEMON AVE

PROPOSED CONDITION

SECTION B-B

LEMON AVE BETWEEN MADISON AND JACKSON DRIVE

PROPOSED CONDITION

Page 155 of 209 ends

Page 156 of 209 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.28.030 OF

THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING AN

ALL-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD

STREET AT FINLEY AVENUE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt a resolution amending subsection 12.28.030 of The La Mesa Municipal Code, establishing exceptions to Finley Avenue as a through Street to read as follows:

Finley Avenue, a through street between 4th Street and Spring Street, except at its intersections with 3rd Street and Palm Avenue.

Fiscal Impact:

Funds for the installation of the all-way stop are available in the Public Works Operations account 3107-6420.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe.  Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community.

BACKGROUND:

The City received a request to evaluate the installation of stop signs at the intersection of Finley Avenue and 3rd Street. Currently, the northbound and southbound approaches on 3rd Street at Finley Avenue are stop-controlled.

Page 157 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 2 of 2
DISCUSSION:

To evaluate the request the City conducted an intersection stop-control warrant study.

The study concluded that the intersection meets the criteria for installation of an all-way stop control.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending Subsection 12.28.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, establishing exceptions to Finley Avenue as a through street to read as follows:

Finley Avenue, a through street between 4th Street and Spring Street, except at its intersections with 3rd Street and Palm Avenue.

Reviewed by: Respectfully Submitted by:

Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Michael Kinnard
Engineering Project Manager
Attachments: A - Resolution- Amendment to Subsection 12.28.030 B – Stop Warrant Study

Page 158 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.28.030 OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE,

ESTABLISHING EXCEPTIONS TO FINLEY AVENUE AS A THROUGH STREET WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has strategic goals to invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community and maintain a community where residents and visitors feel safe; and
WHEREAS, an all-way stop control analysis indicated that due to the pedestrian demand at this intersection and limited sight distance, an all-way stop at the intersection of Third Street at Finley Avenue is warranted.

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

Subsection 12.28.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

FINLEY AVENUE a through street between 4th Street and Spring Street, except at its intersections with 3rd Street and Palm Avenue.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF THE 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)

Page 159 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 March 31, 2026
Michael Kinnard, PE, PTOE
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa CA 91942
RE: All-Way Stop Analysis at 3rd Street and Finley Avenue Dear Mr. Kinnard,
In accordance with your request, Kimley-Horn and Associates has prepared a comprehensive multiway stop analysis for the intersection of 3rd Street (N-S) at Finley Avenue (E-W), a four-legged intersection with stop-controlled approaches on 3rd Street and free approaches on Finley Avenue.

Warrant B of Section 2B.14 of the 2026 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) states all-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that sight distance on the minor-road approaches controlled by a STOP sign is not adequate for a vehicle to turn onto or cross the major (uncontrolled) road. Based on the analysis completed as part of the stop warrant, these conditions are met. One approach only provides approximately 29% of the recommended sight distance. Finley Avenue is currently stop controlled at both adjacent intersections, Palm Avenue to the west and 4th Street to the east. Traffic counts show pedestrian demand at this intersection, likely due its proximity to downtown and the mix of associated land uses such as commercial and residential. Therefore, it is recommended to install an all-way stop at the intersection of Finley Avenue at 3rd Street.

Existing Conditions
Though Finley Avenues does not have a posted speed limit, the assumed speed limit is 25 mph due to its residential characteristics. This multi-way stop analysis was prepared using intersection vehicle volumes collected by Veracity Traffic Group on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, over 24-hours.

Vehicular speeds on Finley Avenue were obtained with the traffic counts along the east leg of Finley Avenue. Based on the data, the 85th percentile speed was calculated to be 22 mph. A site visit was conducted on Thursday, November 6, 2025. Existing intersection counts and the Finley Avenue speed data are included as attachments. Finley Avenue is stop-controlled at both adjacent intersections, Palm Avenue to the west and 4th Street to the east.

ALL-WAY STOP ANALYSIS
Per direction from the City of La Mesa, all necessary components outlined in the Department of Public Works Guidelines for Installation of All-Way Stop (October 15, 2025) were addressed when performing this all-way stop analysis. The City of La Mesa Guidelines for Installation of All-Way Stop control includes CA MUTCD criteria and lists five cases that must be considered within an engineering study.

Generally, all-way stops are installed where traffic signals are warranted and/or crash history has been indicated by reported crashes of a type susceptible to correction by an all-way stop. Points are assigned to each warrant. The installation of an all-way stop control is justified based on the CA MUTCD criteria

Page 160 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 or with a minimum of 45 points. A summary of each warrant is provided with the corresponding calculations for the 3rd Street and Finley Avenue intersection analysis, when applicable.

Case 1: CA MUTCD Criteria
Within the City of La Mesa guidelines, the point system is not applicable if a CA MUTCD warrant is met.

Part 2 Section 2B.12 (All-Way Stop Control) through Section 2B.17 (All-Way Stop Control Warrant E:

Other Factors) of the CA MUTCD lists five warrants that should be considered within an engineering study for an all-way STOP sign installation. Generally, all-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. When an intersection meets one or more of the criteria, it should be considered for an all-way STOP sign installation.

1. WARRANT A: CRASH EXPERIENCE
Warrant A analyzes the crash history at the intersection. This criteria varies based on the number of legs at the intersection. For a crash to be counted, it must be susceptible to correction by the installation of all-way stop. Crashes susceptible to correction by an all-way stop include right- and left-turn collisions and right-angle collisions. For a four-leg intersection, five or more crashes must be reported in a 12- month period, or six or more crashes must be reported in a 36-month period. For a three-leg intersection, there must be four or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or five or more reported crashes in a 36-month period.

According to Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data, there were two collisions recorded at the subject intersection between 01/01/2019 and 12/31/2025, though 2024 and 2025 data is still provisional. One of the collisions occurred on 10/17/2025 and was a hit object crash, which would not be susceptible to correction by an all-way stop. On 3/22/2023 a bicyclist under the influence overturned and sustained an injury with complaints of pain. This collision would not have been susceptible to correction with all-way stop control.

The Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database was also used, which does not include property-damage-only collisions. TIMS data includes additional information on the 3/22/2023 collision. The TIMS report and the TIMS Collision Map are included as an attachment.

No collisions that would be susceptible to correction by an all-way stop were identified. This criteria is not met.

2. WARRANT B: SIGHT DISTANCE
Warrant B states that an all-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that sight distance on the minor-road approaches controlled by a STOP sign is not adequate for a vehicle to turn onto or cross the major (uncontrolled) road. At such a location, a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop.

The recommended sight triangle length for intersections with stop control on the minor road can be found in Table 9-7 of AASHTO’s Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition. Street parking along Finley Avenue limits sight distance. Based on an assumed speed limit of 25 mph,

Page 161 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 the recommended sight distance needed along Finley Avenue is 280’ for a left-turn from the minor road and 240’ for a right-turn from the minor road. On the east leg, the on-street parking creates a visibility obstruction. The existing red curb marking provides 80’ of sight distance for the northbound approach, which is only 29% of the recommended sight distance for a left-turn. On the west leg, the steep grade and the existing red curb marking create a visibility obstruction, providing 90’ of sight distance for the southbound approach, which is 32% of the recommended sight distance for a left-turn. Since the recommended sight distance needed for a left-turn is greater than the recommended sight distance needed for a right-turn and both approaches were found to have limited sight distance for left-turn movements, sight distance for right-turn movements was not evaluated.

Sight Distance Photos and Measurements are included as an attachment. This criteria is met.

Therefore, it is recommended to install an all-way stop at the intersection of Finley Avenue and 3rd Street.

3. WARRANT C: TRANSITION TO SIGNAL CONTROL OR TRANSITION

TO YIELD CONTROL AT A CIRCULAR INTERSECTION
Warrant C states that all-way stop control may be installed at locations where all-way stop control is an interim measure that can be installed to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection or for the installation of yield control at a circular intersection.

It is Kimley-Horn’s understanding that this intersection has not been identified for a traffic signal installation or for yield control at a circular intersection. This criteria is not met.

4. WARRANT D: 8-HOUR VOLUME (VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS,

BICYCLES)
Warrant D analyzes the minimum volumes at the intersection approaches. All-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates:

A. The combined motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from the major-street approaches is at least 300 units per hour for each of any 8 hours of a typical day According to counts conducted, the average vehicular volume entering the intersection from both approaches of the major street (Finley Avenue) is 27 units for 8 hours of an average day.

This criteria is not met.

B. The combined motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from the minor- street approaches is at least 200 units per hour for each of any of the same 8 hours.

According to counts conducted, the average vehicular volume entering the intersection from both approaches of the minor street (3rd Street) is 26 units for same 8 hours of an average day.

This criteria is not met.

Page 162 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants may be reduced to 70 percent of the values given in Items A and B in Paragraph 1 of this Section.

Per the traffic speed data collected at the intersection, the 85th percentile approach speed along Finley Avenue is 22 mph. This criteria is not met.

5. WARRANT E: OTHER FACTORS
Warrant E allows all-way stop control to be installed where needed due to factors not addressed in the other warrants, such as left-turn conflicts, an intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where all-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection, or where pedestrian and/or bicyclist movements support the installation of all-way stop control.

This intersection already meets the criteria for Warrant B, but there is also pedestrian demand at this intersection due its proximity to downtown and the mix of associated land uses such as commercial and residential. New all-way stop control here will improve the ability of pedestrians to cross safely within the intersection and enhance traffic navigation where visibility is limited due to on-street parking.

The intersection of 3rd Street and Finley Avenue does meet Criteria B for an all-way STOP sign installation based on CA MUTCD guidance. Therefore, Case 1 is satisfied.

Case 2: Point System Criteria
Per direction from the City of La Mesa, the point system components (Case 2) outlined in the Department of Public Works Guidelines for Installation of All-Way Stop (October 15, 2025) only applies when CA MUTCD criteria (Case 1) is not met. As noted above, Case 1 is met – the intersection of 3rd Street and Finley Avenue does meet Criteria B for an all-way STOP sign installation based on CA MUTCD guidance. Therefore, Case 1 controls and it is not necessary to evaluate Case 2.

Page 163 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Final Recommendation
Warrant B in Section 2B.14 of the CA MUTCD states all-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that sight distance on the minor-road approaches controlled by a STOP sign is not adequate for a vehicle to turn onto or cross the major (uncontrolled) road. Based on the analysis completed as part of the all-way stop warrant, these conditions are met due to the limited sight distance. Therefore, it is recommended to install an all-way stop at the intersection of 3rd Street and Finley Avenue. Finley Avenue is currently stop controlled at both adjacent intersections, Palm Avenue to the west and 4th Street to the east. Traffic counts show pedestrian demand at this intersection, likely due its proximity to downtown and the mix of associated land uses such as commercial and residential.

Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Zachary McFann, P.E., T.E.

P.E. No. 90466
T.E. No. 3064
Attachments:
• Attachment A – Existing Traffic Count Data
• Attachment B – Speed Data
• Attachment C – Intersection Sight Distance Photos and Measurements • Attachment D – TIMS and SWITRS Collision Data

Page 164 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Attachment A – Existing Traffic Count Data

Page 165 of 209 ends

3/2/2026 Count Summary
Hour Ending At: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24EB 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 7 11 7 10 10 10 7 11 17 15 8 8 3 3 0 0WB 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 8 5 6 6 13 5 4 4 10 14 11 7 4 1 3 3 1Peds/Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 11 397521352623000Finley Subtotal 0 0 0 0 1 3 11 18 12 17 13 23 15 14 11 21 31 26 15 12 4 6 3 1Finley Subtotal (w/ Peds/Bikes) 0 0 0 0 1 4 14 25 23 20 22 30 20 16 12 24 36 28 21 14 7 6 3 1NB 000010074 515548253811020SB 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 5 8 7 6 15 17 14 12 16 20 20 13 8 7 4 5 0Peds/Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 11 12 5 7 5 6 9 5 7 11 6 9 5 0 0 0 23rd St Subtotal 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 12 12 12 7 20 22 18 20 18 25 23 21 9 8 4 7 03rd St Subtotal (w/ Peds/Bikes) 0 0 1 0 2 2 11 23 24 17 14 25 28 27 25 25 36 29 30 14 8 4 7 2Total Volume 0 0 1 0 3 6 25 48 47 37 36 55 48 43 37 49 72 57 51 28 15 10 10 3Points 000000000 000000000000000Points (70%) 000000000 000000000000000

Page 166 of 209 ends

Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

N-S STREET: 3rd St DATE: 11/19/25 LOCATION: La Mesa
E-W STREET: Finley Ave DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT#

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
5:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3
6:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4
6:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 5
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 6
7:30 AM 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 12
7:45 AM 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 1 9
8:00 AM 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 5
8:45 AM 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 7
9:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 6
9:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 10
9:45 AM 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 9
10:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 9
10:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
10:30 AM 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
10:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 4
11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 5
11:15 AM 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 10
11:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 7
11:45 AM 0 1 2 0 1 8 2 3 1 1 2 0 21
12:00 PM 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 8
12:15 PM 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 7
12:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 7
12:45 PM 0 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 15
1:00 PM 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 11
1:15 PM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
1:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 11
1:45 PM 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 7
2:00 PM 1 4 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 11
2:15 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 7
2:30 PM 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 6
3:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 8
3:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 8
3:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 0 2 0 13
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 10
4:00 PM 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 4 1 0 3 0 15
4:15 PM 0 2 0 0 1 4 1 2 1 0 4 1 16
4:30 PM 1 0 0 0 2 5 1 1 0 1 3 0 14
4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 0 0 1 1 11
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 2 0 10
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 1 10
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 3 2 16
5:45 PM 1 0 0 2 4 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 13
6:00 PM 0 3 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 13
6:15 PM 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7
6:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6
6:45 PM 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 10
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 7
7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
7:30 PM 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 8
7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 5
8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
8:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 6
9:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
9:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
9:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 PM 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
10:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
10:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
10:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
Volumes 13 40 9 29 60 93 38 78 25 12 84 20 501
Approach % 20.97 64.52 14.52 15.93 32.97 51.10 26.95 55.32 17.73 10.34 72.41 17.24 App/Depart 62 / 98 182 / 97 141 / 116 116 / 190
400 PM
25-1567-006
Peak Hr Begins at:

WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
veracity group traffic

Page 167 of 209 ends

N-S STREET: 3rd St Date: 11/19/25 City: La Mesa
E-W STREET: Finley Ave Day: WEDNESDAY Project #: 25-1567-006

N-LEG S-LEG E-LEG W-LEG N-LEG S-LEG E-LEG W-LEG
12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0
12:15 AM 0 0 0 0 12:15 AM 0 0 0 0
12:30 AM 0 0 0 0 12:30 AM 0 0 0 0
12:45 AM 0 0 0 0 12:45 AM 0 0 0 0
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0
1:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1:15 AM 0 0 0 0
1:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1:30 AM 0 0 0 0
1:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1:45 AM 0 0 0 0
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0
2:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2:15 AM 0 0 0 0
2:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2:30 AM 0 0 0 0
2:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2:45 AM 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0
3:15 AM 0 0 0 0 3:15 AM 0 0 0 0
3:30 AM 0 0 0 0 3:30 AM 0 0 0 0
3:45 AM 0 0 0 0 3:45 AM 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0
4:15 AM 0 0 0 0 4:15 AM 0 0 0 0
4:30 AM 0 0 0 0 4:30 AM 0 0 0 0
4:45 AM 0 0 0 0 4:45 AM 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0
5:15 AM 0 0 0 0 5:15 AM 0 0 0 0
5:30 AM 0 0 0 0 5:30 AM 0 0 0 0
5:45 AM 1 0 0 2 5:45 AM 0 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0
6:15 AM 1 0 0 1 6:15 AM 0 0 0 0
6:30 AM 0 0 3 0 6:30 AM 0 1 0 0
6:45 AM 1 0 1 3 6:45 AM 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 1 0 4 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 2 2 1 1 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 1 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 2 1 2 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 1 1 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 6 0 4 1 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 2 3 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 5 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 2 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0
9:15 AM 0 0 0 2 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0
9:30 AM 0 0 3 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0
9:45 AM 0 1 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0
10:00 AM 2 3 3 1 10:00 AM 0 0 0 0
10:15 AM 2 0 1 0 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0
10:30 AM 0 0 1 1 10:30 AM 0 0 0 0
10:45 AM 2 0 0 0 10:45 AM 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 0 1 3 0 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0
11:15 AM 2 1 0 0 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0
11:30 AM 0 1 1 0 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0
11:45 AM 1 1 0 1 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0
12:00 PM 0 2 0 3 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0
12:15 PM 0 0 1 0 12:15 PM 0 0 0 0
12:30 PM 0 0 1 0 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0
12:45 PM 3 0 1 0 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0
1:00 PM 1 0 1 4 1:00 PM 0 0 0 0
1:15 PM 0 0 0 2 1:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1:30 PM 0 0 1 1 1:30 PM 0 0 0 0
1:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1:45 PM 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 0 0 0 0
2:15 PM 1 0 0 3 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0
2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0
2:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0
3:15 PM 1 0 2 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0
3:30 PM 2 0 3 1 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 1 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 1 0 0 2 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 4 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 1 0 0 3 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 2 1 1 1 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1 3 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 1 0 2 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
6:00 PM 5 0 3 1 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0
6:15 PM 1 0 1 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0
6:30 PM 0 0 1 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0
6:45 PM 0 0 2 1 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0
7:00 PM 0 0 2 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0
7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0
7:30 PM 2 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 2
7:45 PM 0 0 0 1 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0
8:00 PM 1 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0
8:15 PM 1 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0
8:30 PM 1 0 0 0 8:30 PM 0 0 0 0
8:45 PM 0 0 0 0 8:45 PM 0 0 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 0 0 0 0
9:15 PM 0 0 0 0 9:15 PM 0 0 0 0
9:30 PM 0 0 0 0 9:30 PM 0 0 0 0
9:45 PM 0 0 0 0 9:45 PM 0 0 0 0
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 0 0 0 0
10:15 PM 0 0 0 0 10:15 PM 0 0 0 0
10:30 PM 0 0 0 0 10:30 PM 0 0 0 0
10:45 PM 0 0 0 0 10:45 PM 0 0 0 0
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 0 0 0 0
11:15 PM 0 0 0 2 11:15 PM 0 0 0 0
11:30 PM 0 0 0 0 11:30 PM 0 0 0 0
11:45 PM 0 0 0 0 11:45 PM 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 51 18 47 61 TOTAL 0 1 0 2
Pedestrian & Bicycle Study

PEDESTRIANS BICYCLES
veracity group traffic

Page 168 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Attachment B – Speed Data

Page 169 of 209 ends

STREET: STREET CLASS.: DIR(S):

LIMITS: ROAD COND: GOOD OBSERVER: Jon McCreadie
WEATHER: DRY DATE:

CNRA: COLLISION RATE: #DIV/0! (Acc/MVM) TIME:

EXPECTED COLLSION RATE: 0.902 (Acc/MVM) POSTED SL: 25
50th Percentile Speed 19.0 10 MPH Pace Speed 14 to 23
85th Percentile Speed 22.0 Percent in Pace Speed 86
Number of Vehicles Observed 100 Percent over Pace Speed 7 Average Speed 19 Percent under Pace Speed 7
Range of Speeds 11 to 27
Speed No. Pct. Cum. Pct.
(MPH) (cars) (%) (%)
10 0 0 0
11 1 1 1
12 3 3 4
13 3 3 7
14 4 4 11
15 5 5 16
16 6 6 22
17 8 8 30
18 10 10 40
19 13 13 53
20 11 11 64
21 9 9 73
22 13 13 86
23 7 7 93
24 4 4 97
25 2 2 99
26 0 0 99
27 1 1 100
28 0 0 100
29 0 0 100
30 0 0 100
31 0 0 100
32 0 0 100
33 0 0 100
34 0 0 100
35 0 0 100
36 0 0 100
37 0 0 100
38 0 0 100
39 0 0 100
40 0 0 100
41 0 0 100
42 0 0 100
43 0 0 100
44 0 0 100
45 0 0 100
46 0 0 100
47 0 0 100
48 0 0 100
49 0 0 100
50 0 0 100
51 0 0 100
52 0 0 100
53 0 0 100
54 0 0 100
55 0 0 100

VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SHEET
NONE 13:45-14:52
11/19/2025
Field Data Services of Arizona Speed Study

FINLEY AVE FEDERAL AID SYSTEM MAP
WEST OF 3rd ST
EB/WB
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 95
100
105
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

CUMULATIVE SPEED CURVE
85th Percentile Speed
50th Percentile Speed
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Cum. Pct.

Speed (mph)
No. of Vehicles
Speed (mph)

Page 170 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Attachment C – Intersection Sight Distance Photos and
Measurements

Page 171 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411

Figure 1: Corner sight distance restricted by on-street parking on south side of Finley Avenue.

Picture taken from northbound 3rd Street looking west.

Figure 2: Corner sight distance restricted by on-street parking on south side of Finley Avenue.

Picture taken from northbound 3rd Street looking east.

Page 172 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Figure 3: Corner sight distance restricted by on-street parking on north side of Finley Avenue.

Picture taken from southbound 3rd Street looking east.

Figure 4: Corner sight distance restricted by on-street parking on north side of Finley Avenue.

Picture taken from southbound 3rd Street looking west.

Page 173 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Figure 5: Sight Distance Measurements
Image Source: Nearmap.com

Page 174 of 209 ends

kimley-horn.com 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101 619 234 9411 Attachment D – TIMS and SWITRS Collision Data

Page 175 of 209 ends

Allison Ave
Acacia
Ave
Date
Ave
Palm
Ave
Finley Ave
Fresno Ave
4th
St
3rd
St
Nebo
Dr
Vista Dr
Oliver L
S
n
pring
St
Edenvale Ave
Butte St
Fresno Ave
3rd St
Sunr si e
Ave
Hillcrest
Ave
Upland St
Miramonte St
TIMS Data Referencing SWITRS (PDO not Included) 01/01/2019 - 12/31/2023 Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
SWITRS
Crashes
11/18/2025
0 0.04 0.07 0.14 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:5,015
TIMS (https://tims.berkeley.edu), SafeTREC, UC Berkeley Copyright © 2025 UC Regents; all rights reserved.

Page 176 of 209 ends

Print (PDF)
Crash Details for Case ID - 9563431
Fix
Crash Information
County San Diego
City La Mesa
Date & Time (M/D/Y) 03/22/2023 03:41
Location (Intersection) 3rd St & Finley Av
Dist. & Dir. from Intersection 163.00 ft North
State Highway No
Geocoded Location 32.7633438, -117.0167389
Type of Crash F - Overturned
Motor Vehicle Involved
With
A - Non-Collision
Crash Severity 4 - Injury (Complaint of Pain)
PCF Violation Category 01 - Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Weather B - Cloudy
Alcohol Involved Yes
Pedestrian Crash No Bicycle Crash Yes
Motorcycle Crash No Truck Crash No
11/18/25, 7:27 AM TIMS - Crash Details
https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/details/main.php?no=9563431 1/3

Page 177 of 209 ends

Parties: 1
Party
Number
Party
Type
Statewide
Vehicle Type
At
Fault
Party
Direction
Movement
Preceding Collision
1 4 -
Bicyclist
L - Bicycle Yes North K - Parking Maneuver
Victims: 1
Party Number Victim Role Victim Gender Victim Age Victim Degree of Injury 1 4 - Bicyclist F - Female 22 7 - Possible Injury
Map View Fix Location
Map data ©2025 Google, INEGI Report a map error
Street View
11/18/25, 7:27 AM TIMS - Crash Details
https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/details/main.php?no=9563431 2/3

Page 178 of 209 ends

4619 3rd St
La Mesa, California
View on Google Maps
© 2025 Google Report a problem
11/18/25, 7:27 AM TIMS - Crash Details
https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/details/main.php?no=9563431 3/3

Page 179 of 209 ends

Case Listing

Page 870 ends

260285 2019 - Av. 2024/2025/2026 Crashes in the City of La Mesa, San Diego Co.

Report run on: 2/9/2026
Total Count: 4,474
City LA MESA County SAN DIEGO Population 5 Rpt Dist Beat 001 Type CalTrans Dist BadgeLM1206Crash Date 20230321 Time 1147 Day TUE Primary Crash Factor IMPROP TURN Violation 22107 Crash Type AUTO/PED Severity INJURY # Killed 0 # Injured 1 Tow Away? N Process Date 20230501 Weather1 RAINING Weather2 Rdwy Surface WET Rdwy Cond1 NO UNUSL CND Rdwy Cond2 Spec Cond 0 Hit and Run Motor Veh Involved With PED Lighting DAYLIGHT Ped Action IN RD, SHLDR Cntrl Dev NT PRS/FCTR Loc Type Ramp/Int Latitude Longitude Local Rpt # 23006982 Case ID 9563430 Primary Rd LEMON AV Distance(ft)I Direction Secondary Rd ACACIA AV NCIC 3708 State Hwy? N Route Postmile Prefix Postmile Side of Hwy

PARTY INFO VICTIM INFO
Party Type Age Sex Race Sobriety1 Sobriety2 Move Pre
Crash
Dir SW Veh Chp Veh Make Year Sp Info OAF1 Viol OAF2 Safety Equip Role Ext Of Inj Age Sex Seat Pos Safety Equip Ejected 1F DRVR 18 M B HNBD PARKING E A 0100 - 2019 - 3 N - M G 2 PRKD 998 - PARKED E A 0100 - 2018 - - N - - -
3 PED 35 F W HNBD OTHER - N 6000 - - - N - - - PED COMP PN 35 F - - - 0 City LA MESA County SAN DIEGO Population 5 Rpt Dist Beat 002 Type CalTrans Dist Badge IM1283Crash Date 20230322 Time 0341 Day WED Primary Crash Factor DRVR ALC|DRG Violation 212005 Crash Type OVERTURNED Severity INJURY # Killed 0 # Injured 1 Tow Away? Y Process Date 20230503 Weather1 CLOUDY Weather2 Rdwy Surface WET Rdwy Cond1 NO UNUSL CND Rdwy Cond2 Spec Cond 0 Hit and Run Motor Veh Involved With NON-CLSN Lighting DARK - ST LTS Ped Action Cntrl Dev NT PRS/FCTR Loc Type Ramp/Int Latitude Longitude Local Rpt # 23007040 Case ID 9563431 Primary Rd 3RD ST Distance(ft)163 Direction N Secondary Rd FINLEY AV NCIC 3708 State Hwy? N Route Postmile Prefix Postmile Side of Hwy

PARTY INFO VICTIM INFO
Party Type Age Sex Race Sobriety1 Sobriety2 Move Pre
Crash
Dir SW Veh Chp Veh Make Year Sp Info OAF1 Viol OAF2 Safety Equip Role Ext Of Inj Age Sex Seat Pos Safety Equip Ejected 1F BICY 22 F W HBD-UI PARKING N L 0400 - 2021 - - N - P A BICY COMP PN 22 F 1 P A 1 City LA MESA County SAN DIEGO Population 5 Rpt Dist Beat 028 Type 1 CalTrans Dist Badge 023234Crash Date 20230323 Time 1255 Day THU Primary Crash Factor UNSAFE SPEED Violation 22350 Crash Type REAR END Severity PDO # Killed 0 # Injured 0 Tow Away? N Process Date 20230404 Weather1 CLOUDY Weather2 Rdwy Surface DRY Rdwy Cond1 NO UNUSL CND Rdwy Cond2 Spec Cond 0 Hit and Run Motor Veh Involved With OTHER MV Lighting DAYLIGHT Ped Action Cntrl Dev NT PRS/FCTR Loc Type Ramp/Int Latitude 32.75880 Longitude 117.00548 Local Rpt # 9680-2023-00920 Case ID 92036806 Primary Rd SR-125 S/B Distance(ft)457 Direction S Secondary Rd MERRITT BLVD NCIC 9680 State Hwy? Y Route Postmile Prefix Postmile Side of Hwy

PARTY INFO VICTIM INFO
Party Type Age Sex Race Sobriety1 Sobriety2 Move Pre
Crash
Dir SW Veh Chp Veh Make Year Sp Info OAF1 Viol OAF2 Safety Equip Role Ext Of Inj Age Sex Seat Pos Safety Equip Ejected 1F DRVR 27 F W HNBD PROC ST S A 0100 HOND 2017 - 3 N - M G 2 DRVR 55 M W HNBD PROC ST S D 2200 CHEV 2011 - 3 N - M G 3 DRVR 43 F W HNBD PROC ST S A 0100 MAZD 2011 - 3 A 22350 - M G 4 DRVR 19 M H HNBD PROC ST S A 0100 SCIO 2005 - 3 N - M G 5 DRVR 28 F H HNBD PROC ST S A 0100 MITS 2015 - 3 N - M G

Page 870 of 1441 ends

Page 180 of 209 ends

Case Listing

Page 1395 ends

260285 2019 - Av. 2024/2025/2026 Crashes in the City of La Mesa, San Diego Co.

Report run on: 2/9/2026
Total Count: 4,474
City LA MESA County SAN DIEGO Population 5 Rpt Dist Beat 081 Type 1 CalTrans Dist Badge 015972Crash Date 20251015 Time 1655 Day WED Primary Crash Factor LANE CHANGE Violation 21658A Crash Type SIDESWIPE Severity INJURY # Killed 0 # Injured 1 Tow Away? Y Process Date 20251027 Weather1 CLEAR Weather2 Rdwy Surface DRY Rdwy Cond1 NO UNUSL CND Rdwy Cond2 Spec Cond 0 Hit and RunFELONY Motor Veh Involved With OTHER MV Lighting DAYLIGHT Ped Action Cntrl Dev NT PRS/FCTR Loc Type Ramp/Int Latitude 32.77963 Longitude 116.99751 Local Rpt # 9680-2025-03625 Case ID 94901823 INTERSTATE-8 W/B 40 W SEVERIN DRIVE 9680 Y
TO STATE ROUTE-1
Primary Rd Distance(ft) Direction Secondary Rd NCIC State Hwy? Route Postmile Prefix Postmile Side of Hwy

PARTY INFO VICTIM INFO
Party Type Age Sex Race Sobriety1 Sobriety2 Move Pre
Crash
Dir SW Veh Chp Veh Make Year Sp Info OAF1 Viol OAF2 Safety Equip Role Ext Of Inj Age Sex Seat Pos Safety Equip Ejected 1 DRVR 26 M H HNBD PROC ST W A 0100 TOYT 2015 - 4 N - M G DRVR POSSIBLE 26 M 1 M G 0 2 DRVR 52 M H HNBD STOPPED W A 0700 FORD 2023 - 4 N - M G 3 DRVR 30 M H HNBD STOPPED W A 0100 TOYT 2024 - 4 N - M G 4 DRVR 63 F H HNBD PROC ST W A 0800 TOYT 2007 - 4 N - M G 5F DRVR 998 - IMP UNK IMP UNK CHANG LN W - 9900 UNKNO - 4 N - B B City LA MESA County SAN DIEGO Population 5 Rpt Dist Beat 028 Type 1 CalTrans Dist Badge 023653Crash Date 20251016 Time 1524 Day THU Primary Crash Factor UNSAFE SPEED Violation 22350 Crash Type REAR END Severity PDO # Killed 0 # Injured 0 Tow Away? N Process Date 20251028 Weather1 CLEAR Weather2 Rdwy Surface DRY Rdwy Cond1 NO UNUSL CND Rdwy Cond2 Spec Cond 0 Hit and Run Motor Veh Involved With OTHER MV Lighting DAYLIGHT Ped Action Cntrl Dev NT PRS/FCTR Loc Type Ramp/Int Latitude 32.75794 Longitude 117.00656 Local Rpt # 9680-2025-03615 Case ID 94905828 Primary Rd SR-125 S/B Distance(ft)575 Direction N Secondary Rd PANORAMA DR NCIC 9680 State Hwy? Y Route Postmile Prefix Postmile Side of Hwy

PARTY INFO VICTIM INFO
Party Type Age Sex Race Sobriety1 Sobriety2 Move Pre
Crash
Dir SW Veh Chp Veh Make Year Sp Info OAF1 Viol OAF2 Safety Equip Role Ext Of Inj Age Sex Seat Pos Safety Equip Ejected 1F DRVR 21 M H HNBD PROC ST S A 0100 HOND 2010 - 3 N - M G 2 DRVR 25 F H HNBD SLOWING S A 0700 TESL 2026 - 3 N - M G City LA MESA County SAN DIEGO Population 5 Rpt Dist Beat 002 Type CalTrans Dist Badge 3708 Crash Date 20251017 Time 0710 Day FRI Primary Crash Factor STRTNG|BCKNG Violation 22106 Crash Type HIT OBJECT Severity PDO # Killed 0 # Injured 0 Tow Away? N Process Date 20260112 Weather1 CLEAR Weather2 Rdwy Surface DRY Rdwy Cond1 NO UNUSL CND Rdwy Cond2 Spec Cond 0 Hit and Run Motor Veh Involved With PKD MV Lighting DAYLIGHT Ped Action Cntrl Dev NT PRS/FCTR Loc Type Ramp/Int Latitude Longitude Local Rpt # 25025727 Case ID 9889961 Primary Rd FINLEY AV Distance(ft)151 Direction E Secondary Rd 3RD ST NCIC 3708 State Hwy? N Route Postmile Prefix Postmile Side of Hwy

Page 1395 of 1441 ends

Page 181 of 209 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTIONS

UPDATING THE PUBLIC COMMENT, TECHNOLOGY

DISRUPTION, AND PUBLIC OUTREACH POLICIES TO
COMPLY WITH STATE SENATE BILL 707 (“SB 707”)
REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO THE RALPH M.

BROWN ACT (“BROWN ACT”)
DESCRIPTION: A. RESOLUTION AMENDING ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY A-4: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL
AND BOARD AND COMMISSION MEETINGS;
B. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A DISRUPTION OF

TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE POLICY FOR
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS;
C. RESOLUTION DETERMINING REASONABLE

EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

IN COUNCIL MEETINGS PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953.4
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
Recommendation:

That the Council adopt the following draft resolutions:

A. Resolution amending the Public Comment Policy for City Council and Board and Commission meetings (Attachment “B”);
B. Resolution adopting a disruption of telephonic or internet service policy for City Council meetings (Attachment “C”); and
C. Resolution determining reasonable efforts to encourage public participation in City Council meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4. (Attachment “D”)

Page 182 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 2 of 7
Fiscal Impact:

None.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Nurture an organizational culture where employees are recognized for the delivery of high-quality services to the community.

BACKGROUND:

Governor Newsom signed SB 707 into law on October 3, 2025, amending the requirements of the Brown Act and establishing new standards intended to expand public access to meetings of local legislative bodies. Certain provisions of SB 707 became effective on January 1, 2026, while additional requirements apply to eligible legislative bodies beginning July 1, 2026. The Council qualifies as an eligible legislative body pursuant to SB 707 and, therefore, is required to comply with both phases of the law.

Staff previously provided a memorandum summarizing the law that became effective on January 1, 2026 (Attachment “A”). The remaining provisions of the law (effective on July 1, 2026) include requirements for the Council to provide hybrid meetings allowing for both in-person and remote participation, adopt policies addressing technology disruptions during meetings and establishing “reasonable efforts” for outreach encouraging public participation (particularly among underrepresented and non-English-speaking communities).

DISCUSSION:

SB 707 provisions effective July 1, 2026:

Hybrid Meetings
Beginning July 1, 2026, members of the public must be provided the opportunity to attend and participate in Council meetings through either a two-way telephonic service (which does not require internet access) or a two-way audiovisual platform supporting both video conferencing and telephonic participation.

To comply with these requirements, staff will utilize Zoom Webinar technology to facilitate hybrid Council meetings, similar to the format used during the virtual meetings held throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The platform includes real-time captioning and allows remote participants to view and listen to the meeting, as well as provide public comment when called upon by the City Clerk. For both non-agenda

Page 183 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 3 of 7
public comment and comments on specific agenda items, remote speakers will be called first, followed by in-person participants. Remote participants may join either by telephone or virtually through the webinar platform; however, for security purposes, the video, screen-sharing, and chat features for attendees will be disabled, and microphones will remain muted until enabled by staff at the appropriate time for public comment.

SB 707 further requires that members of the public participating remotely be provided the opportunity to comment in real time through the same remote platform and receive the same time allotment as in-person speakers.

To effectively manage public comment during hybrid meetings, staff recommends the following procedures:
 The opportunity to request to speak on an item, whether in person or remotely, will close when the Mayor opens public comment on that item.  An announcement will be made at the close of each public comment period, including non-agenda public comment and each agenda item, indicating that the opportunity to submit a speaker card or raise a virtual hand has ended.  Microphones for both in-person and remote speakers will be muted once the speaker’s allotted time has elapsed.

The proposed policy (Exhibit “A” to Attachment “B”) updates the City’s existing public comment policy to incorporate these recommendations and establish procedures intended to ensure equitable treatment for all speakers.

The hybrid meeting requirements apply only to the Council and do not extend to the City’s boards, commissions, or subcommittees, although SB 707 permits local agencies to apply such procedures to those bodies. At this time, staff is not recommending implementation of optional hybrid meeting requirements for boards and commissions due to resource impacts.

Technology Disruption Policy
Government Code Section 54953.4 requires the Council to adopt a technology disruption policy by July 1, 2026. The policy must establish procedures for responding to disruptions of telephonic or internet service during a meeting, including the efforts the Council will undertake to restore remote access.

If a disruption occurs that prevents members of the public from observing or participating in a Council meeting through the required two-way telephonic or audiovisual platform, the Council must recess the open session and make a good faith effort to restore service. During the recess, the City Council may meet in closed

Page 184 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 4 of 7
session, as otherwise permitted by law. Open session may not reconvene until at least one hour has elapsed or service has been restored, whichever occurs first.

If service has not been restored upon reconvening, the Council must, by roll call vote, make findings that good faith efforts were made to restore remote access and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in providing remote access. Alternatively, the meeting may be adjourned.

The proposed policy (Exhibit “A” to Attachment “C”) incorporates these statutory requirements and establishes procedures intended to ensure transparency and continuity of Council meetings in the event of a technology disruption, while maintaining flexibility to respond based on the specific circumstances of the disruption.

These requirements apply only to disruptions affecting the City’s two-way telephonic or audiovisual meeting platform, such as Zoom or any successor platform used to facilitate remote participation, and do not apply to passive viewing services such as livestreaming or local television broadcasts.

Reasonable Efforts for Outreach
Government Code Section 54953.4 requires the Council to determine and adopt what constitutes “reasonable efforts” to encourage participation in Council meetings, particularly among underrepresented communities and non-English-speaking communities.

The proposed resolution (Attachment “D”) establishes the City’s approach to outreach.

This approach includes inviting participation in Council meetings, as opportunities arise and consistent with available resources, from:
 Media organizations serving the City
 Community-based organizations
 Neighborhood groups
 Civic or community organizations, including those serving non-Englishspeaking communities The statute provides the Council with broad discretion in defining these reasonable efforts and clarifies that failure to provide notice to any specific group does not create a basis for legal action. The proposed policy is intended to provide a flexible framework for reasonable outreach efforts and will be implemented consistent with available resources and evolving communication practices.

Page 185 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 5 of 7
Translations
SB 707 requires translation of agendas and public meeting information webpages into “applicable languages” based on the most recent American Community Survey data of the population served. “Applicable languages” are defined as any language spoken jointly by 20% or more of an applicable population that speaks English less than “very well” according to American Community Survey data. Staff have reviewed the language data and determined that the City does not meet the 20% threshold required for translation of any given language.

SB 707 also requires public agencies to reasonably assist any member of the public who wishes to translate a meeting or wishes to receive interpretation provided by another member of the public, so long as the interpretation does not disrupt the meeting.

Reasonable assistance may include arranging space for interpreters at the meeting location, allowing extra time during the meeting for interpretation, or ensuring that participants may use personal equipment or reasonably access commercially available interpretation services. The City is not required to provide interpretation of meetings and will but will include more information on the agenda on how to request assistance to accommodate a self-provided interpreter at a public meeting.

However, the City is required to provide a physical location for members of the public to post their own translations of agendas in reasonable proximity to the physical location in which Council meeting agendas are posted. Meeting agendas are generally available on the posting boards near the front gate of City Hall and outside the Council Chamber. A posting board has been installed near the front gate of City Hall for such translations.

Teleconference Provisions
Traditional teleconference provisions
SB 707 does not update traditional teleconference rules, which still remain an option with no limit on number of meetings. Under the traditional teleconference rules in Government Code Section 54953(b), at least a quorum of the legislative body must be present within the city during the meeting, the teleconference location must be identified in the meeting notice and agenda, the meeting agenda must be posted at the teleconference location, and the teleconference location must be accessible to the public.

Alternative teleconference provisions (just cause)
SB707 establishes alternative teleconference rules for just cause and emergency circumstances in addition to the traditional teleconference rules (new California Government Code Section 54953.8.3). A teleconference for just cause is authorized if a quorum of the legislative body participates in person from the meeting location listed on

Page 186 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 6 of 7
the agenda. When participating remotely for just cause, the teleconferencing member is required to participate for the entire duration of the meeting through both audio and visual technology, but is not required to post the agenda at their location or open their physical location to the public. Members are limited to a certain number of “just cause” teleconference meetings based on the number of times the legislative body meets per month; in La Mesa the limitation would be five Council meetings per year.

The meeting minutes must reflect the specific provision of law authorizing the member to teleconference. Just cause reasoning teleconferencing includes:
 Contagious illness
 Care for child, parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse or domestic partner  A need related to physical or mental condition that does not qualify as a reasonable accommodation for a disability
 Travel on official business of the agency
 Physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person
 To protect an immunocompromised close relative from exposure to illness  Military service
Alternative teleconferencing for subsidiary bodies and boards and commissions Mandatory use of alternative teleconferencing does not apply to Council subcommittees or any of the City’s boards or commissions unless the Council authorizes use. Such authorization must be reauthorized every six months confirming that it serves the public interest.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations
Government Code Section 54953(c) authorizes any member of a legislative body (including boards and commissions) with a disability to participate remotely in meetings as a reasonable accommodation.

If a reasonable accommodation request is granted, the legislative body member must:
 Participate with audio and video technology, unless the disability necessitates participation without video.
 Disclose the presence of anyone 18 years or older and the general relationship to the legislative body member before any action is taken (at the start of the meeting and whenever thereafter there is a change to who is present).

Remote participation as a disability accommodation qualifies as in-person attendance for all purposes, including a quorum.

Page 187 of 209 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: June 9, 2026
Page: 7 of 7
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the Council adopt the following draft resolutions:

Resolution amending the Public Comment Policy for City Council and Board and Commission meetings;
Resolution adopting a disruption of telephonic or internet service policy for City Council meetings; and
Resolution determining reasonable efforts to encourage public participation in City Council meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Megan Wiegelman
City Manager City Clerk
Attachments: A. Memo to City Council regarding SB 707 January 1, 2026, provisions dated January 12, 2026
B. Resolution amending the Public Comment Policy
i. Exhibit A – Administrative Policy A-4: Public Comment for City Council and Board and Commission Meetings
C. Resolution adopting a telephonic or internet disruption policy for City Council meetings
i. Exhibit A – Administrative Policy A-5: Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During City Council Meetings
D. Resolution determining reasonable efforts to encourage public participation in City Council meetings

Page 188 of 209 ends

DATE: January 12, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
SUBJECT: SB 707: Open Meetings: Meeting and Teleconference Requirements
This memorandum provides a brief overview of the Senate Bill 707 amendments to the Ralph M. Brown Act that took effect on January 1, 2026, and apply to the City Council and Boards and Commissions. Additional provisions take effect on July 1, 2026, and staff will provide updates as the implementation details are finalized.

General Provisions

1.) The Brown Act will be required to be distributed to all elected and appointed officials, including City Council and Boards and Commissions members.

The Leg Info page should be updated on January 1, so a full copy of the Brown Act with SB 707 incorporated will be available at that time. The City Clerk’s Office will download a copy and provide it electronically to our legislative body members including all Board members and Commissioners.

2.) Members of a legislative body may participate remotely as a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

This will be addressed on an as-requested basis, with the City Clerk’s Office coordinating with the City Attorney’s Office and Risk Management to develop procedures for these circumstances.

3.) Verbal report on Executive and Department Head Compensation (expands existing requirements for a verbal summary before final action on salaries, salary schedules, or fringe benefits to now explicitly include department heads and similar administrative officers, in addition to local agency executives.

The City Clerk’s Office will work with the Human Resources Department and the City Attorney’s Office to ensure compliance with this provision moving forward.

ATTACHMENT A

Page 189 of 209 ends

4.) Expanded Prohibition on Special Meetings Regarding Salaries for the Legislative Body. Special meetings may not be called to discuss the salaries or benefits of the legislative body itself, in addition to local agency executives.

The City Clerk’s Office will work with the Human Resources Department and the City Attorney’s Office to ensure compliance with this provision moving forward.
“Just Cause” Teleconferencing Provisions

1.) A quorum must be physically present at a single location. Remote participation is limited to a specified number of times per year and requires both audio and video.
• Two (2) meetings per year if the legislative body regularly meets once per month or less;
• Five (5) meetings per year if the body regularly meets twice per month;
• Seven (7) meetings per year if the body regularly meets three or more times per month.

2.) “Just cause” includes, but is not limited to: childcare or caregiving responsibilities; contagious illness; physical or mental conditions not covered under the ADA; travel while on official business; care for an immunocompromised family member; physical or family medical emergencies; and military operations.

3.) Boards and Commissions may only utilize these provisions if remote public participation is offered.

Remote public participation is not currently permitted for Boards and Commissions.

Teleconferencing for Eligible Subsidiary Bodies (Boards, Commissions, and Standing Subcommittees)

1.) One in-person meeting location is required, where staff, any attending Board or Commission members, and the public may be present. • If Board and Commission members are permitted to participate remotely, remote public participation is required.
• Initial approval by the City Council is required, with reauthorization every six months.
• The subsidiary body must also approve the use of teleconferencing. • These provisions apply only to advisory bodies that do not oversee budgets, elections, privacy matters, or library material access.

Page 190 of 209 ends

2.) Subsidiary bodies may request to present recommendations to the City Council; such recommendations must be heard within 60 days and agendized as a discussion item (not on the consent calendar).

This provision may be implemented at the discretion of the Council.

Teleconferencing is not being utilized at this time due to limited staffing resources.

Staff will continue to review these requirements and return to Council with any necessary policy updates or implementation recommendations.

Page 191 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA AMENDING ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY A-4: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL AND

BOARD AND COMMISSION MEETINGS
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, the City Council approved Administrative Policy A-4:

Public Comment for City Council and Board and Commission Meetings, and subsequently approved amendments to the policy on February 27, 2024; WHEREAS, on October 3, 2025, Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) was signed by the Governor making significant changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act, or the Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) with provisions becoming effective on January 1, 2026, and July 1, 2026; WHEREAS, SB 707 is intended to diversify and increase public engagement in local government and modernize the Brown Act in the face of technological advancements; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that amendments to Administrative Policy A-4: Public Comment for City Council and Board and commission Meetings, are necessary to include the new requirements mandated by the changes to the Brown Act and clarify meeting requirements for the City Council and the City’s Boards and Commissions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council approves the amended Administrative Policy A4: Public Comment for City Council and Board and Commission Meetings, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 192 of 209 ends

Exhibit “A”
Policy & Procedure

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD AND

COMMISSION MEETINGS

1. PURPOSE
The opinions of the citizens of La Mesa are an important factor in helping the Council, Boards, and Commissions make decisions. Public participation in the meetings assures a transparent and accountable local government.

2. POLICY
The public may address the Council, Board, or Commission (“legislative body”) during general public comment at the beginning of each meeting and during the public comment portion of each item on the agenda. Each member of the public will have three minutes to address the Council, Board, or Commission, unless the Mayor or Chair publicly requires less time or authorizes additional time in advance. For efficiency purposes, groups or organizations are encouraged to appoint a spokesperson to speak on behalf of a common interest group or organization. Time cannot be combined or yielded to another speaker (e.g. no time donations) unless authorized by the Mayor or Chair. Speakers that require a translator will be given double the allotted time. • General Public Comment: Occurs at the beginning of a meeting. This portion of the meeting is set aside to give the public an opportunity to speak on any City-related item that does not appear on the agenda. State law prohibits the legislative body from taking action or engaging in discussions on items not listed on the agenda. If appropriate, comments may be referred to staff or placed on a future agenda.
• Agenda Item Public Comment: The public is able to provide comments on each item on the agenda. Comments are to pertain to the specific agenda item. The Mayor or Chair will announce when public comment is open for an item and when it has closed. Public Comment for any items on the Consent Calendar will be taken prior to the consideration of the Consent Calendar (the Consent Calendar is a grouping of routine matters to be approved in one motion).

Number A-4
Department City Clerk
Issued 01/11/2022
Revised 06/09/2026
Pages 3
Signed

Page 193 of 209 ends

Administrative Instruction No. A-4
Public Comment for City Council and Board and Commission Meetings

Page 2 ends

Public comment at meetings of a legislative body may be presented in one of three ways:
1) Remote Oral Public Comment (City Council meetings only) a) All public comment begins with the remote oral portion. b) The Mayor or Chair will open public comment on any item with the remote oral portion.
i. The opportunity to request to speak on an item will close when the Mayor or Chair opens public comment on that item.
c) One staff person may be dedicated to the remote oral public comment component.
d) Staff will announce the number of individuals queued (raised hands) for remote oral comment.
i. If there are no remote oral comments, the Mayor or Chair will move to in-person public comment.
e) The staff person will enable the first attendee in the queue with their hand raised to speak.
i. Staff will announce the speaker’s name as displayed in the attendee list (i.e., the name provided upon joining the meeting), or the last four digits of the phone number displayed, and inform the speaker they may unmute their microphone and will have three minutes (or the allotted time determined by the Mayor or Chair) to address the City Council.
ii. Remote oral speakers will be notified by staff, an audio signal, or a visual countdown time, when they have approximately 30 seconds remaining.
iii. When the person has completed their comment or the allotted time has expired, the staff person will revoke the attendee’s ability to talk.

1. The staff person should also remove the person from the queue or lower the person’s hand if raised electronically. iv. Remote oral public comment speakers will be muted when the allotted time has elapsed.
f) After the last person in the queue has spoken, the Mayor or Chair will proceed to in-person comments.
2) In-person Public Comment
a) In-person public comments will be taken following remote oral public comments (City Council meetings only).
i. The opportunity to request to speak on an item will close when the Mayor or Chair opens public comment on that item.
b) Members of the public wishing to address the legislative body are requested to submit a “Request to Speak” card prior to general public comment or the agenda item they wish to speak on.
i. The words “Public Comment” or the applicable agenda item number should be written in the upper right-hand corner of the “Request to Speak” card.
c) Individuals who prefer to submit written comments instead of speaking may

Page 194 of 209 ends

Administrative Instruction No. A-4
Public Comment for City Council and Board and Commission Meetings

Page 3 ends

complete a “Written Statement” card.
i. “Written Statement” cards will be reviewed by the legislative body and made a part of the official record.

1. The Mayor or Chair may choose to read aloud the submitted “Written Statement” cards.
ii. “Written Statement” cards must be submitted prior to general public comment or the applicable agenda item.
d) The “Request to Speak” and “Written Statement” cards are to be submitted to the staff person facilitating the meeting (e.g., City Clerk or staff liaison). e) City staff will arrange the submitted “Request to Speak” and “Written Statement” cards, to the extent practicable, in the order received and by agenda item and then provide to the Mayor or Chair.
f) In-person speakers will be notified by staff, an audio signal, or a visual countdown timer, when they have approximately 30 seconds remaining.

The microphone will be muted when the allotted time has elapsed. g) Following the last in-person speaker, the Mayor or Chair will return the floor to the legislative body for discussion and action.
h) For all legislative bodies other than the City Council, following the final inperson speaker or "Request to Speak" card, the Chair will close public comment on the item.
3) Electronic Comments (eComments)
a) eComments will be activated once an agenda is published. i. Council agendas are published a minimum of 72 hours prior to the Tuesday Regular meeting. All Board and Commission agendas are posted a minimum of 72 hours prior to their Regular meeting date.

For Special meetings, the agendas are posted no less than 24 hours prior to the meeting.
b) A member of the public who wishes to submit an eComment will need to locate the meeting in “upcoming meetings” and click the comment bubble icon and then the item they wish to comment on.
c) eComments may be submitted when the agenda is published and up until 24 hours prior to the meeting.
i. For Special meetings, eComments may be submitted up until 2 hours prior to the meeting.
d) eComments are limited to 500 words and one comment per email address per item.
e) eComments will be posted to the agenda following the close of the eComment submission period (24 hours prior to the meeting). i. Once posted, the eComments may be viewed by the legislative body and members of the public.
f) eComments will not be read aloud as a regular meeting item; however, any member of the legislative body or member of the public may do so during their respective comment time.

Page 195 of 209 ends

Administrative Instruction No. A-4
Public Comment for City Council and Board and Commission Meetings

Page 4 ends

Emailed comments will be forwarded to the legislative body but will not be read aloud at the meeting. In addition, emailed comments will not be made part of the official record (will not be included in the agenda packet or meeting minutes) but will be retained pursuant to the City’s Retention Schedule.

All agendas shall provide information on the three ways in which public comment may be presented at a meeting of the legislative body.

Page 196 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING

A DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE POLICY FOR CITY

COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, or Brown Act, (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) establishes requirements for open and public meetings of local legislative bodies; WHEREAS, Senate Bill 707 (SB 707, 2025) amended the Brown Act to update teleconferencing and accessibility requirements, including provisions related to remote participation in public meetings;
WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4(b)(1)(A) requires eligible legislative bodies, on or before July 1, 2026, to adopt at a noticed public meeting in open session, and not on the consent calendar, a policy addressing disruption of telephonic or internet service during meetings conducted with remote participation;
WHEREAS, the required policy must address procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption and the efforts the legislative body will make to attempt to restore service;
WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4 further requires that, in the event of a disruption preventing members of the public from observing or participating in the meeting through a two way telephonic or audiovisual platform, the legislative body shall recess the open session and make a good faith effort to restore service, and may not reconvene open session until at least one hour has passed or service has been restored, whichever occurs first; WHEREAS, if telephonic or internet service has not been restored upon reconvening, the legislative body must make findings by roll call vote that good faith efforts to restore service have been made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access;
WHEREAS, adoption of a technology disruption policy is required to ensure compliance with state law and to promote transparency and continuity of public meetings; and WHEREAS, the proposed Administrative Policy addressing disruption of telephonic or internet service during City Council meetings has been prepared in accordance with Government Code § 54953.4 and is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council adopts the Administrative policy entitled “Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During City Council Meetings,” in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 197 of 209 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 198 of 209 ends

Exhibit “A”
Policy & Procedure

DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE DURING CITY COUNCIL

MEETINGS

1. PURPOSE
Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to adopt, on or before July 1, 2026, a policy addressing how the agency will respond to disruptions in telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from attending or observing a meeting remotely. This policy is adopted to comply with that requirement and to ensure continuity of public participation during technical disruptions.

This policy establishes procedures for responding to a disruption in the telephonic or internet services that provide two-way remote public access to meetings of the City Council, as required by the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54953.4). The policy ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions.

2. POLICY

1. Definitions
For purposes of this policy:
• “Disruption” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via these remote access services.
• “Remote access services” means the two-way telephonic service and/or two-way audiovisual platform used to provide real-time remote public attendance and observation of meetings.

Number A-5
Department City Clerk
Issued 06/09/2026
Revised
Pages 3
Signed

Page 199 of 209 ends

2. Applicability
This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the City Council at which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act.

3. Procedures in the Event of a Service Disruption

3.1.Response to Service Disruption
If the Presiding Officer or City Clerk becomes aware of a disruption to the agency’s remote access services that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely:

1. The Presiding Officer or City Clerk shall immediately announce the disruption to the public.

2. The Presiding Officer may then call for a recess of the open session or convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act.

3. Staff shall begin efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service.

4. The meeting shall remain in recess for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is sooner. The recess period may be extended if restoration efforts are ongoing.

3.2.Efforts to Restore Service
Staff or designated contractors shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include:
• Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software • Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment
• Attempting alternative connection methods
• Contacting necessary support staff or service providers • Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available The City Clerk, in consultation with staff or designated contractors, shall document the restoration efforts undertaken.

4. Reconvening the Open Session

4.1.Timing
The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of disruption or as soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.

Page 200 of 209 ends

4.2.If Service Is Restored
If the remote access service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting shall continue as normal.

4.3.If Service Is NOT Restored
If service has not been restored after one hour, the City Council may reconvene and:

1. Adjourn the meeting; or

2. Continue the meeting in open session by adopting, by roll call vote, the following, or a substantially similar, finding:
“City staff have made good faith efforts to restore telephonic or internet service in accordance with the adopted Administrative policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.” Upon adoption of the finding, the City Council may continue the open session despite the fact that remote access services have not been restored.

5. Recordkeeping
The City Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including the following:
• The nature and time of the disruption
• The restoration efforts undertaken
• The time the meeting was reconvened (if applicable)
• Any finding adopted pursuant to Section 6.3

6. Review and Updates
This policy may be amended by the City Council at a noticed public meeting in open session, not on the consent calendar.

Page 201 of 209 ends

ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

DETERMINING REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953.4
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, or Brown Act, (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) establishes requirements for open and public meetings of local legislative bodies; WHEREAS, Senate Bill 707 (SB 707, 2025) amended the Brown Act to include additional requirements to encourage participation in public meetings, particularly among underrepresented communities and non-English speaking communities;
WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4(b)(3)(C) requires ethe City Council to determine and make reasonable efforts to invite groups that do not traditionally participate in public meetings to attend those meetings;
WHEREAS, such reasonable efforts may include outreach to media organizations serving the jurisdiction, including those serving non-English speaking communities, as well as civic, neighborhood, community-based, civil rights, and good government organizations; WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4(b)(3)(C)(ii) provides legislative bodies with broad discretion in determining appropriate reasonable efforts and clarifies that no action shall arise from failing to provide notice to any specific group; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa is committed to promoting transparency, accessibility, and broad public participation in its public meetings; and WHEREAS, the City currently utilizes a variety of communication methods to inform the public of City Council meetings and opportunities to participate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council determines the following to constitute reasonable efforts to encourage participation in City Council meetings pursuant to Government Code § 54953.4(b)(3)(C):

1. Electronic Access and Agenda Subscription (Notify Me): Members of the public may subscribe to receive City Council and other City board, commission, and committee agendas and meeting notices by email and/or text message through the City’s Notify Me service available on the City’s website.

2. Public Participation Information: The City maintains current information on its website regarding participation in City Council meetings, including procedures for providing inperson, remote, and written public comment, and access to City Council agendas and related meeting materials.

Page 202 of 209 ends

3. Media and Good Governance Group Outreach: The City makes reasonable efforts to invite groups that do not traditionally participate in public meetings to attend those meetings, including media and good governance organizations. Outreach to this group includes an email notification of special meetings to media organizations; posting of public participation information at the City Hall bulletin boards and at the La Mesa library; and direct email notifications, when applicable.

4. Community and Organizational Outreach: Provide meeting information through existing City communication channels and partnerships with community-based organizations, neighborhood groups, and civic or community organizations, including those serving non-English speaking communities, as opportunities arise and consistent with available resources.

5. City Manager Update: Members of the public may subscribe to the City Manager Update, a biweekly publication that provides information on recent and upcoming City Council agenda items and other topics of community interest.

6. Flexible and Evolving Methods: The City may utilize additional reasonable outreach methods, as appropriate, including the City’s website, email notifications, partnerships with community organizations, and other communication platforms that may develop over time.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these efforts are intended to provide a flexible framework for outreach and shall be implemented consistent with available resources and evolving communication practices.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of June 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 203 of 209 ends

DATE: June 9, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Mark Arapostathis
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF LETTER OF SUPPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES FOR TORT

REFORMS
Recent analysis coordinated by the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) shows that liability claims against public agencies have tripled in seven years, rising from $451 million to $1.27 billion, with annual costs projected to reach $2.1 billion by 2027–28. Plaintiffs’ attorneys routinely collect 30% to 50% of every taxpayer-funded settlement, amounting to over $500 million in contingency fees annually statewide Agencies across the state, including those with few or no claims, are experiencing double-digit premium increases and pressure on general fund resources A broad statewide coalition of cities, counties, school agencies, and JPAs is urging the Legislature to enact reforms that:
 Establish reasonable caps on damages;
 Restore proportional liability so taxpayers pay only for harm attributable to the public agency;
 Apply heightened evidentiary standards for decades-old claims where records no longer exist.

These reforms are intended to preserve services, protect taxpayers, and maintain fairness while still ensuring survivors can seek justice.

The City of La Mesa is a member agency of the Public Entity Risk Management Authority (PERMA), which is participating in this effort. CAJPA has requested support from PERMA member agencies, including authorization to place each agency’s logo on the coalition letter to the Legislature.

Attachment: Coalition Support for Public Agency Tort Reform

Page 204 of 209 ends

pg 1
Date: May 20, 2026
To: Members, California State Legislature
From: Association of California School Administrators; California Association of School Business Officials; California Association of Joint Powers Authorities; California Latino School Boards Association; California School Boards Association; League of California Cities; League of United Latin American Citizens; Los Angeles Unified School District; Rural County Representatives of California; Schools Excess Liability Fund
Re: Urgent Need for Comprehensive Tort Reform to Protect California Taxpayers, Survivors, and Essential Public Services
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we urge the Legislature to enact meaningful tort reform for civil actions against public entities. New data released by the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) confirms what our members have been warning lawmakers about for years: publicentity liability costs have tripled in the last seven years, now exceeding $7 billion in known exposure.

Costs are on pace to grow another 70 percent by 2027–28. The fiscal trajectory is unsustainable, the structure of liability is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers, and the consequences are now measured in billions of dollars diverted away from classrooms, fire stations, roads, mental health services, and the essential programs Californians depend on every day.

Our organizations share a deep and unwavering commitment to ensuring that survivors of harm receive justice, support, and meaningful compensation. California’s public agencies are not asking for insulation from accountability. We do not seek to deny survivors their day in court. Instead, we seek to fix a system that, as currently structured, transfers enormous wealth to plaintiffs’ law firms and threatens the financial solvency of the very public agencies tasked with protecting and serving our vulnerable community members. The longer the Legislature waits, the more public services will be cut, the more agencies will face insolvency.

The Path Forward. We urge the Legislature to advance a comprehensive tort reform package for civil actions against public entities that, at minimum, includes the following:
• Defined benefits including caps on damages in civil actions against public entities, ensuring survivors and other injured parties are made whole while preserving the capacity to deliver essential public services.
• Proportional (several) liability for economic damages in civil actions against public entities, so that taxpayers pay only for the share of harm actually attributable to the public agency. This way the perpetrators bear the cost of their own conduct and not taxpayers. • Heightened evidentiary and procedural standards for claims where witnesses, records, and evidence archives are absent or insufficient to assign culpability.

Page 205 of 209 ends

pg 2
Why are Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Being Diverted from Essential Services? AB 218 (Gonzalez, Chapter 861, Statutes of 2019) related to childhood sexual assault is one stark driver, but it is not the only one. Across the spectrum of civil litigation against public entities — from premises liability to dangerous conditions — plaintiffs’ firms are increasingly targeting governmental defendants precisely because they are perceived as having the deepest pockets. The result is an unreasonable transfer of public resources to private wealth that the Legislature has both the power and the responsibility to address.

How Are Claims Against Public Entities Funded? Most cities, counties, special districts, and school districts in California do not purchase liability coverage from traditional commercial insurance carriers because it is either too expensive, does not provide sufficient coverage, or is simply not offered. Instead, they self-fund their liability coverage or they collectively pool risk through Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs), which are not insurance companies with large capital reserves. Every self-funded claim, including those paid out of a JPA, comes from taxpayer-funded member contributions paid by cities, counties, schools, and other public agencies from the same general fund dollars that pay for police officers, firefighters, teachers, road crews, and homelessness response.

When a JPA pays out claims of magnitude, every member agency in that pool feels it through higher premiums, the potential need for special assessments, reduced coverage limits, and/or increasingly, the inability to obtain coverage at all. Public agencies that have never had a single AB 218 claim filed against them are facing double-digit premium increases. For schools, this means Proposition 98 education dollars intended to support today’s students are paying for decades-old liabilities. Even for cities and counties that have few claims filed against them it means delaying critical infrastructure maintenance and reducing local government’s ability to provide social-safety-net services to the most vulnerable Californians.

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Are on Track to Profit Over Half a Billion Taxpayer Dollars Every Year. In civil actions against public entities, plaintiffs’ counsel commonly recover contingency fees of 40 percent or more of the gross judgment or settlement. Even using a conservative 30 percent contingency assumption, estimated plaintiff attorney fees in actions against California public entities have climbed to over $500 million annually. In many individual cases, attorney fees approach 50 percent of the taxpayer-funded settlement or award. That means that for every $10 million paid by a city, county, JPA, or school district, as much as $4 to $5 million is paid to a private law firm. It does not go to the survivor, nor does it go to mental health services, prevention or victim assistance, or back to the taxpayers who funded the payment. Plaintiffs’ firms are, in many cases, the single largest beneficiaries of the current system.

Caps on Damages Are Essential to Preserve Public Services and Solvency. Support for meaningful tort reform must include caps on damages in actions against public entities. Without such caps, the cascading effects of recent legislation will only worsen, and the very real threat of insolvency among California’s public agencies, already materializing in some regions, will only accelerate. California already imposes reasonable limits in medical malpractice cases under MICRA, recognizing the public interest in such restrictions. The same principle should apply when taxpayer dollars are the source of the payment.

Public Entities Should Pay in Proportion to Their Actual Fault — Not for the Crimes of Others. Under California’s current liability structure, a public entity found just one percent at fault can be ordered to pay the entirety of a plaintiff’s economic damages — even when the overwhelming majority of fault lies with a criminal actor who has no assets to satisfy a judgment.

The result is morally indefensible: perpetrators escape financial accountability for their conduct, while taxpayers — through their cities, counties, transit agencies, and school districts — are forced to pay for

Page 206 of 209 ends

pg 3
the harm that resulted. It allows perpetrators to walk away while public services are gutted to satisfy awards for conduct the public entity did not commit. The Legislature must restore proportional (several) liability for economic damages in actions against public entities, so that they are responsible only for the share of harm attributable to the public agency’s own conduct.

Survivors Deserve Their Day in Court, and Public Entities Deserve a Meaningful Opportunity to Defend. Restoring balance to AB 218 claims involving decades-old conduct does not require closing the courthouse door to survivors. Rather, it requires recognizing that, after decades have passed, the records and witnesses needed to fairly adjudicate a claim are often incomplete or simply gone. For claims involving conduct that occurred decades ago, we urge the Legislature to restore balance by reinstating a prior-knowledge requirement, paired with a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Prior to AB 218, California law permitted survivors to bring claims against public entities outside the statute of limitations, when a plaintiff could show the entity "knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct" by the perpetrator and failed to implement reasonable safeguards. That framework provided a meaningful path to justice for survivors with evidence of institutional culpability while also protecting taxpayers from liability for conduct the public entity had no realistic means to anticipate, prevent, or now defend against.

Our coalition stands ready to work with the Legislature, the Administration, and the survivor community to craft a balanced, durable solution so that necessary action can be taken now. Detailed findings and supporting data are available in CAJPA’s recent report, Protecting Public Funds: The Rising Cost of Claims Against California Public Entities. Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions or to discuss specific legislative vehicles.

Sincerely,
Faith Borges
Legislative Advocate
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
Sara Pietrowski
Chief Governmental Relations Officer
CA Association of School Business Officials
Chris Reefe
Legislative Director
CA School Boards Association
Dorothy Johnson
Legislative Advocate
Association of California School Administrators
Leilani Aguinaldo
Legislative Advocate
Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF)
Martha Alvarez
Chief of Legislative Affairs and Government Relations
Los Angeles Unified School District

Page 207 of 209 ends

pg 4
Deborah Bautista Zavala
Interim Executive Director
California Latino School Boards Association
Jacob Sandoval
State Director, California LULAC
Board Member, National LULAC
Sarah Dukett
Senior Policy Advocate
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Johnnie Pína
Legislative Advocate
League of California Cities
cc: Office of California State Governor Gavin
Newsom

Page 208 of 209 ends

DATE: June 9, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vice Mayor Lauren Cazares
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW THE

INTERSECTION OF BALTIMORE DRIVE AND LAKE PARK WAY FOR

TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS

Page 209 of 209 ends

La Mesa City CouncilJune 9, 2026

La Mesa City Council
June 9, 2026