LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting of the City Council
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2026, 6:00 p.m.
Location: City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Elected
Officials:
Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Lauren Cazares
Councilmember Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Genevieve Suzuki
City Treasurer Matthew Strabone
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
The City Council meeting may be viewed in-person or live on Cox Cable Channel 24 (within La Mesa City limits), AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 (in the San Diego Region), the City’s website (www.cityoflamesa.gov), the City's YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/cityoflamesa) or using the following Zoom Webinar options:
The public may view the meeting live using the following remote options:
Teleconference Meeting Webinar
https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1606535921
Telephone (Audio only)
(669) 216-1590 or (669) 254-5252 Webinar ID: 160 653 5921 Copy and paste the webinar link into your internet browser if the webinar link does not work directly from the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Each member of the public will have three (3) minutes to address the Council. The Mayor or presiding officer may adjust the allotted speaking time based on the number of speakers or other meeting considerations. The timer begins when the participant begins speaking. Time cannot be combined or yielded to another speaker. No further comments will be entertained after the Mayor or presiding officer closes public comment.
In-Person comments during the meeting: Join us for the City Council meeting at the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments. Please complete a “Request to Speak” card and submit it to the Council Hostess. When the Mayor identifies you, you may step to the podium and state your name for the record. •
Remote Public Comments: To provide remote oral public comments during the meeting, join the Zoom meeting by computer, mobile phone, or dial in number. On Zoom video conference by computer or mobile phone, use the "Raise Hand" feature. This will notify the moderator that you wish to speak during a specific item on the agenda or during nonagenda Public Comment. Members of the public will not be shown on video but will be able to speak when called upon. If joining the meeting using the Zoom dial-in number, you may raise your hand by pressing *9.
•
How to submit eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published.
Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until 24 hours prior to the meeting. eComments are limited to 3700 characters (approximately 500 words). eComments may be viewed by the City Council and members of the public following the close of the eComment submission period (24 hours prior to the meeting). Email your comment to [email protected] if you have difficulty submitting an eComment. eComments will not be read aloud as a regular meeting item; however, any member of the Council or member of the public may do so during their respective comment time.
•
Citizens who wish to make an audio/visual presentation pertaining to an item on the agenda, or during Public Comments, should contact the City Clerk’s office at 619.667.1120, no later than 12:00 p.m., the Monday prior to the meeting day. Advance notification will ensure compatibility with City equipment and allow Council meeting presentations to progress smoothly and in a consistent and equitable manner. Please note that all presentations/digital materials are considered part of the maximum time limit provided to speakers.
Agenda reports for items on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.
ACCESSIBILITY: The City of La Mesa encourages the participation of disabled individuals in the services, activities and programs provided by the City. Individuals with disabilities, who require reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the City Council meetings, should contact the Human Resources Department 48 business hours prior to the meeting at 619.667.1175, fax 619.667.1163, or [email protected].
Hearing assisted devices are available for the hearing impaired. A City staff member is available to provide these devices upon entry to City Council meetings, commission meetings or public hearings held in the City Council Chambers. A photo ID or signature will be required to secure a device for the meeting.
Pages
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
5. PRESENTATIONS
5.1 PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION AND HONOR OF DOLORES
BULLER'S MORE THAN FOUR DECADES OF COMMUNITY IMPACT
5.2 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS FROM THE DOWNTOWN LA MESA
TROLLEY PRIORITIZATION STUDY
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
NOTE: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take any action on the item at this meeting.
If appropriate, the item will be referred to Staff or placed on a future agenda.
7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
8. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
8.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND/OR REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO
CITY OF LA MESA BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:
Appoint and/or reappoint members to fill the openings on the City's boards and commissions and adopt the Resolution confirming the appointments and/or reappointments.
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time in which members of the Council or audience may pull items from the CONSENT CALENDAR for discussion. Public Comments are also invited on Consent Calendar items.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 10.1 through 10.9)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.
*If a public hearing item is part of the Consent Calendar, the public hearing shall be deemed held if the item is not removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action (Item 10.9)
Recommended Motion:
Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.9.
10.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT
OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026
11 Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.3 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027
19 Staff Reference: Ms. Esenwein
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.4 RATIFICATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF PROJECT 2025-0404
23 RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
APPROVAL OF PROJECT 2026-0404; A NEW 114 UNIT MIXED-USE
BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
PALM AVENUE AND ALLISON AVENUE IN THE CD-D (DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE AND DOWNTOWN
VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN 494-402-23-00)
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.5 HOMELESS OUTREACH AND MOBILE ENGAGEMENT (“HOME”)
PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT (APRIL 2026 – JUNE 2026)
74 Staff Reference: Chief Sweeney
Recommended Motion:
Receive and File.
10.6 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF LA MESA ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGING STATION MASTER PLAN
88 Staff Reference: Ms. Ego
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.7 2025 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT 203
Staff Reference: Ms. Ego
Recommended Motion:
Receive and File.
10.8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO MIRAMAR GENERAL ENGINEERING FOR THE 2026 SIDEWALK
INFILL PROJECT BID NO. 26-04 (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 8323)
233
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
10.9 *RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027
244
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE REPORT WITH THE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2027 TO BE COLLECTED ON THE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX
ROLL AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION, TOGETHER WITH A
COPY OF THE REPORT TO THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO
COUNTY AUDITOR
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11. STAFF REPORTS
11.1 CONSIDERATION OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE SAN
DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) FLEXIBLE
FLEETS PILOT GRANT PROGRAM
249
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT
APPLICATION TO THE SANDAG FLEXIBLE FLEETS PILOT GRANT
PROGRAM, COMMITTING A LOCAL MATCH OF $111,343, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT
Staff Reference: Ms. Lee
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11.2 DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO: A.) DETERMINE THE PROCESS
OF FILLING A VACANCY THAT WILL EXIST IN THE OFFICE OF CITY TREASURER; AND B.) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TREASURER
DURING THE VACANCY PERIOD
284
Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:
Direct staff to implement either an appointment or special election process to fill the City Treasurer vacancy and authorize the City Manager to execute documents on behalf of the City Treasurer during the vacancy period.
12. HEARINGS
12.1 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS AND AN ORDINANCE TO
ANNEX THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4821, 4831, AND 4841 LA
PERLA WAY, INTO THE CITY OF LA MESA, SUBJECT TO LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) APPROVAL OF THE
ANNEXATION
289
Staff Reference: Ms. Santos
Recommended Motion:
(1) Adopt Resolutions; and (2) Approve the introduction and first reading of the Ordinance.
a. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR
REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY ADDRESSED AS 4821,
4831, AND 4841 LA PERLA WAY (APNs 495-423-10, 495-423-
13, AND 495-423-14)
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
b. RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR PROJECT 2025-0497 ASSIGNING THE PROPERTIES
ADDRESSED AS 4821, 4831, AND 4841 LA PERLA WAY
(APNs 495-423-10, 495-423-13, AND 495-423-14) A LAND
USE DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
c. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR
PROPERTIES ON LA PERLA WAY
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA MESA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF TITLE 24 OF
THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DESIGNATE
PROPERTIES ADDRESSED AS 4821, 4831, AND 4841 LA
PERLA WAY (APNs 495-423-10, 495-423-13, AND 495-423-
14) SEMI-RURAL ESTATE/SCENIC PRESERVATION
OVERLAY (R1E-P)
Recommended Motion:
Approve the introduction and first reading of the Ordinance.
13. COUNCIL INITIATED
13.1 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY THE CITY’S CANNABIS BUSINESS
TAX RATE - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS AND VICE MAYOR CAZARES
327
13.2 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO DIRECT STAFF TO
EVALUATE THE INSTALLATION OF A NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
RESTRICTION AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF LAKE MURRAY BOULEVARD AND EL PASO
STREET - VICE MAYOR CAZARES
328
14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
15. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3(d))
16. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
17. ADJOURNMENT
PLEASE NOTE: pursuant to LMMC § 2.08.010, the Council meetings in the month of August shall serve as a summer recess. The next Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 8, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.
DATE: July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND/OR REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO
CITY OF LA MESA BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
On July 14, the City Council interviewed applicants seeking appointment or reappointment to the City's boards and commissions. At the July 28 City Council meeting, the Mayor and City Council will nominate and confirm appointments. With the exception of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Mayor will make appointments to the City's boards and commissions, subject to City Council approval.
For appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission, nomination forms will be distributed at the meeting. Each Councilmember will indicate their nominations on the form, which will then be submitted to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will read each nomination aloud, and the nomination process will continue until a nominee receives a majority of the City Council's nominations.
Attached is a list of the City's boards and commissions, including a brief description of the requirements for each, the number of available openings, and the names of applicants seeking appointment or reappointment.
Staff recommends that the City Council appoint members to fill the available openings on the City's boards and commissions and adopt the attached resolution confirming the appointments.
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-_
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
APPOINTING AND/OR REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO CITY OF LA MESA
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, terms on the following City of La Mesa Boards and Commissions have either expired or been vacated; and
WHEREAS, the list of persons below has been either recommended to or by the City Council for appointment or reappointment to said City of La Mesa Board and Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the following are hereby appointed and/or reappointed as members of the City of La Mesa Boards and Commissions, with their terms to commence after the oath or affirmation of allegiance for public officers or employees is executed as required by Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of California, and to expire on the dates stated below, or until their successors are appointed and qualified:
Arts and Culture Commission: 4 appointments
(Name) is appointed as the musical arts representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the general population representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed. (Name) is appointed/reappointed as the performing arts representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed. (Name) is appointed to fill the vacant visual arts representative seat, with term ending June 30, 2028, or until their successor is appointed.
Community Relations and Veterans Commission: 3 appointments (Name) is appointed/reappointed as the older adult population representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed. (Name) is appointed/reappointed as the disabled community population representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the general population representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
Design Review Board: 1 appointment
(Name) is appointed/reappointed for term ending June 30, 2029, or until their successor is appointed.
Environmental Sustainability Commission: 1 appointment
(Name) is appointed to fill the vacant older adult population representative seat, with term ending June 30, 2027, or until their successor is appointed.
Historic Preservation Commission: 2 appointments
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the La Mesa Historical Society representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the design professional representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
La Mesa Community Parking Commission: 2 appointments
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the CD/D Downtown Commercial Zone representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
(Name) is appointed to fill the vacant CD/D Downtown Commercial Zone representative seat, with term ending June 30, 2028, or until their successor is appointed.
Mission Trails Regional Park Citizens’ Advisory Committee (Name) is appointed as the primary representative with term ending June 30, 2028, or until their successor is appointed
(Name) is appointed as the alternate representative with term ending June 30, 2028, or until their successor is appointed.
Mobility Commission: 2 appointments
(Name) is appointed as the general population representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
(Name) is appointed as the representative that preferably has significant experience with climate or environmental issues or a general population representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
Parks and Recreation Commission: 2 appointments
(Name) is appointed as the Grossmont Union High School District representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
(Name) is appointed/reappointed as the general population representative for term ending June 30, 2030, or until their successor is appointed.
Personnel Appeals Board: 2 appointments
(Name) is appointed/reappointed for term ending June 30, 2029. (Name) is appointed for term ending June 30, 2029.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28
th day of July 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)
A number of applicants listed more than one board or commission of interest.
Arts and Culture Commission: Four (4) positions – four-year terms One position represents the musical arts
One position represents the performing arts
One position will fill the vacant visual arts representative seat, with term expiring June 30, 2028 One position is at-large
*Pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 2.87, Arts and Culture Commission: “If these particular appointments cannot be made and consequently vacancies occur, the remaining vacancies may be appointed at large.”
At-Large (A)
Visual Arts (VA)
Performing Arts (PA)
Musical Arts (MA)
The Commission shall consist of seven appointed members as follows:
Two members to be art educators (one kindergarten through 8th grade, one 9th grade through college)
One member to represent the visual arts; one member to represent the performing arts One member to represent the musical arts
Two members to be at large.
Members shall be either a La Mesa resident, employed at a place of business in La Mesa with a direct relationship to the Arts and Culture Commission membership categories, OR serve in a volunteer capacity at a non-profit organization in La Mesa with a direct relationship to the arts and Culture Commission membership categories
First Appointed Number of Terms
Renee Bareno (A)(VA)
Jo Ann Bray (VA)
Rodney Elliot – incumbent (A)(PA)(MA) 01-25-22 1
Heidi Frampton (A)(VA)
Ryan Kelley (A)
Linda Morton (A)
Mickey Mounarath – incumbent (PA) 01-25-22 1
Katie Scheele (A)(VA)
Ana Gonzalez Seda (A)(VA)
Prerna Slattery (A)(VA)
Cesar Tornel (A)
Brett Wagner (A)(MA)
Dallin Young (A)
Community Relations and Veterans Commission: Three (3) positions – four-year terms One position represents the older adult population
One position is at-large
One position represents the disabled community
Older Adult Population (S) Disabled Community (D)
At-Large (A)
Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa. One member shall represent senior adults and shall not be less than fifty-five years of age at the time of appointment.
One member shall be disabled or represent the disabled members of the community, three members shall be at large and two members shall represent veterans.
First Appointed Number of Terms
Glenna Bloemen – incumbent (S) 10-08-13 3 + partial
Andrea Britland – incumbent (D) 07-28-20 1 + partial
Megan O’Dowd – incumbent (A) 05-23-23 partial
Ana Gonzalez Seda (A)(D)
Cesar Tornel (A)
Design Review Board: One (1) position – three-year term Members shall be design professionals, which are defined as registered architect or landscape architect, building designer, urban designer or urban planner. Members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.
First Appointed Number of Terms
Chris Langdon – incumbent 07-11-17 3
Environmental Sustainability Commission: One (1) position – four-year terms One position will fill the vacant older adult population representative seat, with term expiring June 30, 2027 (S).
Seven of the members shall be residents of the City of La Mesa and be comprised as follows:
two members from the general populous; three members with professional experience related to environmental sustainability; one member representing the senior adult population (at time of appointment shall be not less than fifty-five years of age); and one member representing the youth population (at the time of appointment shall be not more than 21 years of age).
First Appointed Number of Terms
Kathleen Brand (S)
Jeanne Stronach (S)
Historic Preservation Commission: Two (2) positions – four-year terms One position is recommended by the La Mesa Historical Society (HS) One position represents the design professional category which includes licensed architects, landscape architects, city planners, urban designers, architectural historians, and individuals practicing structural or interior design (DP)
Two of the members shall be registered voters and licensed architects, landscape architects, city planners, urban designers, architectural historians, individuals practicing structural or interior design; two are current resident electors of the City of La Mesa; and three are registered voters and recommended by the La Mesa Historical Society.
Members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.
First Appointed Number of Terms
David Cline – incumbent (HS) 04-27-21 1 + partial
Curt Sherman – incumbent (DP) 11-23-04 4 + partial
La Mesa Community Parking Commission: Two (2) positions – four-year term One position will fill the vacant business representative, property owner, or resident residing in the CD/D Downtown Commercial Zone representative seat, with term expiring June 30, 2028.
One position is for a business representative, property owner, or resident residing in the CD/D Downtown Commercial Zone, with term expiring June 30, 2030.
Two members shall be at-large members and three members shall be business representatives, property owners, or residents residing in the CD/D Downtown Commercial Zone. Members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.
First Appointed Number of Terms
Scott Favero – incumbent 09-27-22 partial
Ryan Umbenhaur
Mission Trails Regional Park Citizens’ Advisory Committee: Two (2) positions – two-year terms
One position will serve as the primary representative One position will serve as the alternate representative Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa.
First Appointed Number of Terms
David Harris
Nancy Clement Hillman
Kevin Kitchen
P. Brian McNeece
Mobility Commission: Two (2) positions – four-year terms One position preferably has significant experience with climate or environmental issues (SE) One position is at-large (A)
Members must be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.
First Appointed Number of Terms
Kathleen Brand (A)
Ryan Kelley (A)
Ana Gonzalez Seda (A)
Cesar Tornel (A)
Hollis Voinov (A)
Parks and Recreation Commission: Two (2) positions – four-year terms One position is nominated by Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) One position is at-large
Members must be resident electors of City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code. Two of the seven members are selected from nominees recommended by the local school districts (one from La Mesa-Spring Valley School District and one from Grossmont Union High School District).
First Appointed Number of Terms
Jessi Brown – incumbent (A) 07-26-22 1
Ryan Kelley (A)
Cherie Meek (A)
Ana Gonzalez Seda (A)
Prerna Slattery (A)
Alysia Spivey (GUHSD)
Jeanne Stronach (A)
Cesar Tornel (A)
Dallin Young (A)
Personnel Appeals Board: Two (2) positions – three-year terms Members shall be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.
First Appointed Number of Terms
Peter Gregorovic – incumbent 02-24-15 3 + partial
Prerna Slattery
Cesar Tornel
APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
1 La Mesa City Council
Meeting Minutes
Date:
Location:
July 14, 2026, 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Present: Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Lauren Cazares
Councilmember Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Genevieve Suzuki
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda. Agenda Items may be taken out of order during the meeting.
The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.
Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
The Mayor, Council, and staff made announcements and reported on various events taking place in the City. No action was taken.
4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
2 There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
5. PRESENTATIONS
5.1 PROCLAIMING JULY 2026 AS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH Mayor Arapostathis read the proclamation declaring the month of July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Cindy Maina spoke on the problems arising from the Meritage project on Jericho Road and recommended permit parking be implemented in the area.
MaryAnn spoke on the problems arising from the Meritage project on Jericho Road.
7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflicts of interest disclosed.
8. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
8.1 ANNUAL INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR OPENINGS ON THE
CITY’S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
City Clerk Wiegelman briefly explained the interview process and announced the withdrawal of Damian-Andrew Jackowski's application for appointment to the Mission Trails Regional Park Citizens' Advisory Committee. She also announced that the appointments would be made at the July 28 Council meeting.
The following applicants spoke about their qualifications and interest in being appointed or reappointed to a City board or commission:
Renee Bareno
Jo Ann Bray
Rodney Elliot
Heidi Frampton
Linda Morton
Mickey Mounarath
Andrea Britland
Megan O’Dowd
3 Ana Gonzalez Seda
Chris Langdon
Jeanne Stronach
Nancy Clement Hillman
Jessi Brown
Aida Silva
Alysia Spivey
Dallin Young
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no public comments on Consent Calendar items.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 10.1 through 10.11)
Councilmember Lothian commented on Item 10.8.
Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Suzuki
Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.11.
For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Cazares, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Suzuki
Approved (5 to 0)
10.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF
ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.
10.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AND LA MESA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY SPECIAL
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2026
Approve.
10.3 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A REPORT BY THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH ANNUAL
4 INSPECTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF
THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Resolution No. 2026-078
Adopt Resolution.
10.4 RESOLUTION DETERMINING SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO
WAIVE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT, AWARD AN AGREEMENT TO
GAMETIME FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND SHADE STRUCTURE FOR AZTEC
PARK, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Resolution No. 2026-079
Adopt Resolution.
10.5 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF THE DOWNTOWN LA
MESA DISTRICT SIGN, ANY UNEXPENDED FUNDS FOR THE
PROJECT AND DESIGNATING THE FUNDS FOR FUTURE DISTRICT
SIGN MAINTENANCE
Resolution No. 2026-080
Adopt Resolution.
10.6 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF THE NEW SHADE
STRUCTURE AND SURFACING FROM THE LA MESA PARK &
RECREATION FOUNDATION FOR THE MACARTHUR PARK TOT LOT
Resolution No. 2026-081
Adopt Resolution.
10.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE AND
APPROPRIATION OF A GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL TO CONDUCT A LOCAL TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM FOR
DUI ENFORCEMENT BY APPROVING THE ADDITION OF THE GRANT
FUNDS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET
Resolution No. 2026-082
Adopt Resolution.
10.8 ADOPT THE 2025 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT AND THE 2026 WORK PLAN
Approve.
5 10.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH ARDURRA GROUP, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE GARFIELD AND DAILY
SEWER PROJECT (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 8102)
Resolution No. 2026-083
Adopt Resolution.
10.10 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LOW BIDDER FOR BID 27-02 AND
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SLURRY SEAL
PROJECT WITH PLA (ZONE 2) TO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO.
(CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 8305)
Resolution No. 2026-084
Adopt Resolution.
10.11 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LOW BIDDER FOR BID 27-04 AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2026 ANNUAL
CONCRETE MAINTENANCE PROJECT TO MIRAMAR GENERAL
ENGINEERING (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 8302)
Resolution No. 2026-085
Adopt Resolution.
11. STAFF REPORTS
11.1 CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF 2026 GENERAL OBLIGATION
REFUNDING BONDS TO REFINANCE THE OUTSTANDING
PROPOSITION D 2016 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS
AND RELATED ACTIONS
Director of Finance Esenwein provided an overview of the proposed 2026 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, explaining that refunding the 2016 bonds would shorten the final maturity by four years and generate an estimated $2.07 million in cash flow savings. Director of Finance Esenwein reviewed the proposed financing terms, estimated savings, and financing schedule, and summarized the documents and not-to-exceed parameters included in the resolution.
Council questions and comments ensued.
Resolution No. 2026-086
Moved By Councilmember Suzuki
Seconded By Councilmember Dillard
6 Adopt Resolution authorizing the issuance of its 2026 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, authorizing and directing the execution of a Paying Agent Agreement, and certain other related documents, and authorizing actions related thereto.
For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Cazares, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Suzuki
Approved (5 to 0)
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
12.1 LETTER FROM THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES REQUESTING
THE DESIGNATION OF A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO
BE HELD SEPTEMBER 23 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 25, 2026, IN
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
Moved By Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded By Councilmember Suzuki
To designate Mayor Arapostathis as the voting delegate and Councilmember Suzuki as the alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Cazares, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Suzuki
Approved (5 to 0)
13. COUNCIL INITIATED
13.1 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO STUDY SHORT-TERM
VACATION RENTALS, DEVELOP POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND RETURN TO THE COUNCIL WITH A PROPOSED REGULATORY
POLICY - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS AND VICE MAYOR CAZARES
Vice Mayor Cazares presented a request to direct staff to evaluate the development of a regulatory framework for short-term vacation rentals.
She explained that the evaluation would assess the local market, best practices, fiscal impacts, and potential operational standards, including opportunities for Transient Occupancy Tax collection and cost recovery, to help inform future Council policy decisions.
7 Brittney Simensky spoke on the impacts of short-term vacation rentals.
Anne Knox spoke on the impacts of short-term vacation rentals.
Council questions and comments ensued.
Moved By Vice Mayor Cazares
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
Direct staff to evaluate short-term vacation rentals, develop policy recommendations, and return to the City Council within six (6) months with a proposed regulatory policy for Council consideration.
For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Cazares, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Suzuki
Approved (5 to 0)
13.2 NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY REVIEW
CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS FOR SHORTTERM VACATION RENTALS AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
COMPLEXES AND EVALUATE POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENTS TO
PROTECT QUALITY OF LIFE - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS AND VICE
MAYOR CAZARES
Vice Mayor Cazares presented a request to direct staff to review existing neighborhood compatibility regulations and evaluate potential enhancements to protect quality of life and reduce nuisance impacts, including the feasibility of a voluntary Good Neighbor Program.
Council questions and comments ensued.
Moved By Vice Mayor Cazares
Seconded By Mayor Arapostathis
Direct staff to review existing neighborhood compatibility regulations applicable to short-term vacation rentals and multi-unit residential complexes, and evaluate potential enhancements to protect neighborhood quality of life and reduce nuisance impacts, including the feasibility of a voluntary Good Neighbor Program.
For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Cazares, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Suzuki
8 Approved (5 to 0)
14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions, and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.
15. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3(d))
Councilmember Dillard reported that she attended the American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, from June 28 through July 1, 2026, as the City of La Mesa's representative on the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors.
16. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk
DATE: July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Shannon Esenwein, CPA, Director of Finance
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2027 PROPOSITION D PROPERTY TAX LEVY Adopting the attached resolution establishes the property tax levy rate for the Fiscal Year 2027 for the City of La Mesa’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 (Fire, Police and Emergency Services Measure), which the City expects to refund with the issuance of its General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2026 (Fire, Police and Emergency Services Measure) (the “Refunding Bonds”), This levy collects property taxes needed to make debt service payments on the City’s outstanding general obligation bonds.
On March 2, 2004, the voters of the City approved Proposition D – Fire, Police and Emergency Services Bond Measure, which authorized the City to issue up to $25,000,000 in general obligation bonds. In 2004, the City issued $19,000,000 in City of La Mesa General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2004, Series A (Fire, Police and Emergency Services Measure) and $6,000,000 in City of La Mesa General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2004, Series B (Fire, Police and Emergency Services Measure) (Bank Qualified) (together, the “2004 Bonds”). In 2016, the City issued $21,825,000 in City of La Mesa General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 (Fire, Police and Emergency Services Measure) (the “2016 Bonds”) to refund the 2004 Bonds. The City is now issuing the Refunding Bonds to refund the 2016 Bonds, with an expected closing date of August 4, 2026, to provide tax savings to City taxpayers.
The next step is to file the attached resolution with the County of San Diego by August 31, 2026. La Mesa property owners should receive their property tax statements from the San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector by early October 2026.
Attachments: A. Resolution establishing the property tax rate for bonded indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2027
B. Calculation of G.O. Bond Property Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2027
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa desires to establish the rate of property tax required to generate an amount of revenue from the tax base to provide sufficient moneys to pay debt service on the voter approved bonded indebtedness payable during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027;
WHEREAS, the City’s strategic goal is to ensure a strong financial outlook through careful planning, sustainable service levels, and fiscal sustainability; and WHEREAS, the total taxable secured assessed valuation of the City is now estimated at $10,927,491,025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the property tax rate within the City for the City of La Mesa General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 (Fire, Police, and Emergency Services Measure), which are anticipated to be refunded by the issuance of the La Mesa General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2026 (Fire, Police, and Emergency Services Measure) (the “Refunding Bonds”), for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027, be and hereby is established at $0.01508 per $100 of assessed value; provided that the City Manager and Director of Finance may modify the tax rate based on final 2026-2027 assessed values, the final debt service schedule for the Refunding Bonds, appropriate reserves, and any other necessary adjustments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and the Director of Finance are each hereby directed and authorized to take any and all actions necessary to ensure that such property tax rate is enrolled with the County of San Diego County Auditor and Controller.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28th day of July 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)
CALCULATION OF PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR 2026-27
City of La Mesa
2016 General Obligation Refunding Bonds
July 22, 2026
Calculate 2026-27 Net Taxable Assessed Valuations
1 2026-27 taxable secured assessed valuation of the City (1) 10,927,491,025.00 2 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (non-teeter city) 3.00% (327,824,730.75) 3 Equals: 2026-27 net taxable secured assessed valuation of the City 10,599,666,294.25 4 2026-27 taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City (1) 182,240,429.00 5 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (non-teeter city) 5.00% (9,112,021.45) 6 Equals: 2026-27 net taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City 173,128,407.55 Calculate 2026-27 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured Assessed Value 7 Balance of funds on-hand expected after August 15, 2026 (2) - 8 2025-26 secured tax rate (1) 0.01500
9 Calculated 2026-27 revenue from unsecured taxable property based on 2025-26 secured tax rate 25,969.26 10 2026-27 semi-annual debt service requirements (3) February 1, 2027 264,850.00 August 1, 2027 1,359,850.00
11 Total 2026-27 annual debt service requirement: 1,624,700.00 12 Net requirement for secured taxable property (total less cash on hand) 1,598,730.74 13 Calculated 2026-27 secured tax rate per $100 of secured assessed value 0.01508 Sources:
(1) County of San Diego Auditor/Controller
(2) City of La Mesa
(3) Official Statement
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: July 28, 2026
SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
(DRB) APPROVAL OF PROJECT 2025-0404
(PROJECT)
DESCRIPTION: RATIFICATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
APPROVAL OF A NEW 114 UNIT MIXED-USE
BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF PALM AVENUE AND ALLISON AVENUE
IN THE CD-D (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL/URBAN
DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE AND DOWNTOWN VILLAGE
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN 494-402-23-00)
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt the Resolution ratifying the DRB approval of Project 2025-0404, a new 114 unit mixed use building. (Attachment A).
Fiscal Impact:
There would be no fiscal impact to the General Fund related to this project. City of La Mesa (City) policy is to recover 100% of the cost of staff time through application and permit fees.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: July 28, 2026
Page: 2 of 6
Environmental Review:
This Project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332.
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
T-4: Mixed-Use and Transit-Oriented Development
BACKGROUND:
CityMark proposes to develop a 114-unit mixed-use building, including 5 very-low-income affordable units under Government Code 65915 (State Density Bonus Law). The Project is located at the southwest corner of Palm Avenue and Allison Avenue, as shown on the vicinity map. The 0.87-acre project site also has frontage on a public alley to the south.
The public alley is designated as one-way, eastbound. The project site is currently undeveloped and is utilized as a privately owned paid parking lot.
The right-of-way along Palm Avenue and Allison Avenue is improved with enhanced streetscape features that include sidewalks, curb, gutter, street trees with tree grates, bollards, public benches, public trash and recycling bins, decorative acorn streetlights, catenary festoon lights, and two brick crosswalks accessed from pedestrian ramps. A
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: July 28, 2026
Page: 3 of 6
City-owned bio-retention area with planting is also located along Allison Avenue. Metered parallel parking is in place along both street frontages, and there is a curb opening on Palm Avenue. Utilities are installed below ground. A San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) bus stop is located adjacent to the northern property line on Allison Avenue and serves MTS bus route 852. The MTS Orange Line at the La Mesa Boulevard Station is located approximately 0.1 miles away from the Project site.
Zoning for the Project site is CD-D (Downtown Commercial/Urban Design Overlay), and the General Plan planned land use designation is Downtown Commercial. The Project site is also located within the Downtown Village Specific Plan (DVSP) area.
Surrounding uses include a church and professional offices on the north side of Allison Avenue; two bank buildings to the west; village commercial uses to the south with storefronts facing Palm Avenue and La Mesa Boulevard; and a new mixed-use building is currently under construction to the east. Photos of the Project site and surrounding area are included as Attachment B.
On March 9, 2026, the DRB considered and approved the Project design in accordance with the Urban Design Program and Downtown Village Specific Plan (Attachment C).
Additionally, on July 6, 2026, a staff report and Notice of Decision for the Site Development Plan was posted for public review. After five (5) calendar days, the Community Development Director considered the staff report and approved the site development plan (Attachment D).
DISCUSSION:
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The 114 unit building footprint covers most of the Project site at ground level, which includes a parking garage, commercial spaces, residential lofts, a lobby, and a gym. 72 residential parking stalls and bike storage are proposed in the parking garage. The second through fifth floors have a C-shaped plan with residential units surrounding a second-level courtyard. Project plans, including site plans, floor plans, elevations, colored renderings, and landscape plans are provided as Attachment E, and a color and materials board is included as Attachment F.
The Project is a qualifying affordable housing project under Government Code Section 65915. This means the Project is eligible for incentives and waivers of development standards. The waivers and/or incentives requested for this Project are listed below.
Development Standards Waived
1. Maximum building height of 46 ft.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: July 28, 2026
Page: 4 of 6
2. Third stories or above shall be set back at least 10 ft from the street facing façade
3. Stall size of 9’ x 19’ with a 25 ft. backup
4. Requirement for an additional 1 ft. of parking stall size next to walls and columns
5. Requirement for guest parking stalls for the residential units
6. Residential shall not be located on the first floor when the first floor includes commercial uses
The Director of Community Development considered the site development plan and determined that:
1. The Project is consistent with the general plan, zoning, and that all other development requirements are in compliance;
2. As proposed, the Project will not result in detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare; and
3. Consistent with DRB approval, the Project complies with the design objectives.
URBAN DESIGN PROGRAM AND DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN
GUIDELINES APPLICABILITY
The Urban Design Program identifies the project site as being within the Downtown Area Special Design District. The downtown area is identified as a sensitive area, requiring specific guidelines to address its unique character. The Special Design District calls on the importance of rooftop treatment, front facades, refuse and storage, pedestrian elements, exterior appurtenances, design elements, adaptive reuse and preservation of alleys, and display lighting.
Similar to the Urban Design Program, the DVSP establishes design goals and guidelines that include encouraging diverse architecture, honoring and respecting history and the pedestrian and human scale, and the prioritization of trees. It also provides detailed guidance for distinct areas within the DVSP planning area referred to as sub-areas. In consideration of the overall DVSP goals and those for the Project’s sub-area (Allison Avenue), the Project appears to be consistent with the intent of the DVSP goals and design guidelines.
In recognizing that the Project is consistent with the Urban Design Program and the DVSP, the DRB determined that the Project supports these goals by:
Providing accessible and inviting storefronts along Palm Avenue; Meeting building orientation and siting guidelines by placing the building near the property lines, rather than behind parking lots or at the rear of the property which reinforces the streetscape.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: July 28, 2026
Page: 5 of 6
Establishing a parking garage accessible from a single-entry point along the oneway alley to the south. The existing curb opening on Palm Avenue would be removed, allowing for the addition of one on-street parking space; and Meeting architectural design guidelines by providing variations in building plane, material, and façade through recesses and exterior balconies to reduce the building’s perceived mass and add visual interest along Palm Avenue and Allison Avenue.
Further, the DRB determined that the Project’s overall design meets the expected standards of the Urban Design Program and DVSP design guidelines with the following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall install and maintain all landscaping as noted on plans stamped received by the City on February 3, 2026.
2) All building design features, colors, and materials as noted on the project plans and colors and materials board stamped received by the City on February 3, 2026 and March 4, 2026 respectively shall be constructed per plan. If architectural design, colors, and/or materials changes during building permit review or construction, substantial conformance review by the Design Review Board is required.
3) Staff shall consult with Design Review Board Member Langdon for proposed street tree species selection.
4) Metal surface material shall not exceed 10% area of the facing of the building. At building permit review, a calculation shall be provided demonstrating proposed metal surface material percentage.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution ratifying the DRB approval of Project 2025-0404 for a 114 unit mixed use building.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Lynnette Santos
City Manager Director of Community Development
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: July 28, 2026
Page: 6 of 6
Attachments:A. Draft City Council Resolution
B. Site Photographs
C. Design Review Board Certificate of Action
D. Site Development Plan Notice of Decision No. 2026-03 E. Project Plans
F. Color and Materials Board
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
RATIFYING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF PROJECT
2026-0404; A NEW 114 UNIT MIXED-USE BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PALM AVENUE AND ALLISON
AVENUE IN THE CD-D (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL/URBAN DESIGN
OVERLAY) ZONE AND DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
(APN 494-402-23-00)
WHEREAS, project applicant, CityMark Development, submitted an application for Design Review to construct a 114 unit mixed-use building on a vacant lot at the southwest corner of Palm Avenue and Allison Avenue (APN 494-402-23-00) (“Project”); WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has strategic goals to promote a high quality of life that current and future residents can afford to call home; WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the City of La Mesa received and considered a staff report on the Project;
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the City of La Mesa did hold a duly noticed public meeting on March 9, 2026, and accepted public testimony in considering the Project; WHEREAS, on March 9, 2026, the Design Review Board of the City of La Mesa issued a Certificate of Action recommending approval of the Project; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did receive and consider a staff report on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did hold a duly noticed public meeting on July 28, 2026, and accepted public testimony in considering the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, as follows:
1. The proposed design meets the intent of the Urban Design Program and Downtown Village Specific Plan policies.
2. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are true and hereby made a part hereof.
3. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are supported by the staff report, minutes, plans, and exhibits, all of which are herein incorporated by reference.
4. The City Council of the City of La Mesa ratifies the Design Review Board Certificate of Action (Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28th day of July 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-xxx, duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT B
Docusign Envelope ID: F118C8CC-EED1-86A1-815D-51F5B063FD99
Docusign Envelope ID: F118C8CC-EED1-86A1-815D-51F5B063FD99 4/2/2026
4/2/2026
ATTACHMENT D
Zone + Overlays: CD-D
Downtown CommercialUrban Design Overlay
Building Height Maximum: 46' per Zoning Ordinance (Zone CD)Required Setbacks: Front (Palm Ave): 10' above Level 2 Side (Alley): N/ASide (Bio-retention): N/ARear (P.L. at Bank): N/A Plans: Downtown Village Specific Plan
Allowed Units Based on
Density:
95 units (see Affordable Density Bonus Analysis and Base Density Calculation at end of Affordable Homes Bonus Program Report) Open Space Required: NoneOpen Space Provided: 6,170 SF
Owner: CityMark Development
3818 Park BoulevardSan Diego, CA 92103Tel: (619) 231-1161Contact: Russ HaleyEmail: [email protected] Architect: Studio E Architects
2258 First AvenueSan Diego, CA 92101Tel: (619) 235-9262Contact: Eric NaslundEmail: [email protected] Civil Engineer: Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
1911 San Diego Avenue, Ste 100San Diego, CA 92110Tel: (858) 259-8212Contact: Tadd DolfoEmail: [email protected] Landscape Architect: McCullough Landscape
3605-B Fifth AvenueSan Diego, CA 92103Tel: (619) 296-3150Contact: David McCulloughEmail: [email protected] Project Name: CityMark PalmProject Address: Palm Avenue & Allison Avenue La Mesa, CA
Project Description:Primary Occupancy: Residential, R-2Existing Site Use:
Assessor's Parcel Number: 494-402-23
Gross Site Area: 37,989 SF (0.87 Acres)Net Site Area:Unit Summary: Unit Type Area LOFT ALOFT BLOFT CLOFT DSTU-ASTU-BSTU-CSTU-D1BR-A1BR-B1BR-C2BR-A2BR-B2BR-C2BR-D2BR-E2BR-F37,989 SF (0.87 Acres)Surface Parking LotCityMark Palm is a new mixed-use development consisting of a five-story building with ~114 rental residential units and ~2,560 SF of ground-floor retail in downtown La Mesa, CA. It provides ~72 residential parking stalls in a ground-level garage, which is covered by a level 2 amenity deck for resident use. Other amenities include a resident lobby, a common room for resident use, and secure bike storage.The project will utilize the CA State Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Development and will provide 5 very-low-income units (5.3% of Base Density of 95 units). The CA State Density Bonus allows for 20% bonus units above the Base Density, which adds 20% of 95 units--19 additional units--for a total of 114 units. The other ~109 units will be rented at market rate.Site scope also includes onsite storm water management and landscaping.
Proposed Site Use: Mixed-Use Residential
Quantity
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
870 SF954 SF855 SF954 SF750 SF587 SF617 SF460 SF720 SF740 SF763 SF1,124 SF1,145 SF1,084 SF1,029 SF1,106 SF1,042 SF 11114481347816412444
17 (15%)49 (43%)44 (39%)
TOTAL UNITS 114 (100%)
Affordable Units:
Market-Rate UnitsGross Leasable Retail:Building Gross Area:Building Height:
5 Very-Low-Income Units (50% AMI) (5.3% of Base Density of 95)5 Total Designated Affordable Units (5.3% of Base Density of 95)109 Units2,560 SF151,408 SF54'-0" - 60' - 0"The following units shall be affordable (5 total):1-BR Units (2): 202, 2032-BR Units (2): 308, 408Studios (1): 224 Loft 4 (4%)
Required Parking: Per California Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097), there is no minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial or other development project located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Since Project is within one-half mile of La Mesa Blvd Trolley Station, Project is exempt from parking requirement.
Provided Parking: 47 Residential Standards Stalls (2 EV) 22 Residential Compact Stalls (4 EV)2 ADA Standard Stalls (1 EV)1 ADA Van-Accessible Stall (1 EV)Total Provided: 72 Stalls (8 EV)22 Compact Stalls / 72 Total Stalls =30.5% Compact Stalls
SITE LOCATION
ROUTE 125
NORTH
UNIVERSITY
AVE
LA
M
ESA
BLVD
EL
CAJON
BLVD
I-8
Construction Type: V-A (Levels 2-5) Over I-A (Level 1)Fire Sprinklers: Automatic Fire Sprinkler System will be designed to NFPA 13 Standards
5% of units will be affordable units deed restricted to Very-Low Income tenants (5 units, 5.3% of Base Density), therefore waivers are allowed per CA State Law, Government Code Section 65915. (LMMC 24.053.040)1. Height2. Third Story Setback3. Multi-Level Parking Standard at Grade4. No addition of 1' width to Parking Stalls adjacent to columns (see 3/A1.1)5. No designated Guest Parking stalls6. Residential at Ground Floor7. Building frontage placed on the property line along public streets8. Awning material5% of units will be affordable units deed restricted to Very-Low Income tenants (5 units, 5.3% of Base Density), therefore one incentive is allowed per CA State Law, Government Code Section 65915. (LMMC 24.053.040)1. N/A REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LA MESA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:THOSE PORTIONS LOT "C"; AND LOTS 13, 14, 15, AND 16 IN BLOCK 1 OF LA MESA SPRINGS, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 786, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER SEPTEMBER 6, 1894; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF ORANGE AVENUE ADJOINING SAIDPORTIONS OF LOTS 13, 14, 15 AND 16 ON THE NORTH AS VACATED AND CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE IN RESOLUTION NO. 10755, RECORDED JUNE 19, 1969 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 110016 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL A OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, CITY OF LA MESA PROJECT 2021-42, RECORDED JULY 22, 2022 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2022-0301492 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SPRING STREET WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE 20 FOOT ALLEY ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 786, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1894;THENCE NORTH 63 o 55' 20" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID ALLEY A DISTANCE OF 138.09 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE NORTH 26 o 40' 40" WEST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET
THENCE NORTH 63
o 55' 20" EAST A DISTANCE OF 67.74 FEET
THENCE NORTH 25
o 58' 16" EAST A DISTANCE OF 89.80 FEET
THENCE NORTH 89
o 15' 00" EAST A DISTANCE OF 104.00 FEET
THENCE NORTH 26
o 04' 40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 255.31 FEET
THENCE SOUTH 63
o 55' 20" WEST A DISTANCE OF 161.91 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT "C" DESCRIBED IN THE ALLISON AVENUE REALIGNMENTGRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF LA MESA RECORDED JUNE 19, 1969, RECORDER'S AS INSTRUMENT NO. 110015 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.THIS DESCRIPTION IS COMPLIANT WITH PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AS EVIDENCED BY THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, CITY OF LA MESA PROJECT 2021-42, RECORDED JULY 22, 2022 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2022-0301492 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 494-402-23-00
Deferred submittals shall be provided for the following building components/elements:Fire Alarm System* (NFPA 72)Fire Sprinkler System and Manual Wet Standpipe Systems (NFPA 13)Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (if required based on testing)*Fire Alarm System to include Low Frequency Sounders in Sleeping Rooms as required byBuilding Code and NFPA 72.The General Contractor shall provide submittal documents for deferred submittal items, not the individual subcontractor/consultant. The submittal documents shall be submitted to the Project Architect for review and approval prior to submitting to the Building Official.Deferred submittal documents, in addition to the seal of the responsible Engineer, shall bear the shop drawing approval stamps of the Project Architect, Engineer of Record, and the General Contractor on all sheets of plans and cover of the calculations.Submittal documents for deferred submittal items shall be submitted in a timely manner that allows a minimum of thirty calendar days for the initial plan review turn-around. All comments related to the deferred submittal must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to approval of the submittal items.Deferred submittal items shall not be fabricated/installed until their design and submittal documents have been approved by the Building Official.Provide two copies of deferred submittal documents for final approval.
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Title Sheet
24103
TS1
CityMark Palm
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
Sheet Index
Title SheetTS1 Title SheetCivilC1.0 Existing Conditions & EasementsC2.0 Proposed Grading & Utility PlanLandscapeL000 Cover SheetL100 Construction NotesL101 Landscape Construction Plan - Level 1L102 Landscape Construction Plan - Level 2L103 Landscape RenderingsL104 Materials and FinishesL110 Construction DetailsL300 Planting NotesL301 Planting Plan - Level 1L302 Planting Plan - Level 2L310 Planting Details ArchitecturalA0.1 Site PlanA0.2 Site Plan - Fire AccessA0.3 Open Space PlanA1.1 Level 1 Floor PlanA1.1L Lighting and Conceptual Signage PlanA1.1M Level 1 Mezzanine Floor PlanA1.2 Level 2 Floor PlanA1.3 Level 3 Floor PlanA1.4 Level 4-5 Floor PlanA1.5 Roof PlanA2.1 3D ViewsA3.1 Building ElevationsA3.2 Building ElevationsA3.3 Building SectionsA6.0 Color and Materials BoardA7.0 Code Analysis Planning Submittal 3
Zone Data
Project TeamProject Information
Parking Information
Vicinity Map
Building Code DataWaivers RequestedIncentives Requested Legal Description
Deferred Approvals
ATTACHMENT E
GYM
RETAIL
EXISTING BANK
EXISTING BUS STOP TO REMAINEXISTING CITY-OWNED BIO-RETENTION AREA WITH PLANTING. SEE LANDSCAPERESIDENTIAL ENTRYRETAIL ENRY
VEHICLE ENTRY /
EXIT GATE
ELEV
ST
PROPOSED
TRANSFORMER (3426)
EXISTING UNNAMED ALLEY
20' - 0" (ONE-WAY TRAFFIC)
(ONE-WAY TRAFFIC)
EXISTING UNNAMED ALLEY
BUILDING TO P.L.
20' - 0"
6' - 0"
P.L. TO CENTER OF R.O.W.
30' - 0"
P.L. TO CENTER OF R.O.W.
10' - 0"
LOBBY
UNIT ENTRYPROPOSED BRIDGE OVER BIO-RETENTION AREARETAIL ENRY
TRIANGLE
15' - 0" VISIBILITY
TRIANGLE
15' - 0" VISIBILITY
VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WITH LOW PLANTING
TRASH ROOM WITH
ROLL-UP DOOR TO ALLEY
BIKE STORAGE (ACCESSED IN GARAGE)MAILBOXES
ELEC
UP
PARCEL LOCKERS
EXISTING BANK
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN
PROPERTY LINE
209' - 7"
PROPERTY LINE
67' - 10"
PROPERTY LINE
68' - 1"
PROPERTY LINE
105' - 11"
PROPERTY LINE
162' - 1"
PROPERTY LINE
229' - 0"
BUILDING TO P.L.
3' - 11"
BUILDING TO P.L.
3' - 11"
BUILDING TO P.L.
5"
BUILDING TO P.L.
5' - 5"
BUILDING TO P.L.
1' - 6"
BUILDING TO P.L.
4' - 10" BUILDING TO P.L.
6' - 0"
BLDG OVERHANG TO P.L.
5' - 0"
BALCONY PROJECTION
10 1/2" OVER P.L., TYP.
BALCONY PROJECTION
1' - 1 1/2" MAX. OVER P.L., TYP.
BALCONY PROJECTION
4' - 0 1/2" MAX. OVER P.L.
EXISTING CMU WALL ~5'
PROPOSED 8' METAL GATE & FENCE
P.L. TO CURB
10' - 1"
6' - 6" XFMR PAD
6' - 3" XFMR PAD
SDG&E
EASEMENT TO
BE QUITCLAIMED
PER CIVIL
EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN. SEE CIVILSEE LANDSCAPE FOR STREET TREES, GRATES, ETC.EXISTING STREET LIGHTS, POSTS, PARKING METERS, ETC. TO REMAIN. SEE LANDSCAPE & CIVIL.
PLANTING ALONG PERIMETER.
SEE LANDSCAPE
SEE CIVIL FOR UTILITIES, TYP.
USPS
(PENDING)
USPS PARKING
UTIL.
PROPERTY LINE AND CURB LINE
ARE IDENTICAL ALONG ALLEY
CENTER OF R.O.W.
45' - 3 3/4" P.L. TO
P.L. TO CURB
25' - 6 5/8"
TRASH EASEMENT & ENCLOSURE
REPLACED BY NEW (LARGER)
ENCLOSURE INTEGRATED WITH
BUILDING
WHITE CURB FOR USPS PARKING (PENDING APPROVAL)NEW PARKING STALL ADDED BY PROJECT AFTER ELIMINATING CURB CUT TO EXISTING PARKING LOT A0.1
2 LOFT A
LOFT B
LOFT C
LOFT D
RETAIL
19' - 5 3/4"
4 CU. YD. DUMPSTER PER EDCO STANDARDS
65 GALLON CART
PER EDCO
STANDARDS
18' - 1 1/4"
5' - 1"
4' - 8"
8 1/4"
5' - 4"
2' - 8"
6' - 9"
3"
2' - 1"
3"
6' - 9"
FLOOR OF ENCLOSURE SHALL BE CONCRETE. CONCRETE PAD SHALL BE PROVIDED OUTSIDE OF ENCLOSURE ENTRANCE, UTILIZING EXISTING CONCRETE WHERE FEASIBLE Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Site Plan
24103
A0.1
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1/32" = 1'-0" Site Plan
NORTH
Keynotes
2 1/4" = 1'-0" Enlarged Plan - Public Trash Enclosure
W/D
W/DW/D
W/D W/D W/D W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D W/D
W/D
W/DW/DW/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D W/D W/DW/D W/D W/D
ONYX SEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX SEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
UP
OPEN TO
BELOW
2 Bedroom B
205
2 Bedroom C
206
2 Bedroom E
213
1 Bedroom A
204
1 Bedroom A
203
1 Bedroom A2
202
2 Bedroom A
201
1 Bedroom C
226
2 Bedroom A
228
Studio C
225
Studio B
215
1 Bedroom A
216
2 Bedroom A
217
1 Bedroom A
219
1 Bedroom C
220
2 Bedroom A
218
ST
BOH
1 Bedroom A
227
Studio C
221
ST
BOH
ELEV
1 Bedroom A
222
2 Bedroom C
210
Studio A
214
2 Bedroom C
209
944 SF
Common Area
BOH
DN
UP
BOH
Kitchen
TV Lounge
2 Bedroom D
211
1 Bedroom B
212
2 Bedroom F
208
5' - 9"
Studio D
224
Pool Table
COURTYARD COMMON
OPEN SPACE
4,450 SF
177 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 104 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 84 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 72 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
82 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
177 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 104 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 84 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 72 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
79 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
ST
719 SF
GYM
?
ELEV
ELEC
RES.
ADA
RES.
ADA
RES.
ADA
VAN
LOBBY
TURNAROUND
1540 SF
3400 SF
UP
TRASH
BIKES
MAIL
LEASING
MAIL
WC
Open Space per notes above
Open Space Required: 0 SFOpen Space Provided: 6,170 SF at Courtyard Amenity Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Open Space
Plan
24103
A0.3
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
2 1" = 20'-0" Open Space Plan - Level 2
Keynotes
1 1" = 20'-0" Open Space Plan - Level 1
Legend - Open Space PlanOpen Space Summary
NORTH
NORTH
1 A3.1
ST
719 SF
GYM
A3.1
2 A3.2
6 A3.2
10 A3.2
7 3426
XFMR
PAD
ELEV
ELEC
EV
RES.
ADA
RES.
ADA
EV
RES.
ADA
VAN
26' - 4"
LOBBY
TURNAROUND
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
A3.2
11 A3.2
9 8
TRASH
1 A3.3
2 A3.3
BIKES
MAIL
LEASING
MAIL
WC
CITY-OWNED TRASH EASEMENT &
ENCLOSURE TO BE REPLACED BY NEW
(LARGER) ENCLOSURE INTEGRATED
WITH BUILDING
PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
9' - 7"
UTIL.
9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 24' - 0"
VEHICLE ENTRY / EXIT GATE
9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 10' - 10"9' - 0" 8' - 0"
9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 24' - 0"
9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" EV COMPACT EV
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV
COMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
18' - 0" 18' - 0"
9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0"
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
EV
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
BUILDING DIMENSION
203' - 9"
BUILDING TO P.L.
5' - 4 1/2" BUILDING TO P.L.
5"
BUILDING TO P.L.
3' - 11 1/2"
BUILDING DIMENSION
70' - 0"
BUILDING TO P.L.
21' - 5 1/2"
47' - 1" BUILDING DIMENSION
BUILDING TO P.L.
6' - 1"
BUILDING DIMENSION
215' - 7 1/2"
PROPOSED BRIDGE OVER BIO-RETENTION AREAEXISTING CITY-OWNED BIO-RETENTION AREA WITH PLANTING. SEE LANDSCAPE A1.1
2 18' - 0"
A1.1
3 EGRESS ROUTE
EGRESS ROUTE
6' - 6"
BUILDING DIMENSION
143' - 2" 13' - 6"
EV
USPS
EV
5' - 1" 19' - 11"
6' - 6 1/2"
RETAIL
LOFT A
LOFT B
LOFT C
LOFT D
RETAIL
STORAGE
WC
675 SF + 279 SF954 SF TOTAL
576 SF + 279 SF855 SF TOTAL
625 SF + 329 SF954 SF TOTAL
1,050 SF
569 SF + 301 SF870 SF TOTAL
1,510 SF
27' - 2"
65' - 5"
21' - 0"
36' - 10"
28' - 4"
13' - 10"
22' - 10"
Wall/Floor/Ceiling/Roof type tag, see sheet A8.1Door tag, see sheet A7.1Window/Storefront tag, see sheet A7.1KeynoteProperty lineMatch lineConcrete wall per structuralFire partition - 1 HRFire barrier - 2 HRFire barrier - 1 HRFire wall - 2 HRNew wallExisting wall 101
A
?
Egress Path
1. When shown in plan, all dimensions are to face of stud, face of concrete, centerline of columns, or centerline of wall assemblies, U.N.O.
2. Do not scale drawings. Written dimensions govern. 3. All clear dimensions are not to be adjusted without approval of the Architect.
4. See site plan for overall site dimensions and notes not shown.5. All grid lines indicate center of structural wall or face of structural material, U.N.O.
6. Window types and locations shall be as per building plans, not enlarged plans.
7. See enlarged plans for dimensions, tags, keynotes, notes, etc. not shown.
8. Refer to Civil and Structural for level one finish floor elevations.9. See finish legend for typical finishes, U.N.O.10. See reflected ceiling plans for locations and dimensions of soffited areas.
11. Provide and install min. 2x flat wood blocking or min. 16GA metal strapping per mfr. for all bath accessories, handrails, cabinets, towel bars, bike racks, wall mounted fixtures or equipment and any other items attached to walls.
12. All changes in floor materials occur at centerline of door or framed openings unless otherwise indicated on the drawings.
13. At areas of transition between different wall assemblies, continue thickest layer of substrate or finish to provide a flush finished surface in all directions to nearest perpendicular surface (wall, ceiling, etc.), U.N.O.
14. Provide batt insulation at interior walls for acoustic purposes at corridors, bathrooms, laundry rooms and party walls where occurs, U.N.O.
15. All blockouts in slabs, walls, footings and P.T. slabs where occur shall be coordinated and provided, even if not specifically shown on drawings.
16. Occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, kitchens, storage rooms and laundry rooms shall be permitted to have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet. (CBC Sec. 1208.2)
17. Door jambs are located 4” from perpendicular wall U.N.O.18. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather at courtyards, plazas, terraces or balconies that are on an accessible route shall have a maximum one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2- percent) slope in any direction.
19. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather shall have a minimum one-eighth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1-percent slope) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains.
20. Concrete structural decks at podiums may have various finish surfaces, such as concrete topping slab, traffic coating, cobble, synthetic turf or other finish material that is exposed to weather. Concrete structural decks may have areas that are flat, stepped and sloped. Refer to plans for extent of these areas, slopes and area drains.
21. Wood substrates below a concrete topping slab or traffic coating that is exposed to weather shall have a one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains. (CBC Sec. 2304.12.2.5) 11' - 4"
21' - 0"
6" CURB
OVERHEAD COILING DOOR
10' - 0" SECONDARY ACCESS VIA MIN.
3' WIDE DOOR
25"
1"
25"
10"
81"
3"
81"
4 CU. YD.
DUMPSTER PER
EDCO STANDARDS
65 GALLON CART PER EDCO STANDARDS
32"
3 CU. YD.
DUMPSTER PER
EDCO STANDARDS
(ORGANICS) 43"
1"
56"
18' - 0"
1' - 10"
9' - 0"
10' - 10"
FORD F-150 (LARGE TRUCK) NOTE: La Mesa Parking Standards may classify this typical parking stall as Compact due to its proximity to a Post (concrete column), but this exhibit show that the stall provides 10'-10" width in the area where car doors open, which is very generous (even for the large truck shown). For this reason, we ask that this stall be considered Standard rather than Compact. Approximately 45 stalls have this configuration, and if considered Compact, this would require significant redesign and loss of parking stalls to comply with City requirements for 50% max. Compact allotment.
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Level 1 Floor
Plan
24103
A1.1
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1/16" = 1'-0" Level 1 Floor Plan
Legend - Floor PlanGeneral Notes - Floor Plan
Keynotes
NORTH
2 1/8" = 1'-0" Enlarged Plan - Trash Room
3 1/8" = 1'-0" Enlarged Plan - Typical Parking Stall
Unit Schedule - Per Level
Level Name Count
Level 1 Loft 4Level 1: 4Level 2 1 Bedroom 10Level 2 2 Bedroom 11Level 2 Studio 5Level 2: 26Level 3 1 Bedroom 13Level 3 2 Bedroom 11Level 3 Studio 4Level 3: 28Level 4 1 Bedroom 13Level 4 2 Bedroom 11Level 4 Studio 4Level 4: 28Level 5 1 Bedroom 13Level 5 2 Bedroom 11Level 5 Studio 4Level 5: 28114 Unit Schedule - Totals
Name Count %
1 Bedroom 49 43%2 Bedroom 44 39%Loft 4 4%Studio 17 15%
114 100%
Parking Schedule - Residential
Type Count
EV - Residential ADA 2EV - Residential Compact 4EV - Residential Standard 2Residential ADA 1Residential Compact 18Residential Standard 45 72 72 Residential Stalls / 114 Units =0.63 Parking Ratio22 Compact Stalls / 72 Total Stalls = 30.5% Compact Stalls
1 A3.1
A3.1
2 A3.2
6 A3.2
10 A3.2
7 A3.1
53 A3.2
11 A3.2
9 8
1 A3.3
2 A3.3
BUILDING DIMENSION
203' - 9"
BUILDING TO P.L.
5' - 4 1/2" BUILDING TO P.L.
5"
BUILDING TO P.L.
3' - 11 1/2"
BUILDING DIMENSION
70' - 0"
BUILDING TO P.L.
21' - 5 1/2"
156' - 8"
L1 NORTHFF= 544.50'L2FF= 560.70'
1' - 0"
15' - 2 1/2"
7' - 0" 7' - 6"
8 1/2"
SECTION DIAGRAM AT LOFT UNITS
REFER LEVEL 1
FLOOR PLAN
675 SF + 279 SF954 SF TOTAL
576 SF + 279 SF855 SF TOTAL
625 SF + 329 SF954 SF TOTAL
569 SF + 301 SF870 SF TOTAL
LOFT A
LOFT B
LOFT C
LOFT D
Wall/Floor/Ceiling/Roof type tag, see sheet A8.1Door tag, see sheet A7.1Window/Storefront tag, see sheet A7.1KeynoteProperty lineMatch lineConcrete wall per structuralFire partition - 1 HRFire barrier - 2 HRFire barrier - 1 HRFire wall - 2 HRNew wallExisting wall 101
A
?
Egress Path
1. When shown in plan, all dimensions are to face of stud, face of concrete, centerline of columns, or centerline of wall assemblies, U.N.O.
2. Do not scale drawings. Written dimensions govern. 3. All clear dimensions are not to be adjusted without approval of the Architect.
4. See site plan for overall site dimensions and notes not shown.5. All grid lines indicate center of structural wall or face of structural material, U.N.O.
6. Window types and locations shall be as per building plans, not enlarged plans.
7. See enlarged plans for dimensions, tags, keynotes, notes, etc. not shown.
8. Refer to Civil and Structural for level one finish floor elevations.9. See finish legend for typical finishes, U.N.O.10. See reflected ceiling plans for locations and dimensions of soffited areas.
11. Provide and install min. 2x flat wood blocking or min. 16GA metal strapping per mfr. for all bath accessories, handrails, cabinets, towel bars, bike racks, wall mounted fixtures or equipment and any other items attached to walls.
12. All changes in floor materials occur at centerline of door or framed openings unless otherwise indicated on the drawings.
13. At areas of transition between different wall assemblies, continue thickest layer of substrate or finish to provide a flush finished surface in all directions to nearest perpendicular surface (wall, ceiling, etc.), U.N.O.
14. Provide batt insulation at interior walls for acoustic purposes at corridors, bathrooms, laundry rooms and party walls where occurs, U.N.O.
15. All blockouts in slabs, walls, footings and P.T. slabs where occur shall be coordinated and provided, even if not specifically shown on drawings.
16. Occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, kitchens, storage rooms and laundry rooms shall be permitted to have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet. (CBC Sec. 1208.2)
17. Door jambs are located 4” from perpendicular wall U.N.O.18. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather at courtyards, plazas, terraces or balconies that are on an accessible route shall have a maximum one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2- percent) slope in any direction.
19. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather shall have a minimum one-eighth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1-percent slope) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains.
20. Concrete structural decks at podiums may have various finish surfaces, such as concrete topping slab, traffic coating, cobble, synthetic turf or other finish material that is exposed to weather. Concrete structural decks may have areas that are flat, stepped and sloped. Refer to plans for extent of these areas, slopes and area drains.
21. Wood substrates below a concrete topping slab or traffic coating that is exposed to weather shall have a one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains. (CBC Sec. 2304.12.2.5) Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Level 1
Mezzanine
Floor Plan
24103
A1.1M
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1/16" = 1'-0" Level 1 Mezzanine Floor Plan
Legend - Floor PlanGeneral Notes - Floor Plan
Keynotes
NORTH
Unit Schedule - Per Level
Level Name Count
Level 1 Loft 4Level 1: 4Level 2 1 Bedroom 10Level 2 2 Bedroom 11Level 2 Studio 5Level 2: 26Level 3 1 Bedroom 13Level 3 2 Bedroom 11Level 3 Studio 4Level 3: 28Level 4 1 Bedroom 13Level 4 2 Bedroom 11Level 4 Studio 4Level 4: 28Level 5 1 Bedroom 13Level 5 2 Bedroom 11Level 5 Studio 4Level 5: 28114 Unit Schedule - Totals
Name Count %
1 Bedroom 49 43%2 Bedroom 44 39%Loft 4 4%Studio 17 15%
114 100%
1 A3.1
A3.1
2 A3.2
6 A3.2
10 A3.2
7 A3.2
11 A3.2
9 8
1 A3.3
2 A3.3
ST
GYM
RETAIL
3426
XFMR
PAD
ELEV
ELEC
RES.
ADA
RES.
ADA
RES.
ADA
VAN
LOBBY
TURNAROUND
1540 SF
TRASH
BIKES
MAIL
LEASING
MAIL
WC
EXISTING CITY-OWNED TRASH
EASEMENT
PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
UTIL.
VEHICLE ENTRY / EXIT GATE
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
PROPOSED BRIDGE OVER BIO-RETENTION AREAEXISTING CITY-OWNED BIO-RETENTION AREA WITH PLANTING. SEE LANDSCAPE
EGRESS ROUTE
EGRESS ROUTE
A7.0
5 LOCATION OF CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE FOR RETAIL, APPROXIMATELY 18" X 84" (TBD)FRONT LIT LED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNSEE RENDERED EXAMPLES (ON THIS SHEET 2 & 3/A1.1L)LOCATION OF CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE FOR LOBBY, APPROXIMATELY 18" X 84" (TBD)FRONT LIT LED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN OR NON- ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGNSEE RENDERED EXAMPLE (ON THIS SHEET 4/A1.1L)LOCATION OF CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE FOR RETAIL, APPROXIMATELY 18" X 84" (TBD)FRONT LIT LED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNSEE RENDERED EXAMPLES ( ON THIS SHEET 2 & 3/A1.1L)
LOFT B LOFT A
LOFT C
LOFT D
Wall-Mounted Sconce Light (Palm & Allison)Wall-Mounted Sconce Light (Alley)Floor-Mounted Up-LightProposed Conceptual Signage (to be refined) Wall-Mounted Sconce Light (Palm & Allison)Canal Soho Wall Sconce byBarn Light Electric Company, or similarBlack finishSee cut sheet provided for more informationWall-Mounted Sconce Light (Alley)BLOK 4.75" LED Outdoor Sconce (E23216-BK) by ET2 Lighting, or similarBlack finishSee cut sheet provided for more informationFloor-Mounted Up-LightBlack In Ground Well Light by Lamps Plus, or similarBlack finishSee cut sheet provided for more information 1 1/16" = 1'-0" Lighting and Conceptual Signage Plan
Keynotes
NORTH
Legend - LightingLight Fixture Specifications
Retail Sign Option 1Retail Sign Option 2
2 Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Lighting and
Conceptual
Signage Plan
24103
A1.1L
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
3232
SIMSIM
Lobby Sign
3 4
4
W/D
W/DW/D
W/D W/D W/D W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D W/D
W/D
W/DW/DW/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D W/D W/DW/D W/D W/D
ONYX SEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX SEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
1 A3.1
A3.1
2 A3.2
6 A3.2
10 A3.2
7 OPEN TO
BELOW
2 Bedroom B
205
2 Bedroom C
206
2 Bedroom E
213
1 Bedroom A
204
1 Bedroom A
203
1 Bedroom A2
202
2 Bedroom A
201
1 Bedroom C
226
2 Bedroom A
228
Studio C
225
Studio B
215
1 Bedroom A
216
2 Bedroom A
217
1 Bedroom A
219
1 Bedroom C
220
2 Bedroom A
218
ST
BOH
1 Bedroom A
227
Studio C
221
ST
BOH
ELEV
1 Bedroom A
222
2 Bedroom C
210
Studio A
214
2 Bedroom C
209
944 SF
Common Area
BOH
A3.1
53 4
BOH
Kitchen
TV Lounge
2 Bedroom D
211
1 Bedroom B
212
A3.2
11 A3.2
9 8
2 Bedroom F
208
Studio D
224
Pool Table
5' - 1 1/2" 35' - 0" 27' - 2" 11' - 0" 24' - 0" 24' - 0" 34' - 10" 1' - 0"
BUILDING DIMENSION
157' - 0"
BEYOND P.L., TYP.
10 1/2" PROJECTION 65' - 0"30' - 0"5' - 2"30' - 0"
4' - 1 1/2"
30' - 0" 5' - 2" 30' - 0"
195' - 4" BUILDING DIMENSION
35' - 0" 24' - 0" 19' - 6" 10' - 0"
5' - 1 1/2"
BUILDING DIMENSION
67' - 10"
5' - 1 1/4"
5' - 0"
8' - 10"
BUILDING DIMENSION
44' - 1"
5' - 0 1/4"
31' - 0" 34' - 0" 37' - 3
1/2"
BUILDING
DIMENSION
102' - 3
1/2" BEYOND P.L. MAX, TYP.
1' - 0 1/2" PROJECTION
BEYOND P.L.
4' - 0 1/2" PROJECTION
4' - 5 1/4"
13' - 8"34' - 6"34' - 6"43' - 0"24' - 0"34' - 6"33' - 8" 2' - 0"
BUILDING DIMENSION
217' - 10"
PROJECTION BEYOND P.L.
4' - 0" AWNING
COURTYARD COMMON
OPEN SPACE
4,450 SF
10' - 0"
5' - 0"
50 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY,
TYP.
177 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 104 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 84 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 72 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
82 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
177 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 104 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 84 SF PRIVATE TERRACE 72 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
79 SF PRIVATE
TERRACE
BEYOND P.L, TYP.
4' - 0" AWNING PROJECTION
Wall/Floor/Ceiling/Roof type tag, see sheet A8.1Door tag, see sheet A7.1Window/Storefront tag, see sheet A7.1KeynoteProperty lineMatch lineConcrete wall per structuralFire partition - 1 HRFire barrier - 2 HRFire barrier - 1 HRFire wall - 2 HRNew wallExisting wall 101
A
?
Egress Path
1. When shown in plan, all dimensions are to face of stud, face of concrete, centerline of columns, or centerline of wall assemblies, U.N.O.
2. Do not scale drawings. Written dimensions govern. 3. All clear dimensions are not to be adjusted without approval of the Architect.
4. See site plan for overall site dimensions and notes not shown.5. All grid lines indicate center of structural wall or face of structural material, U.N.O.
6. Window types and locations shall be as per building plans, not enlarged plans.
7. See enlarged plans for dimensions, tags, keynotes, notes, etc. not shown.
8. Refer to Civil and Structural for level one finish floor elevations.9. See finish legend for typical finishes, U.N.O.10. See reflected ceiling plans for locations and dimensions of soffited areas.
11. Provide and install min. 2x flat wood blocking or min. 16GA metal strapping per mfr. for all bath accessories, handrails, cabinets, towel bars, bike racks, wall mounted fixtures or equipment and any other items attached to walls.
12. All changes in floor materials occur at centerline of door or framed openings unless otherwise indicated on the drawings. 13. At areas of transition between different wall assemblies, continue thickest layer of substrate or finish to provide a flush finished surface in all directions to nearest perpendicular surface (wall, ceiling, etc.), U.N.O.
14. Provide batt insulation at interior walls for acoustic purposes at corridors, bathrooms, laundry rooms and party walls where occurs, U.N.O.
15. All blockouts in slabs, walls, footings and P.T. slabs where occur shall be coordinated and provided, even if not specifically shown on drawings.
16. Occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, kitchens, storage rooms and laundry rooms shall be permitted to have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet. (CBC Sec. 1208.2)
17. Door jambs are located 4” from perpendicular wall U.N.O.18. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather at courtyards, plazas, terraces or balconies that are on an accessible route shall have a maximum one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2- percent) slope in any direction.
19. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather shall have a minimum one-eighth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1-percent slope) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains.
20. Concrete structural decks at podiums may have various finish surfaces, such as concrete topping slab, traffic coating, cobble, synthetic turf or other finish material that is exposed to weather. Concrete structural decks may have areas that are flat, stepped and sloped. Refer to plans for extent of these areas, slopes and area drains.
21. Wood substrates below a concrete topping slab or traffic coating that is exposed to weather shall have a one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains. (CBC Sec. 2304.12.2.5) Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Level 2 Floor
Plan
24103
A1.2
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1/16" = 1'-0" Level 2 Floor Plan
Legend - Floor PlanGeneral Notes - Floor Plan
Keynotes
NORTH
Unit Schedule - Per Level
Level Name Count
Level 1 Loft 4Level 1: 4Level 2 1 Bedroom 10Level 2 2 Bedroom 11Level 2 Studio 5Level 2: 26Level 3 1 Bedroom 13Level 3 2 Bedroom 11Level 3 Studio 4Level 3: 28Level 4 1 Bedroom 13Level 4 2 Bedroom 11Level 4 Studio 4Level 4: 28Level 5 1 Bedroom 13Level 5 2 Bedroom 11Level 5 Studio 4Level 5: 28114 Unit Schedule - Totals
Name Count %
1 Bedroom 49 43%2 Bedroom 44 39%Loft 4 4%Studio 17 15%
114 100%
W/D
W/DW/D
W/D
W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/DW/D W/D W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D W/D W/DW/D W/D
W/D
W/D
Wall/Floor/Ceiling/Roof type tag, see sheet A8.1Door tag, see sheet A7.1Window/Storefront tag, see sheet A7.1KeynoteProperty lineMatch lineConcrete wall per structuralFire partition - 1 HRFire barrier - 2 HRFire barrier - 1 HRFire wall - 2 HRNew wallExisting wall 101
A
?
Egress Path
1. When shown in plan, all dimensions are to face of stud, face of concrete, centerline of columns, or centerline of wall assemblies, U.N.O.
2. Do not scale drawings. Written dimensions govern. 3. All clear dimensions are not to be adjusted without approval of the Architect.
4. See site plan for overall site dimensions and notes not shown.5. All grid lines indicate center of structural wall or face of structural material, U.N.O.
6. Window types and locations shall be as per building plans, not enlarged plans.
7. See enlarged plans for dimensions, tags, keynotes, notes, etc. not shown.
8. Refer to Civil and Structural for level one finish floor elevations.9. See finish legend for typical finishes, U.N.O.10. See reflected ceiling plans for locations and dimensions of soffited areas.
11. Provide and install min. 2x flat wood blocking or min. 16GA metal strapping per mfr. for all bath accessories, handrails, cabinets, towel bars, bike racks, wall mounted fixtures or equipment and any other items attached to walls.
12. All changes in floor materials occur at centerline of door or framed openings unless otherwise indicated on the drawings. 13. At areas of transition between different wall assemblies, continue thickest layer of substrate or finish to provide a flush finished surface in all directions to nearest perpendicular surface (wall, ceiling, etc.), U.N.O.
14. Provide batt insulation at interior walls for acoustic purposes at corridors, bathrooms, laundry rooms and party walls where occurs, U.N.O.
15. All blockouts in slabs, walls, footings and P.T. slabs where occur shall be coordinated and provided, even if not specifically shown on drawings.
16. Occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, kitchens, storage rooms and laundry rooms shall be permitted to have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet. (CBC Sec. 1208.2)
17. Door jambs are located 4” from perpendicular wall U.N.O.18. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather at courtyards, plazas, terraces or balconies that are on an accessible route shall have a maximum one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2- percent) slope in any direction.
19. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather shall have a minimum one-eighth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1-percent slope) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains.
20. Concrete structural decks at podiums may have various finish surfaces, such as concrete topping slab, traffic coating, cobble, synthetic turf or other finish material that is exposed to weather. Concrete structural decks may have areas that are flat, stepped and sloped. Refer to plans for extent of these areas, slopes and area drains.
21. Wood substrates below a concrete topping slab or traffic coating that is exposed to weather shall have a one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains. (CBC Sec. 2304.12.2.5) 1 A3.1
A3.1
2 A3.2
6 A3.2
10 A3.2
7 5' - 1 1/2" 35' - 0" 27' - 2" 11' - 0" 24' - 0" 24' - 0" 34' - 10" 1' - 0"
65' - 0"30' - 0"5' - 2"30' - 0"
4' - 1 1/2"
30' - 0" 5' - 2" 30' - 0"
35' - 0" 24' - 0" 19' - 6" 10' - 0"
24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"
5' - 1 1/4"
5' - 0"
49' - 6"
17' - 5"
31' - 0" 34' - 0" 37' - 3
1/2"
2 Bedroom B
305
2 Bedroom C
306
1 Bedroom B
307
1 Bedroom A
304
1 Bedroom A
303
1 Bedroom C
326
2 Bedroom A
328
Studio C
325
1 Bedroom A
324
1 Bedroom A
323
Studio B
315
1 Bedroom A
316
2 Bedroom A
317
1 Bedroom A
319
1 Bedroom C
320
2 Bedroom A
318
1 Bedroom A
327
Studio C
321
BOH
ELEV
1 Bedroom A
322 2 Bedroom F
308
2 Bedroom C
309
BOH
BOH
A5.0X
12 A3.1
53 4
2 Bedroom E
313
2 Bedroom C
310
2 Bedroom D
311
1 Bedroom B
312
A3.2
11 32' - 7"
A3.2
9 8
1 A3.3
2 A3.3
Studio A
314
5' - 0 1/4"
1 Bedroom A2
302
2 Bedroom A
301
217' - 10"
8' - 10"
BUILDING DIMENSION
44' - 1"
4' - 5 1/4"
13' - 8"34' - 6"34' - 6"43' - 0"24' - 0"34' - 6"33' - 8" 2' - 0"
BEYOND P.L.
4' - 0 1/2" PROJECTION
BUILDING DIMENSION
217' - 10"
ST
ST BOH
BUILDING DIMENSION
157' - 0"
BEYOND P.L., TYP.
10 1/2" PROJECTION
195' - 4" BUILDING DIMENSION
5' - 1 1/2"
BUILDING DIMENSION
67' - 10 1/8"
BUILDING
DIMENSION
102' - 3
1/2" BEYOND P.L. MAX, TYP.
1' - 0 1/2" PROJECTION
50 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY,
TYP.
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Level 3 Floor
Plan
24103
A1.3
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
Legend - Floor PlanGeneral Notes - Floor Plan
Keynotes
1 1/16" = 1'-0" Level 3 Floor Plan
NORTH
Unit Schedule - Per Level
Level Name Count
Level 1 Loft 4Level 1: 4Level 2 1 Bedroom 10Level 2 2 Bedroom 11Level 2 Studio 5Level 2: 26Level 3 1 Bedroom 13Level 3 2 Bedroom 11Level 3 Studio 4Level 3: 28Level 4 1 Bedroom 13Level 4 2 Bedroom 11Level 4 Studio 4Level 4: 28Level 5 1 Bedroom 13Level 5 2 Bedroom 11Level 5 Studio 4Level 5: 28114 Unit Schedule - Totals
Name Count %
1 Bedroom 49 43%2 Bedroom 44 39%Loft 4 4%Studio 17 15%
114 100%
W/D
W/DW/D
W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D W/D W/D W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D
W/D W/D W/DW/D W/D
W/D
Wall/Floor/Ceiling/Roof type tag, see sheet A8.1Door tag, see sheet A7.1Window/Storefront tag, see sheet A7.1KeynoteProperty lineMatch lineConcrete wall per structuralFire partition - 1 HRFire barrier - 2 HRFire barrier - 1 HRFire wall - 2 HRNew wallExisting wall 101
A
?
Egress Path
1. When shown in plan, all dimensions are to face of stud, face of concrete, centerline of columns, or centerline of wall assemblies, U.N.O.
2. Do not scale drawings. Written dimensions govern. 3. All clear dimensions are not to be adjusted without approval of the Architect.
4. See site plan for overall site dimensions and notes not shown.5. All grid lines indicate center of structural wall or face of structural material, U.N.O.
6. Window types and locations shall be as per building plans, not enlarged plans.
7. See enlarged plans for dimensions, tags, keynotes, notes, etc. not shown.
8. Refer to Civil and Structural for level one finish floor elevations.9. See finish legend for typical finishes, U.N.O.10. See reflected ceiling plans for locations and dimensions of soffited areas.
11. Provide and install min. 2x flat wood blocking or min. 16GA metal strapping per mfr. for all bath accessories, handrails, cabinets, towel bars, bike racks, wall mounted fixtures or equipment and any other items attached to walls.
12. All changes in floor materials occur at centerline of door or framed openings unless otherwise indicated on the drawings. 13. At areas of transition between different wall assemblies, continue thickest layer of substrate or finish to provide a flush finished surface in all directions to nearest perpendicular surface (wall, ceiling, etc.), U.N.O.
14. Provide batt insulation at interior walls for acoustic purposes at corridors, bathrooms, laundry rooms and party walls where occurs, U.N.O.
15. All blockouts in slabs, walls, footings and P.T. slabs where occur shall be coordinated and provided, even if not specifically shown on drawings.
16. Occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, kitchens, storage rooms and laundry rooms shall be permitted to have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet. (CBC Sec. 1208.2)
17. Door jambs are located 4” from perpendicular wall U.N.O.18. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather at courtyards, plazas, terraces or balconies that are on an accessible route shall have a maximum one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2- percent) slope in any direction.
19. Exterior walking surfaces exposed to weather shall have a minimum one-eighth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1-percent slope) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains.
20. Concrete structural decks at podiums may have various finish surfaces, such as concrete topping slab, traffic coating, cobble, synthetic turf or other finish material that is exposed to weather. Concrete structural decks may have areas that are flat, stepped and sloped. Refer to plans for extent of these areas, slopes and area drains.
21. Wood substrates below a concrete topping slab or traffic coating that is exposed to weather shall have a one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent) slope for positive drainage U.N.O. Refer to plans for slopes and area drains. (CBC Sec. 2304.12.2.5) 1 A3.1
A3.1
2 A3.2
6 A3.2
10 A3.2
7 2 Bedroom B
505
2 Bedroom C
506
1 Bedroom B
507
1 Bedroom A
504
1 Bedroom A
503 1 Bedroom A2
502
2 Bedroom A
501
1 Bedroom C
526
2 Bedroom A
528
Studio C
525
1 Bedroom A
524
1 Bedroom A
523
Studio B
515
1 Bedroom A
516
2 Bedroom A
517
1 Bedroom A
519
1 Bedroom C
520
2 Bedroom A
518
BOH
1 Bedroom A
527
Studio C
521
BOH
ELEV
1 Bedroom A
522
BOH
A3.1
53 4
2 Bedroom E
513
2 Bedroom D
511
1 Bedroom B
512
A3.2
11 A3.2
9 8
2 Bedroom F
508
2 Bedroom C
510
2 Bedroom C
509
1 A3.3
2 A3.3
Studio A
514
5' - 1 1/2" 35' - 0" 27' - 2" 11' - 0" 24' - 0" 24' - 0" 34' - 10" 1' - 0"
65' - 0"30' - 0"5' - 2"30' - 0"
4' - 1 1/2"
30' - 0" 5' - 2" 30' - 0"
5' - 1 1/4"
5' - 0"
35' - 0" 24' - 0" 19' - 6" 10' - 0"
8' - 10"
BUILDING DIMENSION
44' - 1"
5' - 0 1/4"
31' - 0" 34' - 0" 37' - 3
1/2" 4' - 5 1/4"
13' - 8"34' - 6"34' - 6"43' - 0"24' - 0"34' - 6"33' - 8" 2' - 0"
BUILDING DIMENSION
217' - 10"
ST
ST BOH
BEYOND P.L.
4' - 0 1/2" PROJECTION
BUILDING DIMENSION
157' - 0"
BEYOND P.L., TYP.
10 1/2" PROJECTION
195' - 4" BUILDING DIMENSION
5' - 1 1/2"
BUILDING DIMENSION
67' - 10 1/8"
BUILDING
DIMENSION
102' - 3
1/2" BEYOND P.L. MAX, TYP.
1' - 0 1/2" PROJECTION
50 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY,
TYP.
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Level 4-5 Floor
Plan
24103
A1.4
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
Legend - Floor PlanGeneral Notes - Floor Plan
Keynotes
1 1/16" = 1'-0" Level 4-5 Floor Plan
NORTH
Unit Schedule - Per Level
Level Name Count
Level 1 Loft 4Level 1: 4Level 2 1 Bedroom 10Level 2 2 Bedroom 11Level 2 Studio 5Level 2: 26Level 3 1 Bedroom 13Level 3 2 Bedroom 11Level 3 Studio 4Level 3: 28Level 4 1 Bedroom 13Level 4 2 Bedroom 11Level 4 Studio 4Level 4: 28Level 5 1 Bedroom 13Level 5 2 Bedroom 11Level 5 Studio 4Level 5: 28114 Unit Schedule - Totals
Name Count %
1 Bedroom 49 43%2 Bedroom 44 39%Loft 4 4%Studio 17 15%
114 100%
1 A3.1
A3.1
2 A3.2
6 A3.2
10 A3.2
7 A3.1
53 4
A3.2
11 A3.2
9 8
1/4" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/2" / 12" 1/2" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1 A3.3
2 A3.3
1/4" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/2" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
PARAPET-MOUNTED MECHANICAL UNITS, TYPICAL
4' - 0"
4' WIDE MAINTENANCE PATHPRELIMINARY AREA FOR SOLAR PV'S
ROOF ACCESS VIA STAIR
BUILDING DIMENSION
157' - 0"
195' - 4" BUILDING DIMENSION
5' - 1 1/2"
BUILDING DIMENSION
67' - 10 1/8"
BUILDING
DIMENSION
101' - 9 3/8"
8' - 10"
BUILDING DIMENSION
44' - 1"
BUILDING DIMENSION
217' - 10"
BEYOND P.L.
1' - 8 1/2" PROJECTION
1. When shown in plan, all dimensions are to face of stud, face of concrete, centerline of columns, or centerline of wall assemblies, U.N.O.
2. Do not scale drawings. Written dimensions govern.3. All clear dimensions are not to be adjusted without approval of the Architect.
4. See Civil and Plumbing for roof drains that connect underground to storm drain system.
5. No appliances, mechanical equipment, fans, roof hatch openings or other components that require service shall be located within 10-feet of a roof edge without a 42" parapet or guardrail minimum. Guards are not required where the Owner provides permanent fall arrest/restraint anchorage connector devices in compliance with ANSI/ASSE Z 359.1.
6. 20"x30" minimum access shall be provided at attic spaces with clear height of 30" or greater. (CBC Sec. 1208.2)
7. Provide ICC ESR number for all skylights where occur. 8. Appliances shall be located to permit access and sufficient clearance for cleaning. When an appliance is located on a sloped roof greater than 4:12 (33%) a platform of not less than 30" x 30" shall be provided at the service side. (CMC Sec. 304.1 & 304.2)
9. Buildings exceeding 15 feet in height shall have an inside means of access to the roof. The access shall be permanent, or foldaway inside stairway or ladder, and the scuttle or trap door shall not be less than 22" by 24". Provide 6' minimum clearance to the roof edge or a fixed guard at 42" in height. (CMC Sec. 304.3)
10. In buildings four or more stories above grade plane, one stairway shall extend to the roof, however when elevator equipment is not required to be accessed by a stairway, an alternating tread device, ship's ladder or permanent ladder may be used. (CBC Sec. 1011.12 Ex.) When a roof hatch is used in lieu of a required stairway it shall be 16 SF minimum in area and have a minimum dimension of 2 feet. (CBC Sec. 1011.12.2 Ex.)
1. Text.
Placeholder Text
The following items are interrelated:
Full height walls & extended plywoodInsulationFire sprinklersDraft curtainsAttic & rafter ventilation The attic and rafter ventilation design assumes the following, notify the Architect if assumptions are inaccurate :1. Full height walls only occur at fire barriers, fire walls or where required by structural. Holes are provided in plywood per structural.
2. Insulation is provided in the roof per the roof type. Additional insulation is not provided.
3. Fire sprinklers are provided in the attic space per CBC 903.3.1.1.4. Verify with fire sprinkler designer: The fire sprinkler heads used in the attic space require full height walls or draft curtains every 1,000 SF. The draft curtain shall be at least 1/3 the depth of the concealed space or 8 inches, whichever is greater, and be constructed using a material that will not allow heat to escape through or above the curtain.
5. Draftstopping will not be used. The minimum draft curtain height will be used so as not to interfere with the movement of air.
6. NOTE: Draftstopping at fire partitions is not required at floors or attics in buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system per CBC 903.3.1.1, or in accordance with CBC 903.3.1.2 provided that protection is in the floor or attic space per CBC 903.3.1.1. (CBC 708.4.2 EXC. 1, 718.3 EXC. 1 & 718.4. EXC. 1)
7. The net free area of ventilated attics and rafter spaces shall not be less than 1/150 of the area of space ventilated. Blocking and bridging shall be arranged so as not to interfere with the movement of air. An airspace of not less than 1 inch shall be provided between the insulation and the roof sheathing. (CBC 1202.2.1) Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Roof Plan
24103
A1.5
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1/16" = 1'-0" Roof Plan
Keynotes
General Notes - Roof PlanProject Notes - Roof PlanLegend - Roof PlanRoof Ventilation NORTH
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 3D Views
24103
A2.1
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
View from Northeast Corner
1 View from Southeast Corner
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
View from Southwest Corner
View from Northwest Corner East Elevation (along Palm Avenue) South Elevation (along Alley) West Elevation (from adjacent Bank) View from Spring Street Northeast Elevation (along Allison Avenue)
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
Building Height (as defined by City of La Mesa)
54' - 7"
RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ENTRANCEEXISTING FINISHED GRADE: 545.68 7' - 0"3' - 0"
1' - 9"
GLAZED
7' - 7"
2' - 6"
GLAZED
10' - 4"
2' - 0"
GLAZED
3' - 4" 10' - 0"
GLAZED
7' - 6" 2' - 0"
GLAZED
7' - 6" 16' - 0"
GLAZED
6' - 5" 3' - 0"
GLAZED
15' - 1" 10' - 6"
GLAZED
7' - 0" 2' - 0"
GLAZED
7' - 0" 25' - 0"
GLAZED
7' - 6" 2' - 0"
GLAZED
7' - 6"
GLAZED
27' - 0"
2' - 6"
GLAZED
9' - 11" 2' - 3"
GLAZED
9' - 2"
2' - 3"
216' - 5"
NOTE: Per DVSP 5.6, Sum of pedestrian entrances, display windows, etc. between 3'-10' above sidewalk (indicated by "GLAZED") = 120'-10"Glazing Area: 791.3 sf Total (7'-0" x 81'-8" = 571.7 sf; 6'-6" x 9'-2" = 59.6 sf; 5'-4" x 30'-0" = 160 sf)Total Area: 7'-0" x 216'-5" = 1514.9 sfTOTAL GLAZED / TOTAL AREA = 791.3 sf / 1514.9 sf = 52.2% 10' - 0"
1a 1b 2a 1e 3a 5a 6b 6a 7a 4a 8a 7b
EXISTING FINISHED GRADE:544.20'
EXISTING FINISHED GRADE:544.72'
EXISTING
FINISHED
GRADE:
546.27'
Highest Point of
Finished Grade:
546.00
Lowest Point of
Finished Grade:
543.39'
Average Point of
Finished Grade:
545.11'
Level 1M
6' - 6"
GLAZED
5' - 4"
GLAZED
7' - 0"
GLAZED
7' - 0"
GLAZED
5' - 4"
GLAZED
7' - 0"
BRICK HEIGHT
32"
BRICK HEIGHT
56"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
8' - 0"
8'-0" METAL GATE FOR WET UTILITIES
11' - 9"
11'-9" METAL GATE FOR VEHICLE INGRESS/EGRESS
8' - 0"
8'-0" METAL GATE FOR
GARAGE ACCESS
8'-0" METAL GATE FOR TRASH ACCESS
11'-0" CMU GARAGE
WALL WITH PLANTED
METAL CHAIN LINK AT
OPENINGS AND TO
ADD VISUAL INTEREST
10' - 6"
Building Height (as defined by City of La Mesa)
54' - 7"
Highest Point of
Finished Grade:
546.00
8'-0" METAL GATE AT NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE
8' - 0"
7d 7c 1a 1b 4b 5a 4c 4a 7a 2a 6a 3a
EXISTING
FINISHED
GRADE:
543.39'
EXISTING FINISHED GRADE: 546.27'
Lowest Point of
Finished Grade:
543.39'
Average Point of
Finished Grade:
545.11'
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
1c 7a
6a 1e
7d
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
1c 7a 1e 6a
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
ROOF ACCESS LADDER TO
T/O STAIR ENCLOSURE 7a 6a 1c 1e
1e
7d
2 61
10 73 5 4
8 9
11 NORTH
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Building
Elevations
24103
A3.1
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - East2 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - South 3 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - Courtyard North 4 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - Courtyard West 5 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - Courtyard South Finish Schedule - Exterior Elevations
Tag Material / Description Finish / Color Comments
1a Cement Plaster Color 1 (Tan) Smoky Beige (SW 9087)1b Cement Plaster Color 2 (Dark Tan) Cardboard (SW 6124)1c Cement Plaster Color 3 (White) Alluring White (SW 6343)1d Cement Plaster Color 4 (Yellow/Orange) Sunflower (SW 6678)1e Cement Plaster Color 5 (Dark Gray) Black Fox (SW 9109)2a Brick Veneer Color 6 (Rust)3a Aluminum Wood Color 7 (Light Wood) Blonde Oak4a Concrete Natural4b CMU Color 5 (Dark Gray) Onyx4c CMU Natural Castle Grey5a Corrugated Metal Color 5 (Dark Gray) Mistique Plus (W31)5b Corrugated Metal Color 8 (Gray) Metallic Silver (K7) - ALTERNATE ONLY6a Storefront Color 5 (Dark Gray) Dark Bronze6b Brake Metal Color 4 (Yellow/Orange)7a Metal Railing Color 5 (Dark Gray)7b Brake Metal Color 5 (Dark Gray)7c Metal Screen with Vines Color 5 (Dark Gray) Welded Steel Mill Finish7d Metal Awning Element Color 5 (Dark Gray)8a Fiber Cement Panel Color 8 (Gray) Gray Slate
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
CMU GARAGE WALL WITH PLANTED METAL CHAIN LINK AT OPENINGS AND TO ADD VISUAL INTEREST 10' - 6"
8'-0" METAL GATE AND
FENCE AT GARAGE
ACCESS AND PROJECT
BOUNDARY
(Building Height as defined by City of La Mesa)
54' - 7"
7d 7d 7c 4a 4b 1c 7d 7d 5a 1b 1a 7a
Highest Point of
Finished Grade:
546.00
EXISTING FINISHED GRADE: 543.39'
Lowest Point of
Finished Grade:
543.39'
Average Point of
Finished Grade:
545.11'
EXISTING FINISHED
GRADE: 544.20'
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
CMU GARAGE WALL WITH PLANTED METAL CHAIN LINK
AT OPENINGS AND TO ADD
VISUAL INTEREST
4c 1a 6a 1b 4a 4b 7c 7a 7d
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
8'-0" METAL GATE AND
FENCE AT GARAGE
ACCESS AND PROJECT
BOUNDARY
1a 8a 7a
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
CMU GARAGE WALL WITH PLANTED METAL CHAIN LINK AT OPENINGS AND TO ADD VISUAL INTEREST (Building Height as defined by City of La Mesa)
54' - 7"
94' - 0"
7' - 0"3' - 0"
4' - 8"
2' - 6"
GLAZED
10' - 0"
2' - 6"
GLAZED
10' - 0"
2' - 6"
GLAZED
10' - 0"2' - 6"
GLAZED
20' - 0"2' - 6"
GLAZED
10' - 11"
2' - 6"
GLAZED
10' - 11"
2' - 6"
NOTE: Per DVSP 5.6, Sum of pedestrian entrances, display windows, etc. between 3'-10' above sidewalk (indicated by "GLAZED") = 74'-3"Glazing Area: 5'-0" x 74'-3" = 371.25 sf TotalTotal Area: 7'-0" x 94'-0" = 658 sfTOTAL GLAZED / TOTAL AREA = 371.25 sf / 658 sf = 56.4% 7a 8a 7b 4a 1d 2a
Highest Point of
Finished Grade:
546.00
Lowest Point of
Finished Grade:
543.39'
Average Point of
Finished Grade:
545.11'
EXISTING FINISHED GRADE: 543.45'
EXISTING
FINISHED
GRADE:
544.72'
Level 1M
6' - 6"
10' - 0"
BRICK HEIGHT
72"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
7a 1a 6a
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
8a 4a
Level 1M
6' - 6"
2 6
1 10
73 5
4 8
9 11
NORTH
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Building
Elevations
24103
A3.2
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
6 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - West
7 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - North
9 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - Southwest
10 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - Northeast
8 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - Northwest
11 1" = 10'-0" Building Elevation - Southeast
Finish Schedule - Exterior Elevations
Tag Material / Description Finish / Color Comments
1a Cement Plaster Color 1 (Tan) Smoky Beige (SW 9087)1b Cement Plaster Color 2 (Dark Tan) Cardboard (SW 6124)1c Cement Plaster Color 3 (White) Alluring White (SW 6343)1d Cement Plaster Color 4 (Yellow/Orange) Sunflower (SW 6678)1e Cement Plaster Color 5 (Dark Gray) Black Fox (SW 9109)2a Brick Veneer Color 6 (Rust)3a Aluminum Wood Color 7 (Light Wood) Blonde Oak4a Concrete Natural4b CMU Color 5 (Dark Gray) Onyx4c CMU Natural Castle Grey5a Corrugated Metal Color 5 (Dark Gray) Mistique Plus (W31)5b Corrugated Metal Color 8 (Gray) Metallic Silver (K7) - ALTERNATE ONLY6a Storefront Color 5 (Dark Gray) Dark Bronze6b Brake Metal Color 4 (Yellow/Orange)7a Metal Railing Color 5 (Dark Gray)7b Brake Metal Color 5 (Dark Gray)7c Metal Screen with Vines Color 5 (Dark Gray) Welded Steel Mill Finish7d Metal Awning Element Color 5 (Dark Gray)8a Fiber Cement Panel Color 8 (Gray) Gray Slate
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
T.O. Stair
64' - 0"
3' - 9"
4' - 1 3/4"
PARKING LOBBY ELEV LEASING LOBBY
Common Area ELEV
2 Bedroom F
208
1 Bedroom A
323
ELEV
2 Bedroom F
308
1 Bedroom A
423
1 Bedroom A
523
ELEVELEV
2 Bedroom F
408
2 Bedroom F
508
PARAPET-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,TOP-OF-MECHANICAL-UNIT TO BE AT A HEIGHT BELOW TOP-OF-PARAPET, TYP. 57' - 9"
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
T.O. Stair
64' - 0"
3' - 9 3/4"
4' - 10 3/4"
1 Bedroom A
516
1 Bedroom A
519
1 Bedroom A
416
1 Bedroom A
316
1 Bedroom A
216
1 Bedroom A
219
1 Bedroom A
319
1 Bedroom A
CORRIDOR 419CORRIDOR
1 Bedroom A
527
1 Bedroom A2
502
1 Bedroom A
427
1 Bedroom A
327
1 Bedroom A
227
1 Bedroom A2
202
1 Bedroom A2
302
1 Bedroom A2
402
CORRIDORCORRIDOR
PARKING
8' - 0"
PARAPET-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,TOP-OF-MECHANICAL-UNIT TO BE AT A HEIGHT BELOW TOP-OF-PARAPET, TYP.
CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR
57' - 8"
3' - 10"57' - 8"
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Building
Sections
24103
A3.3
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1/8" = 1'-0" E-W Section 12 1/8" = 1'-0" N-S Section 1
O NYX S AE T, BY BA BMAR
ONYX S AE T, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
FSD
4' - 0"
5 1/2"
FSD
FSD
6' - 0"
S-2
~26,360 SF
M
~2,560 SF
B
~2,415 SF
R-2
~3,900 SF
FSD
5' - 0"
FSD
10' - 1"
FSD
5' - 1"
FRONTAGE
DISTANCE
=
30'
102' - 3
1/2" *
FRONTAGE DISTANCE = 30'
134' - 2"
FRONTAGE DISTANCE = 30'
82' - 8" *
67' - 10 1/2"
69' - 5"
FRONTAGE DISTANCE = 26'
156' - 0" *
97' - 8"97' - 8" IMAGINARY PROPERTY LINE 156' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
T.O. Stair
64' - 0"
FSD = 6'-0"
Total Area: 441 SF
Allowable Area = 25%
Opening Type = UP, S
Opening Area = 0 SF
Actual Opening = 0%
0% < 45%, OK
FSD = 5'-1"
Total Area: 453.7 SF
Allowable Area = 25%
Opening Type = UP, S
Opening Area = 108 SF
Actual Opening = 24%
24% > 25%, OK
FSD = 5'-1"
Total Area per Floor: 440.7 SF
Allowable Area = 25%
Opening Type = UP, S
Opening Area = 98 SF
Actual Opening = 22.2%
22.2% > 25%, OK
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
T.O. Stair
64' - 0"
Opening Type = UP, SOpening Area = 144 SF
Actual Opening = 24%
24% < 25%, OKFACADE AREA PER FLOOROPENING AREA PER FLOOR FSD = 5'-0"Total Area per Floor: 600 SF Allowable Area = 25%FSD = 4'-0"Total Area per Floor: 3,037 SF Allowable Area = 15% Opening Type = UP, SOpening Area = 312 SF
Actual Opening = 10.27%
10.27% < 15%, OKOpening Type = UP, SOpening Area = 150 SF Actual Opening = 22.0%
22.0% > 25%, OK
FSD = 5'-0"Total Area: 682 SF Allowable Area = 25%
3'-0" WIDE
Level 1M
6' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
15' - 0"
T.O. Plate
54' - 0"
Level 3
25' - 0"
Level 4
35' - 0"
Level 5
45' - 0"
T.O. Parapet
61' - 6"
T.O. Stair
64' - 0"
FSD = 10'-1"Total Area per Floor: 790 SF Allowable Area = 45%FSD = 0'-5 1/2"Total Area per Floor: 300 SF Allowable Area = 0% Opening Type = UP, SOpening Area = 287.8 SF
Actual Opening = 36.4%
36.4% < 45%, OK
FSD = 10'-1"Total Area: 923.1 SF Allowable Area = 45%
Opening Type = UP, SOpening Area = 324 SF
Actual Opening = 35.1%
35.1% < 45%, OK
Level 1M
6' - 6"
This overall building is subdivided per the following:
Lower Building: Level 13 HR Horiz. assembly (CBC 510.2.1)North & South Building: Levels 2 - 5Imaginary line & 3 HR Fire Wall (CBC 503.1 & 706) SummaryChapter 2 DefinitionsHeight, Building: vert. distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surfaceStory Above Grade Plane: Any story having FF entirely above grade plane or in which the finish surface of the floor next above is:
1. More than 6 feet above grade plane; or2. More than 12 feet above the finished ground level at any point 510.2 Horizontal building separation allowance
A building shall be considered as separate and distinct buildings for the purpose of determining area limitations, continuity of fire walls, limitation of number of stories and type of construction where all of the following conditions are met (CBC 510.2):1. The buildings are separated with a horizontal assembly having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 3 hours. 2. The building below, including the horizontal assembly, is of Type IA construction.3. Shaft, stairway, ramp and escalator enclosures through the horizontal assembly shall have not less than a 2-hour fire-resistance rating with opening protectives in accordance with Section 716.4. Interior exit stairways located within the Type IA building are permitted to be of combustible materials where the following requirements are met:
4.1. The building above the Type IA building is of Type III, IV, or V construction.4.2. The stairway located in the Type IA building is enclosed by 3-hour fire-resistance-rated construction with opening protectives in accordance with Section 716.
5. The building or buildings above the horizontal assembly shall be permitted to have multiple Group A occupancy uses, each with an occupant load of less than 300, or B, M, R or S occupancies.6. The building below the horizontal assembly shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, and shall be permitted to be any occupancy allowed by this code except Group H.7. The maximum building height in feet shall not exceed the limits set forth in Section 504.3 for the building having the smaller allowable height as measured from the grade plane.
Lower BuildingThe Lower Building includes levels 0 & 1This building contains non-separated occupancies, as the area and height for all occupancies is unlimited.Occupancies include:
B
M
R-2
S-2 Total
Level 1 2,415 SF. 2,560 SF. 3,900 SF. 26,360 SF. 35,235 SF.Total 35,235 SF.Type of construction: Type IA W/ NFPA 13 sprinklers (CBC 510.2.2 & 510.2.5) Height (CBC Table 504.3) Allowable: UL
Proposed: 15.0'Stories (CBC Table 504.4)
Allowable: UL
Proposed: 1 stories
Area (CBC Table 506.2)Allowable: UL
Proposed: 35,235 SF.
North BuildingThe North Building includes levels 2-5 to the north of the imaginary line.This building contains R-2 occupancy. Per 311.1.1 the rooms for storage purposes that are accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as part of that occupancy (R-2).Occupancies include:
R-2
Story 1 - Level 2 14,452 SF.Story 2 - Level 3 13,882 SF.Story 3 - Level 4 13,882 SF.Story 4 - Level 5 13,882 SF.Total 56,100 SF.Type of construction: Type V-A W/ NFPA 13 sprinklersHeight (CBC Table 504.3) Allowable: 60' (with area increase)
Proposed: 54' - 60'Per 510.2.6, this height measured from grade plane governs.Stories (CBC Table 504.4) Allowable: 4 stories (with area increase)
Proposed: 4 storiesMulti-story Allowable Area (CBC 506.2.3 & Table 506.2):
Allowable: Area (with height increase, see below)
With Frontage Increase (see frontage calculations below):
Aa = [At + (NS x If)] x S
= [36,000 + (12,000 x .07)] x 2
Allowable = 73,700 SF
Proposed: 56,100 SF < Allowable = OKProviding automatic sprinkler system for separation /protection (CBC 509.4 & Table 509)North Building Frontage Calculation (See 2/A7.0 for dimensions)Aa = Allowable Area = [At + (NS x lf)] x SAt = Tabular allowable area factor in accordance with Table 506.2NS = Tabular allowable area factor in accordance with Table 506.2 for nonsprinklered buildinglf = Area factor increase due to frontage (percent) = [F/P -.25] W/30 (per CBC Section 506.3.3, Equation 5-5)P = 575.92'F = 184.96'Weighted Average (per CBC Section 506.3.2, Equation 5-4. See 2/A7.0 for lengths and widths indicated below):W = (102.29' x 30.0') + (82.67' x 30') / (102.29' + 82.67') = 30.0
lf = [F/P -.25] W/30
= [184.96 / 575.92 - 0.25] 30.0 / 30= [0.32 - 0.25] 1.00= [0.07] 1.00 = 0.07 South BuildingThe South Building includes levels 2-5 to the south of the imaginary line.This building contains R-2 occupancy. Per 311.1.1 the rooms for storage purposes that are accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as part of that occupancy (R-2). Occupancies include:
R-2
Story 1 - Level 2 14,683 SF.Story 2 - Level 3 15,149 SF.Story 3 - Level 4 15,169 SF.Story 4 - Level 5 15,169 SF.Total 60,170 SF.Type of construction: Type IIIA W/ NFPA 13 sprinklersHeight (CBC Table 504.3)Allowable: 60' (with area increase)Proposed: 54' - 60'Per 510.2.6, this height measured from grade plane governs.Stories (CBC Table 504.4)Allowable: 4 stories (with area increase) Proposed: 4 storiesMulti-story Allowable Area (CBC 506.2.3 & Table 506.2):Allowable: Area (with height increase, see below) With Frontage Increase:
Aa = [At + (NS x If)] x S
= [36,000 + (12,000 x .26)] x 2
Allowable = 78,300 SFProposed Area: 60,170 SF < Allowable = OKProviding automatic sprinkler system for separation /protection (CBC 509.4 & Table 509)South Building Frontage Calculation (See 2/A7.0 for dimensions)Aa = Allowable Area = [At + (NS x lf)] x SAt = Tabular allowable area factor in accordance with Table 506.2NS = Tabular allowable area factor in accordance with Table 506.2 for nonsprinklered buildinglf = Area factor increase due to frontage (percent) = [F/P -.25] W/30 (per CBC Section 506.3.3, Equation 5-5)P = 543.83'F = 290.17'Weighted Average (per CBC Section 506.3.2, Equation 5-4. See 2/A7.0 for lengths and widths indicated below):W= (134.17' x 30') + (156.0' x 26') / (134.17' + 156.0') = 27.85
lf = [F/P -.25] W/30
= [290.17' / 543.83' - .25] 27.85/30= [0.53 - 0.25] 0.93= [0.28] 0.93= 0.26 Level 1 (Story 1, 545.7 FF)Level 2 (Story 1)Level 3 (Story 2)Level 4 (Story 3)Level 5 (Story 4) 3 HR horiz. assembly3 HR fire wall
Grade Plane 545.7Lowest Grade 545.1
East West
Type IA
Lower
Type IIIA
East & West
Average height of highest roof
57.7'.
F: 97' - 6"
A: 216' - 4 1/2"
B: 156' - 8"
C: 203' - 0"
D: 70' - 0"
E: 58' - 1"
546.00' FS546.00' FF
543.39' FS
543.45' FS
544.71' FS545.10' FF544.20' FS545.10' FF
544.72' FS545.10' FF
SEGMENT LENGTH AVG ELEVA 216.38' 545.50' FSB 156.67' 544.83' FSC 203.00' 543.42' FSD 70.00' 544.08' FSE 58.08' 544.46' FSF 97.50' 544.46' FSSEGMENT LENGTH AVG ELEVA 216.38' 545.55' FFB 156.67' 545.73' FFC 203.00' 545.45' FFD 70.00' 544.28' FFE 58.08' 545.10' FFF 97.50' 545.10' FFGRADE PLANE = WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF SEGMENTS = [(ALENGTH * AAVG ELEV) + (BLENGTH * BAVG ELEV)
+ (CLENGTH * CAVG ELEV) + (DLENGTH * DAVG ELEV)+ (ELENGTH * EAVG ELEV) + (FLENGTH * FAVG ELEV)]/ (ALENGTH + BLENGTH +
CLENGTH +
DLENGTH
+
ELENGTH +
FLENGTH )
= 545.11' FF
EXISTINGPROPOSED
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Code Analysis
24103
A7.0
CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark DevelopmentCityMark Development
2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
1 1" = 50'-0" Fire Separation Diagram - Level 12 1" = 50'-0" Fire Separation Diagram - Level 2
NORTHNORTH
5 1/16" = 1'-0" West Elevation at Northern Portion - Allowable Openings 3 1/16" = 1'-0" West Elevation - Allowable Openings4 1/16" = 1'-0" North Elevation - Allowable Openings6 3" = 1'-0" 21 CBC Allowable Area/Height 7 1" = 50'-0" Grade Plane Diagram NORTH
ONYX SEAT, BY BABMAR ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR
ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR ONYX LOVESEAT, BY BABMAR (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) ONYX SEAT, BY BABMAR GUARDRAIL (TYP.) 05-05 05-06 05-07 05-04 05-08 05-11 05-13 05-1205-09 05-10 05-14 05-18 05-16 10-01 TREE LOCATION (TYP.) 04-07 04-01 7'-4" 6'-0" 5'-10"
6'-0" 7'-4" 5'-10" SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY MATERIAL MFG. COLOR FINISH SPEC. 01 PAVEMENTS, RAMPS, CURBS ROOF DECK 4,239 SF TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 04 PLANTERS / SITE ELEMENTS 04-01 TURF EDGE BARRIER TBD TBD TO MATCH ARHITECTURE TBD TBD 04-06 L2 RAISED PLANTER - 48" HT 94 LF ALUMINUM TOURNESOL SITEWORKS CUSTOM GREEN - TBD POWDER COATED CUSTOM MODULAR ALUMINUM PLANTER; HEIGHT:48". SEE PLAN FOR DIMENSIONS 04-07 PLANTER WALL 651 LF FIBERGLASS TBD TBD TBD TBD 05 SITE FURNISHINGS 05-04 OUTDOOR SOFA 4 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-05 DINING TABLE 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-06 SEAT 10 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-07 LOUNGE CHAIR 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-08 LOUNGE TABLE 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-09 LOUNGE TABLE - TYPE 2 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-10 CAFE TABLE 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-11 SIDE TABLE 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-12 CAFE CHAIR 4 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-13 BAR STOOL 5 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-14 BAR STOOL - TYPE 2 6 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-15 BBQ & SIDE BURNER GRILL 1 STEEL TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-16 BBQ - ADA ACCESSIBLE 1 STEEL TBD TBD TBD TBD 05-18 RECYCLING RECEPTACLE KIT 1 STEEL TBD TBD TBD TBD 09 PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PROPOSED PLANTING AREA 161 SF TOPSOIL SOUTHWEST BOULDER AND STONE BROWN FINES AMENDED TOPSOIL GROUNDCOVER; SPREAD WITH A 3 IN. MIN. DEPTH PROPOSED BMP PLANTING AREA 1,855 SF TOPSOIL SOUTHWEST BOULDER AND STONE BROWN FINES AMENDED TOPSOIL GROUNDCOVER; SPREAD WITH A 3 IN. MIN. DEPTH ARTIFICIAL TURF 452 SF SYNTHETIC GRASS SYN LAWN PE/FIELD GREEN/OLIVE/APPL E - ROOFDECK PREMIUM; SKU: SAX47_ROOF 10 MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENTS OUTDOOR KITCHEN 134 SF TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE - LEVEL 2 N 0SCALE: 8 16 32 1/16"=1'-0" 24103 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 CityMark Palm Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark Development landscape architecture environmental planning urban design 3605-B Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 McCulloughLA.com 06/19/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 1111 Broadway, Suite 1320 Oakland, California 94607 PH. 619.296.3150 Signature Renewal Date Date 12/31/2026 1/29/2026 L ICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHI TECTDAVID W. McCULLOUGH - 4048 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4 Project THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. L102 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN - LEVEL 2 Page 67 of 328 24103 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark Development landscape architecture environmental planning urban design 3605-B Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 McCulloughLA.com 06/19/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 1111 Broadway, Suite 1320 Oakland, California 94607 PH. 619.296.3150 Signature Renewal Date Date 12/31/2026 1/29/2026
L ICENSED
LANDS
CAPE
ARCHI TECT
DAVID W. McCULLOUGH - 4048
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4 Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. L103 LANDSCAPE RENDERINGS Page 68 of 328 24103 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark Development landscape architecture environmental planning urban design 3605-B Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 McCulloughLA.com 06/19/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 1111 Broadway, Suite 1320 Oakland, California 94607 PH. 619.296.3150 Signature Renewal Date Date 12/31/2026 9/9/2025 L ICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHI TECTDAVID W. McCULLOUGH - 4048 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4 Project THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. L110 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 4" 3/8" 4" 6" 2"
6" 3" CLR. THICKENED EDGE CONDITIONTYPICAL PAVING CONDITION EDGE CONDITION AT VERTICAL FACE REINFORCED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE 1" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE PAVING BE INTEGRAL COLOR WITH SAND EXPOSED FINISH. COLOR TBD , SEE SPECIFICATIONS. 2. ALL JOINTING TO BE TOOLED OR SAW-CUT AS INDICATED ON PLANS. SEE PLAN FOR SCORING LOCATIONS. 3. NO SHINERS ON TOOLED EDGES OR RADII. 4. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED WHERE CONCRETE MEETS ALL VERTICAL FACES. 5. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY PAVING DETAILS. 6. DEPTH OF AGGREGATE IS SHOWN FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY. BASE COURSES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECH REPORT. 1 2 1/4" RADIUS 3 5 7 1/2" 6" 4 6 78 9 1 PLANTING SOIL 2 FINISH GRADE 3 COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECH 4 #4 REBAR @18" O.C. B.W. TYP. 5 C.I.P. CONC. TYP. 6 COMPACTED AGGREGATE PER GEOTECH 7 FOAM JOINT FILLER, SNAP-CAP TYPE 8 JOINT SEALANT WITH SAND COVERING 9 VERTICAL FACE, CONDITION VARIES 1 12" FLUSH FLUSH 2' 12" TREX COMPOSITE WOOD BOARDWALK WITH GUARDRAIL N.T.S. 1 2 3 4 5 6" CLR. RELOCATE EXISTING BOULDERS AS NEEDED WHERE THEY CONFLICT WITH BRIDGE INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN 6" CLEARANCE AS SHOWN. 4" MAX.
TYP.
42" 5'-0" MAX 6 1 EXISTING BIOSWALE. 2 ADJACENT CONCRETE SURFACE - SEE PLAN. 3 TREX COMPOSITE WOOD, NATURAL FINISH. 4 CONCRETE MOW CURB. NOTCH AS SHOWN. GALVANIZED STEEL SCREWS, COUNTERSINK AND PLUG, ALIGN ALL HARDWARE CENTERED IN EACH SLAT. 56 SIDE MOUNTED CABLE GUARD RAIL 12" 6" GENERAL NOTES: 1. FOOTING OF PROPOSED BRIDGE NOT TO ENCROACH ON EXISTING BIOSWALE 2. 3. NO GRADING TO OCCUR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EXISTING BIOSWALE, EXCEPT WHERE DISTURBED DURING BRIDGE INSTALLATION AND TO MAINTAIN CLEARANCE BENEATH BRIDGE AS SHOWN TO ALLOW APPROPRIATE WATER FLOW. 4. 5. REPLACE DAMAGED BIOSWALE PLANTING IN-KIND AS NEEDED. R/W EXISTING BACK OF WALK ANTICIPATED WATER SURFACE ELEVATION 12" 3 Page 69 of 328
24103 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 CityMark Palm
Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark Development landscape architecture environmental planning urban design 3605-B Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 McCulloughLA.com 06/19/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 1111 Broadway, Suite 1320 Oakland, California 94607 PH. 619.296.3150 Signature Renewal Date Date 12/31/2026 1/29/2026
L ICENSED
LANDS
CAPE
ARCHI TECT
DAVID W. McCULLOUGH - 4048
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4 Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. L104 MATERIALS AND FINISHES Page 70 of 328
LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORK
16'-0"
65° 14'-4" 3'-6" 3'-7" 3'-8"
4'-0"
18'-6"
2%
S
S
C
C
C
C
EE
E
E
E
E
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
S
S
S
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
ELECTRICAL CABINET
ELECTRICAL CABINET
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
W
W
S
F
S SD SD
SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD
W SD
SD SD
SD
W
W
F
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
37'-10" 44'-4"
40'-0" PMASAS AS AS PMPMPMPMPMPMPMPMPMPMPBPBPBPBPBPBPBSWSWSWSWSWSWSWMUMUMUMU MUMUMUMU SWSWSWSWSWSWSWMU PSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPS PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S PX PX PX PXPXPXPXPXPXPXPX MU MU MU AC AC AC AS AS AS AS
S S S ASASPM AS
5'-6"
5'-6" AS 15'-0" SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONTAINER WUCOLS QTY TREES ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24" BOX L: 0.1 - 0.3 5 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE EXISTING 2 PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR AFRICAN FERN PINE EXISTING
4 EXISTING TREES ( TO BE REMOVED ) FICUS MICROCARPA INDIAN LAUREL FIG EXISTING 5 PYRUS CALLERYANA CALLERY PEAR EXISTING3 CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONTAINER WUCOLS QTY SHRUBS AC ACACIA COGNATA 'ACCOG01' COUSIN ITT LITTLE RIVER WATTLE 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.63 AS AEONIUM X 'SUNBURST' SUNBURST AEONIUM 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 12 DB DISTICTIS BUCCINATORIA BLOOD RED TRUMPET VINE 15 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 34 MU MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLY 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 12 PB PEDILANTHUS BRACTEATUS SLIPPER 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 18 PX PHILODENDRON XANADU XANADU PHILODENDRON 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 11 PS PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM 'SILVER SHEEN' SILVER SHEEN TAWHIWHI 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 40 PM PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'SOSA' MOOD RING® YEW PODOCARPUS 15 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 24 SW SALVIA CLEVELANDII 'WINNIFRED GILMAN' WINNIFRED GILMAN CLEVELAND SAGE 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 14 SS SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKS 1 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 94 S SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 22 SD STRELITZIA REGINAE 'DWARF' DWARF BIRD OF PARADISE 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 7 PLANT SCHEDULE - LEVEL 1
E
P (PROPOSED) TOTAL PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SF: 3,349 SF COMPLIANCE TABLE: TOTAL LF OF STREET FRONTAGE: PALM AVENUE 228 LF REQUIRED: (1 TREE PER 40 LF) 5 TREES PROVIDED:5 ALLISON AVENUE 120 LF REQUIRED: (1 TREE PER 40 LF)3 TREES PROVIDED:3 COMPLIANCE NOTE: THESE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER. 24103 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 CityMark Palm Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark Development landscape architecture environmental planning urban design 3605-B Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 McCulloughLA.com 06/19/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Project THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 1111 Broadway, Suite 1320 Oakland, California 94607 PH. 619.296.3150 Signature Renewal Date Date 12/31/2026 9/9/2025
L ICENSED
LANDS
CAPE
ARCHI TECT
DAVID W. McCULLOUGH - 4048
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA L301 PLANTING PLAN - LEVEL 1
N
0SCALE: 8 16 32 1/16"=1'-0" TOTAL LANDSCAPE SQUARE FOOTAGE: ONE TREE FOR 500 SF LANDSCAPING REQ: 20% TREES SHALL BE 24" BOX SIZE OR LARGER: TURF AREA 10% OF TOTAL SITE: SQ. FT. EA. EA. SQ. FT. UNITS REQUIRED ACHIEVED MAXIMUM ALLOWED ACHIEVED CITY OF LA MESA LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS 1,799 SQ. FT. 7 TREES 542 SQ. FT. 0 SQ. FT. 7 TREES 2 TREES 7 TREES WITHIN PL ROW COMBINED 3,349 SQ. FT. 5,418 SQ. FT. Page 71 of 328 7'-4"
6'-0" 7'-4"
6'-0" 5'-10" 5'-10" FR FR FRFR FR FRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRMCMCMCMC MRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRCTCTCTCTCTCT JE JE JE JE JE JE JE JE JE JE JE JE FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMC MC MC MCMCMCMCMC MCMCMCMCMCMC MCMCMCMCMC MCMCMC MC MC FR FR FRFR MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI PO PO PO PO POPOPO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO POPOPOPOPOMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMC FRMRCTCTCTJE JE JE MC POPOPO MC MRCTCTCTPOPOPOJE JE JEJE JE JEJE JE JE PO PO PO PO MRMR MRMR MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONTAINER WUCOLS QTY TREES ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24" BOX L: 0.1 - 0.3 4 CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONTAINER WUCOLS QTY SHRUBS CT CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM 'DWARF' DWARF CAPE RUSH 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 12 FR FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 31 JE JUNCUS PATENS 'ELK BLUE' SPREADING RUSH 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 24 MI MIMULUS CARDINALIS SCARLET MONKEYFLOWER 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 70 MR MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 15 MC MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE 5 GAL L: 0.1 - 0.3 52 PO POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN 5 GAL M: 0.4 - 0.6 33 SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONTAINER WUCOLS QTY GROUND COVERS BACCHARIS X 'CENTENNIAL' CENTENNIAL COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L: 0.10 314 PLANT SCHEDULE - LEVEL 2 24103 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1 CityMark Palm Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA
CityMark Development landscape architecture environmental planning urban design 3605-B Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 McCulloughLA.com 06/19/25 Planning Submittal 2 10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3 Project THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 1111 Broadway, Suite 1320 Oakland, California 94607 PH. 619.296.3150 Signature Renewal Date Date 12/31/2026 9/9/2025
L ICENSED
LANDS
CAPE
ARCHI TECT
DAVID W. McCULLOUGH - 4048
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA L302 PLANTING PLAN - LEVEL 2
N
0SCALE: 8 16 32 1/16"=1'-0" Page 72 of 328
Project
THE PICTORIAL AND GRAPHIC EXPRESSIONS DISPLAYED WITH THIS WORK ARE COPYRIGHTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TITLE 17, U.S. CODE. UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE ARCHITECT SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE REPRODUCTION, DISPLAY OR ANY DERIVATION OF THIS WORK. 10/10/24 Planning Submittal 1
6/20/25 Planning Submittal 2
10/16/25 Planning Submittal 3
Color and
Materials
Board
24103
A6.0 CityMark Palm Palm Ave & Allison Ave, La Mesa, CA CityMark Development 2/2/26 Planning Submittal 4
ATTACHMENT F
DATE: July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ray Sweeney, Chief of Police
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: HOMELESS OUTREACH AND MOBILE ENGAGEMENT (“HOME”) PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT (APRIL 2026 – JUNE 2026)
Please see the attached report.
City of La Mesa
Homeless Outreach &
Mobile Engagement (HOME) Program
Quarterly Report: April – June 2026
HOME Program Overview
The Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) Team is an initiative of the City of La Mesa and the La Mesa Police Department (LMPD). The HOME Team provides a housing-first and traumainformed approach to addressing homelessness in La Mesa. The HOME Team utilizes progressive engagement and harm reduction to assist individuals who are unable to access homeless services on their own. This report breaks down the HOME Team efforts and successes during the 2 nd quarter of
2026.
Since the beginning of the quarter, the HOME program outreach specialists have:
• Contacted 192 total individuals experiencing homelessness and newly enrolled 129 adults and 40 children. Many of these newly enrolled adults are one-time contacts that were provided shortterm services as they passed through La Mesa. A total of 62 individuals contacted this quarter were connected to a temporary or permanent home.
• Responded to 681 service calls routed through LMPD dispatch, HOME hotline or city email, and as follow-ups to previous contacts. Historically, many of these calls would have been handled by city emergency response services and law enforcement. • Prioritized the most vulnerable individuals in the City of La Mesa, including individuals living on the street with chronic physical and mental health conditions, households with children, and individuals facing chronic homelessness.
Clients Served
The HOME Team operates out of LMPD headquarters in downtown La Mesa and responds to nonemergency calls for service related to homelessness that are generated through police dispatch, HOME email, and The HOME Hotline. Each of these calls is first attended by a HOME Team outreach specialist; PD or PERT officers are only requested for rare cases involving legal or safety concerns. 129
63 Total Number of Clients Served
New Clients in Quarter Continuing Clients
192
Instances of
Service*
517
Calls for
Service
681
HOME Team Assistance: 23
# of Calls LMPD Officers
requested HOME assistance
# of Calls the HOME team
requested:
Officer Assistance: 7
PERT Assistance: 0
*Instances of service are included in the total calls for service. This number represent interactions with clients that are enrolled in the county’s case management system. More than one client may be present during a single call for service.
Client Demographics and Household Composition
Single Person
Households
79 Adult Couple
Households
6 16
80 110
0 15
30 45
60 75
90 105
120
Female Male
40 19
25 29
31 21
27 0 to 17 18 to 24
25 to 34 35 to 44
45 to 54 55 to 64
65 or Above Unknown
Total Clients Served Demographics
Chronically
Homeless
60%
Households
with Children
115
53 139
Caseload Breakdown
Saturday Drop Ins Ongoing Caseload
Housing Outcomes
34 households (62 people) exited the HOME program to a shelter, temporary placement, institutional setting or permanent placement during the quarter. 5 households (10 persons) exited to Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter voucher, Host Home shelter, and traditional emergency shelter.
4 households (5 persons) exited to temporary living situation including transitional housing or staying with friends and/ or family. 2 households (2 persons) exited to an institutional setting including detox/ substance use rehabilitation program, jail/ prison, or a long-term care facility/ nursing home.
23 households (45 people) exited to permanent housing, defined as a leased unit meeting United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) occupancy standards with or without supportive services, such as mental health counseling.
16 housing matches were provided through the Coordinated Entry System Housing Matches
Housing matches provided through the Coordinated Entry System (CES) are an essential part of people attempting to access permanent housing. In short, a housing match is when a person is connected to a housing provider for assistance in the form of a subsidized room or ongoing rental assistance. Once a person has been matched through CES, the HOME Team does their best to help a client connect with the housing provider to complete the housing process. During this quarter, the HOME Team clients received 16 housing matches.
Client Services
The HOME Team continues to excel in helping clients navigate and connect with a variety of existing services within the community. Some of these services include ongoing nutritional, medical, and financial support through programs such as Cal-Fresh, Medical, and General Relief. The HOME Team was able to connect multiple people with these services by transporting and supporting these clients in navigating these services at the Family Resource Centers located in Lemon Grove and El Cajon.
The HOME Team continues to provide housing navigation throughout this quarter. Housing Navigation aids individuals who have an income, housing voucher, or rental assistance subsidies that could support a rental unit on an ongoing basis. The HOME Team Housing Navigator works with these clients to identify suitable units, pay for application fees, advocate to landlords, and provide financial assistance to cover the move-in costs related to the rental unit.
The HOME Team also continues to assist with acquiring identifying documentation. Almost all of the clients who successfully exited the program during this quarter worked with the HOME Team to acquire both State Identification cards and/ or Social Security Cards; attaining these documents was a necessity for their housing placements.
The HOME Team continues to work closely with a non-profit: 2 nd Chance. This non-profit provides a
Job Readiness Training (JRT) course for clients who struggle with connecting to employment due to their homelessness status and/or involvement with the justice system. As part of the JRT, the participants are provided with professional interview attire. During the last week of JRT, the participants take part in a round of interviews with potential employers including but not limited to Western Towing, ACE Parking, and Sycuan Casino.
Having consistent access to a van continues to be an important resource for clients. During the quarter, the HOME Team utilized the van to view units for rent in El Cajon, Downtown San Diego, and San Diego County. Being able to go to units quickly and with little notice has resulted in clients being able to successfully exit our program into rental assistance programs. The HOME Team has also utilized this van to clear encampments by taking clients and their belongings to storage, housing opportunities, or alternative camping locations. Most importantly, this van is accessible to people that have disabilities or are experiencing mobility issues.
During this quarter, the HOME Team provided some form of financial and/or basic-needs assistance to all enrolled clients with the dual objectives of moving them toward a housing outcome and keeping them safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. These objectives have not changed throughout this quarter.
All clients received COVID-19-related services, including updates related to local public-health guidelines, vaccine information, hygiene supplies, and personal protective equipment (PPE), such as face masks and hand sanitizer.
All clients received food, water, or other nutrition services, with approximately 60 prioritized for on-going meal support.
0 people were connected to ongoing family nutrition assistance HOME program staff distributed $65,907.39 in direct financial assistance, including vehicle repair, and funds used to secure new rental units. 1 household received accommodation in a motel, designed to provide shortterm bridge shelter for those with a concrete housing plan.
HOME program staff arranged 81 rides to apartment viewings, shelter stays, program intake interviews, and other critical appointments via ridesharing service.
7 Clients were connected to ongoing physical, mental, and/or behavioral healthcare.
14 Instances of clients connected to CA ID, Birth Certificate, and/ or Social Security Card.
15 Instances of clients connected to Cal Fresh and/ or Medi-Cal. 2 Clients connected to Serving Seniors.
4 Instances of people enrolled into employment training and support 8 Clients contacted by HOME became homeless for the first time this quarter. 2 Clients were connected to legal support services.
6 Clients connected to Mail services
Ongoing Care
Throughout the life of the program, HOME has noticed that many calls related to someone experiencing homelessness were generated because of another community member’s concern for a person’s mental, physical, or behavioral health. Because of this, the HOME Team has prioritized connecting people to ongoing healthcare through organizations such as Family Health Centers, East County Behavioral Health, Jane Westin, Alvarado Parkway Institute, McAlister, Peoples Advocacy Voices & Education. and Volunteers in Medicine. All these organizations provide low to no-cost services to people experiencing homelessness. Connecting people to ongoing and preventative care such as what is being offered at these organizations is essential to addressing issues that invariably result in emergent health situations for people experiencing homelessness. These situations result in overburdened emergency rooms, ambulances, and other emergency services. Additionally, due to the limited nature of HOME services provided to a person after they are housed, having connections to ongoing community support is an important part of someone maintaining housing stability.
Mail Services
The HOME Program was able to connect and partner with Think Dignity during the 2nd Quarter of 2026.
Think Dignity is a non-profit based in San Diego that provides various services to clients including providing an address to clients where they can receive important mail including Identification documents, social security paperwork, and banking cards. This service is an essential part of the housing process due to many clients losing their identifying documents when first starting to experience homelessness. Think Dignity also acts as an ID bank for clients to store their identifying documents that will be needed for housing. The HOME Team is excited about this partnership and looks forward to continuing to connect clients to this service.
Community Events
In 2025, the HOME team strengthened its partnership with local churches in La Mesa that have long served individuals experiencing homelessness and housing instability since before the formation of the HOME Team in 2020. First United Methodist Church, Vista La Mesa Church, and La Mesa Village Church host rotating Saturday community events that provide meals, shower access, hygiene support, community connection, and access to local and county resources.
These events have grown significantly over the years. First United Methodist Church’s Fresh Start program began as a smaller church-led effort and has since developed into one of the largest homelessserving community events in the County of San Diego. While the program previously served an average of about 35 individuals per event, attendance has increased greatly, with recent events serving more than 230 guests.
The HOME team began attending these Saturday events in response to the growing number of individuals seeking additional support, housing resources, and case management connections. During these events, the HOME team helps provide a “one-stop” quick-access point where individuals can ask questions, receive resource navigation, learn about housing supports, discuss Coordinated Entry System needs, and connect with a service provider if they are not already working with one. The events offer a stable, safe, familiar, and nonjudgmental setting where individuals can begin building trust with outreach staff.
While Saturdays are an important opportunity for initial engagement and immediate resource connection, they are not intended to replace ongoing case management. Clients who come to these events can get referrals to outreach staff that work in the area they regularly stay in from these events.
Enrollments at these events are completed for tracking and updating purposes, and while these are included in the clients served section of this report, many of these people are only being enrolled until they can be referred to more appropriate services.
The HOME team’s attendance at these events demonstrates the importance of meeting individuals where they are. By partnering with local churches and community volunteers, the HOME team helps bridge the gap between immediate basic needs and long-term housing support. These events show that addressing homelessness is a shared community effort built on consistency, trust, compassion, and connection.
Calls for Service
The HOME Team responded to 681 calls for service during the quarter. This number includes service calls routed through LMPD dispatch, HOME hotline or city email, and follow-ups to previous contacts.
Of these calls for service, 61 calls were new requests for assistance related to homelessness in the City. Historically, these calls would have been addressed by city emergency response services and law enforcement.
Of these calls, 53 were direct responses to calls to the HOME hotline and email requests made by community members regarding someone experiencing homelessness.
Additionally, 250 calls were service-driven appointments with clients or proactive rapport-building contacts, in support of the HOME Team’s mission.
During the entirety of this quarter, the HOME Team was connected to the La Mesa Police Department’s dispatch center via police radio. Starting the 4th quarter of 2021, the HOME Team has been able to realize the benefits of the technology and partnerships with call-takers through decreased response times to current calls for service, improved support to police officers, enhanced understanding of the program workload and service provision through data tracking, and improved safety of the HOME Team members and the community.
Hotel Utilization
The HOME Team provided bridge housing in the form of a motel stay to 1 household during the quarter.
One of the households consisted of a single woman who is a Transition Age Youth and was living in their vehicle with their significant other. This person was connected to HOME after the client was involved in a domestic violence incident that required LMPD intervention. After meeting with LMPD, HOME was called to come on site and meet with the client. This client utilized a HOME Team member cell phone to reconnect with a family member in Torrence area of Los Angeles, but the family member was not available until the next day. HOME was able to put this person in a hotel for the night until their family member was available to meet. This service is a crucial benefit for people that have a scheduled move-in or intake date. This bridge housing assists in allowing the client to keep their phones charged, meet regularly with HOME & HOME Housing Navigator, and present at lease signing/ final walkthrough as clean, showered, and presentable.
Client success stories
In April 2026, the HOME Team met a U.S. Navy veteran during one of the Saturday outreach events hosted by La Mesa Village Church. The veteran had been experiencing homelessness since losing their apartment in 2022 and was unaware of the services and benefits potentially available to them, including housing assistance, VA disability benefits, and ongoing case management.
The HOME Team contacted the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to verify the individual’s veteran status and assisted with obtaining a copy of their DD214. The HOME Team then scheduled an appointment for the veteran to apply for VA disability benefits and provided transportation, assistance with paperwork, and support in understanding and navigating the application process.
The HOME Team also enrolled the veteran in the Coordinated Entry System, which quickly resulted in a match to a newly opened Permanent Supportive Housing unit in National City, California. The HOME Team supported the veteran throughout the entire housing process, including coordinating with VA personnel and the property management company, attending multiple meetings, assisting with required documentation, and helping navigate the steps necessary to secure the unit.
Because the housing process required ongoing coordination, multiple appointments, and frequent communication with the VA and property management staff, the HOME Team met with the veteran several times per week throughout their enrollment in the program. The HOME Team remained actively involved through the move-in process and connected the veteran with a VA case manager to ensure continued access to services and ongoing support. On June 11, 2026, after experiencing homelessness for approximately four years, the veteran successfully moved into their new home.
Another client who was housed this quarter had been experiencing homelessness in La Mesa since 2010, often sleeping in her car with her dog by her side. For more than a decade, her dog remained her constant companion and source of comfort as she worked to meet her basic needs, stay safe, and search for stability.
Although this client had been in the homeless services system for many years, she experienced long periods without consistent connection to services. As a result, she had not been successfully connected to the coordinated system that could link her to housing voucher opportunities. She had also attempted to rent in other areas, but due to her physical disabilities and the challenges of finding housing that could meet her needs, she was unable to maintain those housing options and had to leave.
In November 2025, this client began engaging more consistently with the HOME team. While she was not always sleeping in La Mesa and had support from individuals in other areas of San Diego, she frequently returned to a fast-food location in La Mesa, where she initially met and continued to meet with the HOME team. Through continued outreach, relationship-building, and patient support, staff were able to build trust and better understand her goals, needs, and the barriers she had faced for so many years.
On March 9, 2026, this client was matched to Permanent Supportive Housing. The HOME team began assisting her with completing the necessary paperwork and gathering documentation to move forward in the housing process. However, her housing match was initially denied because the match was designated for the City of San Diego, and her records primarily reflected a connection to La Mesa rather
than the City of San Diego. This client, with the assistance of the HOME Team, advocated for herself and appealed the decision, demonstrating her broader ties and need for housing despite this limitation.
Through her own advocacy, determination, and continued support from the HOME team, this client was able to overcome this barrier. On April 26, 2026, after more than a decade of homelessness, this client successfully moved into housing with her dog.
This story highlights the importance of consistent outreach, patience, advocacy, and meeting clients where they are. Her journey was not simple or immediate, but her resilience and willingness to keep moving forward helped her achieve a life-changing step toward safety, stability, and hope.
Community Support Partnerships
• Journey Community Church continues to provide any and all food items to the HOME Program, allowing HOME staff to feed up to 60 people per week
• La Mesa Village Association
• La Mesa Thrift Shop
• La Mesa First United Methodist Church
• Empire Thrift Store of El Cajon
• Eagle Scouts
Community Resource Partnerships
• Home-Start, Inc.
• East County Behavioral Health
• Center Star ACT
• McAlister Inc.
• La Mesa – Spring Valley School District Social Workers • East County Homeless Task Force
• San Diego County Mental Health
• HOME staff have developed a word-of-mouth network of donors and residents and regularly interface with anyone interested in helping those facing hardship on the streets of La Mesa. • Assisted Replacement Medication Therapy Medical Specialists • The Lodge of La Mesa (Transition Age Youth)
• Borrego Health-Centro Medico El Cajon
• New Found Homes ILF
• Mission Academy
• 2
nd Chance
• Alvarado Parkway Institute
• Bayview Crisis Stabilization Unit
• Think Dignity
• Volunteers in Medicine
• Serving Seniors
HOME Program Historical Statistics
Client Enrollment
Quarter Total Clients Served New Clients Fresh Start Clients₁ Continuing Clients Q4 2020 56 --- --- ---
Q1 2021 108 61 --- 47
Q2 2021 75 44 --- 31
Q3 2021 86 44 --- 31
Q4 2021 25 10 --- 15
Q1 2022 69 48 --- 21
Q2 2022 96 62 --- 34
Q3 2022 73 38 --- 35
Q4 2022 108 65 --- 43
Q1 2023 71 28 --- 43
Q2 2023 72 53 --- 19
Q3 2023 71 43 --- 28
Q4 2023 56 27 --- 29
Q1 2024 43 29 --- 14
Q2 2024 40 21 --- 19
Q3 2024 39 24 --- 15
Q4 2024 57 40 --- 17
Q1 2025 95 24 --- 71
Q2 2025 174₁ 120₁ --- 54
Q3 2025 172₁ 98₁ --- 74
Q4 2025 137₁ 78₁ --- 59
Q1 2026 156₁ 114₁ --- 42
Q2 2026 192₁ 129₁ 53₁ 63
₁During the 2nd Quarter of 2025, the HOME team began attending the Saturday Fresh Start program. Beginning in the 2nd Quarter of 2026, we began tracking and reporting the number of new clients from the Saturday Fresh Start program.
Clients who come to these events get referrals to outreach programs in the area where the client regularly stays.
Enrollment in the Coordinated Entry system during Fresh Start Saturdays enables follow-up from area-specific resources for the client. The majority of clients who are contacted during the Fresh Start program do not receive ongoing services from La Mesa’s HOME Team as they do not regularly stay in La Mesa. Many of the clients enrolled in the Coordinated Entry system have no further contact from the HOME Team or outside resources. After 30 days without contact, they are disenrolled from the Coordinated Entry system by default. This results in numerous re-enrollments as “New Clients” within the system when they return to a Saturday Fresh Start event.
Calls for Service
Quarter Instances of
Service₁
Calls for Service
Officers
Requested
HOME
Assistance on
Calls
HOME
Requested
Officer
Assistance on
Calls
HOME
Requested PERT
Assistance on
Calls
Q4 2020 191 110 --- 1 1
Q1 2021 397 187 --- 0 1
Q2 2021 349 355 --- 0 0
Q3 2021 393 134 --- 0 0
Q4 2021 237 81 --- 0 0
Q1 2022 373 617 24 10 0
Q2 2022 626 657 11 22 4
Q3 2022 584 549 26 5 1
Q4 2022 744 417 16 3 0
Q1 2023 633 435 19 7 0
Q2 2023 494 384 16 2 0
Q3 2023 173 447 12 3 0
Q4 2023 274 391 24 3 0
Q1 2024 273 443 19 2 0
Q2 2024 261 473 13 9 0
Q3 2024 244 463 23 12 0
Q4 2024 358 448 10 5 0
Q1 2025 476 465 11 5 1
Q2 2025 358 631 16 7 0
Q3 2025 381 680 43 5 0
Q4 2025 349 505 41 5 1
Q1 2026 386 638 28 8 0
Q2 2026 517 681 23 7 0
Totals 9071 10,191
₁ Instances of service are included in the total calls for service. This number represents interactions with clients that are enrolled in the county’s case management system. More than one client may be present during a single call for service.
Services and Housing
Quarter HOME
Rides
Direct
Financial
Assistance
Clients who
Received
Motel
Vouchers
Clients
Permanently
Housed
Households
Permanently
Housed
Clients
Temporarily
Housed
Households
Temporarily
Housed
Q4 2020 18 $3,357.00 7 5 --- 3 0
Q1 2021 16 $10,506.00 7 0 4 0 19
Q2 2021 7 $4,967.00 9 8 7 0 5
Q3 2021 144 $16,623.42 7 8 3 0 5
Q4 2021 84 $1,071.40 0 12 11 0 4
Q1 2022 92 $6,579.56 5 10 9 6 6
Q2 2022 96 $3,727.96 2 16 11 5 3
Q3 2022 68 $3,445.45 3 8 6 4 4
Q4 2022 69 $3,411.55 3 15 6 2 2
Q1 2023 56 $2,210.47 2 17 7 2 2
Q2 2023 59 $2,581.44 0 4 2 5 5
Q3 2023 59 $7,560.47 2 2 2 6 6
Q4 2023 91 $1,344.96 1 10 8 1 1
Q1 2024 52 $3,506.91 1 7 6 1 7
Q2 2024 86 $8,428.53 0 9 4 5 5
Q3 2024 61 $20,935.20 1 4 2 2 2
Q4 2024 56 $8,895.15 1 7 7 2 2
Q1 2025 79 $10,007.91 0 15 6 3 8
Q2 2025 138 $8,895.15 0 7 7 9 9
Q3 2025 129 $43,306.39₁ 4 40 24 17 13
Q4 2025 69 $32.338.40₁ 0 32 20 13 8
Q1 2026 81 $46,848.89₁ 2 30 21 28 14
Q2 2026 81 $65,907.39₁ 1 45 23 15 9
Total 1691 $284,118.20 58 311 196 129 139
Total People Housed 440
₁ Direct financial assistance has increased significantly over the past 4 quarters due to several factors. This financial assistance is grant funded and encompasses a variety of support including transportation costs for clients, application fees to various entities including DMV, Social Security, and housing, vehicle repairs for clients with vehicles, and rental deposits. The increased number of clients housed both permanently and temporarily over the past 4 quarters contributes significantly to expenditure amounts as rental deposits can exceed $6,000 per unit. The HOME Team also secured a storage shed during the 2nd quarter to enable secure storage of the numerous donations and supplies needed for client services.
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: July 28, 2026
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF LA MESA
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION MASTER
PLAN
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the City of La Mesa Electrical Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Master Plan.
Fiscal Impact:
Adoption of the City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan has no immediate fiscal impact. Future EV charging projects will be implemented as grant funding and other funding sources become available.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Invest in infrastructure to serve the needs of the community. Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.
Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:
T-5: Alternative Refueling Infrastructure Development BACKGROUND:
On April 9, 2024, the La Mesa City Council approved a professional services agreement with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) to prepare the Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Master Plan. The Plan is part of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: July 28, 2026
Page: 2 of 3
intended to expand public EV charging infrastructure, improve access to charging opportunities, and strengthen the City’s competitiveness for future grant funding.
Development of the EVCS Master Plan included extensive stakeholder and community engagement. Outreach efforts included a community working group, online surveys, business outreach, and interactive polling at community events. Following a citywide gap analysis, Kittelson identified candidate locations based on community needs, site feasibility, and anticipated demand. The draft EVCS Master Plan was available for public review from June 18 through July 2, 2026, during which one public comment was received (Attachment B).
The EVCS Master Plan was also reviewed by the Community Parking Commission, Design Review Board, Parks and Recreation Commission, Environmental Sustainability Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Community Police Oversight Board, and Arts and Culture Commission and all recommended the City Council consider adoption of the Plan.
DISCUSSION:
City staff and Kittelson completed a gap analysis to identify areas where additional public EV charging infrastructure would provide the greatest benefit. The evaluation considered destination demand, access to major transportation corridors, existing charging infrastructure, land use, electrical capacity, and community input.
Based on this analysis, five publicly owned properties were identified as the highest priority locations for future EV charging infrastructure:
Palm Ave. Downtown Village Parking Lot (4730 Palm Ave.) City Hall (8130 Allison Ave.)
Allison Ave. Downtown Village Parking Lot (8343 Allison Ave.) Pool at MacArthur Park (5100 Memorial Drive).
La Mesita Park (8855 Dallas St.)
Candidate sites were evaluated for accessibility, visibility, electrical capacity, feasibility, and expected utilization. The Study also identified opportunities to encourage future charging infrastructure on private property through partnerships and grant funding.
The EVCS Master Plan establishes a strategic framework or future EV charging investments, support grant applications, and provides guidance for expanding public charging infrastructure as community demand increases.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: July 28, 2026
Page: 3 of 3
Adoption of the EVCS Master Plan is exempt from CEQA. Any future charging installation projects will undergo environmental review, as required.
CONCLUSION:
City staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution adopting the City of La Mesa Electrical Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
Hilary Ego
Environmental Sustainability Manager
____________________________
Serena Lee
Environmental Program Coordinator
Attachments: A. City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan B. Public Comment
C. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
ADOPTING THE CITY OF LA MESA ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
STATION MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2018, City Council approved the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which charts a course to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2021, the City Council adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution;
WHEREAS, as part of the CAP, the City is committed to reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which is the largest emitter of the community-wide GHG emissions;
WHEREAS, the EV Charging Station (EVCS) Master Plan was identified as a key CAP action that will outline available opportunities where the City can install electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure;
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2024, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) to develop an Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Master Plan;
WHEREAS, the EVCS Master Plan development process included community and stakeholder outreach, and a gap assessment identify priority areas where EV chargers would be used most often;
WHEREAS, City staff and Kittelson identified five priority public locations to install EV chargers; and
WHEREAS, the EVCS Master Plan will serve as a resource for both City staff and private property owners to identify potential EV charging locations and to be a competitive applicant for EV infrastructure grants.
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 City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28th day of July 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)
1 City of La Mesa
Electric Vehicle
Charging Station
Master Plan
July 2026
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 2 Acknowledgements
City of La Mesa
Greg Humora, City Manager
Amanda Lee, Assistant City Manager
Lyn Dedmon, Assistant to the City
Manager
Grecia Aguilar, Communications
Manager
Hilary Ego, Environmental
Sustainability Manager
Serena Lee, Environmental Program
Coordinator
Maya Feldman-Dragich, CivicSpark
Fellow
Clio Goodwin, CivicSpark Fellow
Lainey Bloom, CivicSpark Fellow
Logan Kelly, CivicSpark Fellow
Michael Throne, Director of Public
Works
Jose Ornelas, Assistant Director of
Public Works
Michael Kinnard, Engineering Project
Manager
Carly Cubberly, Engineering Project
Manager
Shawn Boyd, Building Maintenance
Supervisor
Joe Kuhn, Environmental Manager
Diego Munoz, Engineering Tech I
Lynnette Santos, Director of Community
Development
Jared Chavez, Assistant Director of
Community Development
Stacey Sapp, Building Official
Allyson Kinnard, Associate Planner
Laura Merker, Senior Planner
Patrick MacPherson, Assistant Planner
Jacquline Ellis, Code Compliance Officer II
Andres Bendeck, Associate Engineer
Kristen Flores, Management Analyst
Josh Gomez, Parks & Recreation Manager
Environmental Sustainability Commission
EVCS Master Plan Community Working
Group
San Diego Gas & Electric
Consultant Team
Mychal Loomis, Kittelson & Associates
Peyton Ratto, Kittelson & Associates
Kolbe Stets, Kittelson & Associates
Enid Joffe, Green Paradigm Consulting
Aaron Hardy, Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Solutions
Selina Cortez, Quinn Construction
Solutions
3 Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................8 Why This Plan Matters ............................................................................................................................................8 Key Findings...................................................................................................................................................................8 Priority Charging Locations................................................................................................................................. 9 City-Owned Properties ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Privately-Owned Properties........................................................................................................................... 9 Equity Considerations ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Key Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................... 9 How to Use This Report..........................................................................................................................................11 Chapter 1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................................12 City Background.........................................................................................................................................................12 Understanding Electric Vehicle Charging...............................................................................................13 Charger Types and Plug Types .......................................................................................................................14 Benefits ........................................................................................................................................................................16 Costs...............................................................................................................................................................................16 Meeting User Needs ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Residents – Home Charging............................................................................................................................. 18 Goals for Residential Charging Station .................................................................................................19 Workers – Workplace Charging......................................................................................................................19 Goals for Workplace Charging.................................................................................................................. 20 Visitors – Activity Center Charging.............................................................................................................. 20 Goals for Visitor/Traveler Charging...........................................................................................................21 Engagement Summary ........................................................................................................................................21
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 4 Working Group.......................................................................................................................................................21 Staff Input..................................................................................................................................................................22 Community Input................................................................................................................................................22 Chapter 2. EV Charging Needs ............................................................................................................................23 EV Adoption Trends ................................................................................................................................................23 Housing and Employment Densities .........................................................................................................25 Projection of EV Charging Needs ................................................................................................................ 30 Community Input................................................................................................................................................33 Chapter 3. EV Charging Infrastructure.......................................................................................................... 34 Charging Station Target Goal ......................................................................................................................... 34 Who Can Provide Charging Infrastructure? .........................................................................................36 City-Led Installations.........................................................................................................................................36 Private Sector Installations........................................................................................................................... 38 Implementation Partners ............................................................................................................................. 38 Policies and Requirements...............................................................................................................................40 Chapter 4. Future EV Charging Stations and Adoption...................................................................44 Where should they go?.......................................................................................................................................44 Use Cases.......................................................................................................................................................................44 Community Input............................................................................................................................................... 50 Equity Considerations: Median Household Income.....................................................................51 Site Selection ...............................................................................................................................................................53 Considerations .......................................................................................................................................................53 Top City-Owned Locations............................................................................................................................56 Top Privately-Owned Locations................................................................................................................ 70 Implementation.........................................................................................................................................................73 Advancing Priority Sites ..................................................................................................................................73 City Policy Updates.............................................................................................................................................73 Charging in the Public Right-of-Way....................................................................................................75
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 5 Partnering with the Community..............................................................................................................75 Funding...................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix A: Community Input........................................................................................................................... 79 Appendix B: Public Sites Review Matrix.......................................................................................................80 Appendix C: Private Sites Review Matrix ...................................................................................................... 81
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 6 Figures
Figure 1: Share of Vehicle Population that are ZEVs............................................................................ 24 Figure 2: Residential Land Use and Existing Chargers.......................................................................26 Figure 3: Dwellings Per Acre..................................................................................................................................27 Figure 4: Number of Jobs ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 5: Destinations and Large Employers.............................................................................................29 Figure 6: Estimated Growth of EVs in the City of La Mesa...............................................................32 Figure 7: Opportunity for Public Charging Based on Residential Users...............................46 Figure 8: Opportunity for Public Charging Based on Destination Users .............................47 Figure 9: Opportunity for Public Charging Based on Fuel Corridor Users..........................48 Figure 10: Identified Priority Zones ..................................................................................................................49 Figure 11: Public Feedback on Charging Station Locations ........................................................... 50 Figure 12: Priority Communities Based on Household Median Income ................................52 Figure 13: Recommended City-Owned Locations for Charging Stations .............................59 Figure 14: Palm Ave Downtown Village Parking Lot Site Concept.............................................61 Figure 15: City Hall Site Concept .........................................................................................................................63 Figure 16: Allison Ave Downtown Village Lot Site Concept.............................................................65 Figure 17: MacArthur Park Municipal Pool Site Concept ................................................................. 67 Figure 18: La Mesita Park Site Concept......................................................................................................... 69 Figure 19: Recommended Privately-Owned Locations for Charging Stations..................72
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 7 Tables
Table 1: Passenger Vehicles and Electric Vehicles in California................................................... 24 Table 2: Inflow and Outflow of Employees of the City of La Mesa, CA.....................................25 Table 3: Projected EV Population in the City of La Mesa....................................................................31 Table 4: Number of Public Charging Ports Needed in 2030 ..........................................................35 Table 5: Business Models for Charging Infrastructure........................................................................37 Table 6: Data Used in User-based Analyses............................................................................................... 45 Table 7: Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 54 Table 8: Top Ranking City-Owned Locations.............................................................................................57 Table 9: Cost Estimates for Recommended City-Owned Sites.................................................... 58 Table 10: Top Privately-Owned Locations Based on Analysis and Public Feedback......71 Table 11: EV Charging Station Funding Programs (As of Early 2026)........................................77
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 8 Executive Summary
The City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan (EVCS Master Plan) provides a comprehensive, data‑driven strategy to support the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) and expand access to charging infrastructure citywide. The Plan evaluates existing and future charging needs, incorporates extensive community and stakeholder input, and identifies priority locations, policies, and partnerships to guide near‑ and long‑term implementation. This Master Plan advances the City’s Climate Action Plan goals by reducing emissions, improving air quality, and promoting equitable access to EV charging, while positioning the City to compete for funding and support California’s transition to zero-emission vehicles.
WHY THIS PLAN MATTERS
The State of California has established aggressive targets to transition away from internal combustion engine (gasoline or diesel) vehicles, including a requirement that all new passenger vehicles sold in 2035 and beyond be zero‑emission. As EV adoption accelerates, local governments play a critical role in ensuring that charging infrastructure is available where and when it is needed. La Mesa faces several conditions that make planning for EV charging especially important:
• Nearly half of all housing units in the city are multifamily (apartment), and a majority of households are renter-occupied, limiting access to home charging. • Most residents work outside the city, while most workers commute into La Mesa, creating demand for workplace and destination charging. • Existing public charging infrastructure is unevenly distributed and does not fully align with projected growth in EV ownership.
KEY FINDINGS
Public EV charging demand in La Mesa is driven by distinct user groups and is expected to increase as EV adoption grows. Residents, particularly those in multifamily housing, require convenient access to Level 1 and Level 2 charging to support overnight and extended dwell times, while workers and visitors rely on Level 2 and DC fast charging at employment centers and major destinations. Under the medium EV adoption scenario for the City of La Mesa, projected 2030 demand will require a charging network of approximately 119 public charging ports.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 9 PRIORITY CHARGING LOCATIONS
City-Owned Properties
City-owned sites offer the most immediate opportunity for near-term implementation. Based on a detailed screening and field review process, five locations were identified as having the highest potential for early action:
• Palm Avenue Downtown Village Parking Lot (4730 Palm Avenue) • City Hall (8130 Allison Avenue)
• Allison Avenue Downtown Village Parking Lot (8343 Allison Avenue) • Municipal Pool (4975 Memorial Drive)
• La Mesita Park (8855 Dallas Street)
Two additional city-owned parks (Jackson Park and Aztec Park) were also identified as desirable locations because of their proximity to multifamily housing. Due to the parking constraints at these sites, these installations may be more complicated and more costly to install than the sites listed above. Additional City-owned sites were evaluated for their potential to meet EV charging needs and the findings of those reviews are included in the report appendices.
Privately-Owned Properties
The plan also identifies high-potential, privately-owned sites such as shopping centers, medical facilities, schools, transit stations, churches, and apartment complexes. While implementation at these locations will require property owner participation, they represent critical opportunities to expand access, particularly in areas with limited City-owned land.
Equity Considerations
Equity is a central focus of the EVCS Master Plan, with charging investments prioritized in areas that have high concentrations of multifamily housing, lower median household incomes, and greater reliance on public charging. This approach helps ensure that communities with limited access to home charging and disproportionate environmental burdens benefit from expanded EV infrastructure.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
The EVCS Master Plan identifies a set of coordinated actions the City can take to advance EV charging infrastructure.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 10 Expand Public Charging Infrastructure
• Install 96 Level 2 chargers and 23 DC fast chargers, providing a total of 119 charging ports to serve a range of charging needs and user types. • Advance the public charging priority sites identified. • Implement the 2025 California Green Building Code adopted by the City in December 2025 as part of the California Building Code revisions. The new Green Building Code includes requirements for residential, multifamily and commercial charging.
• Plan for long-term growth by reserving space and electrical capacity where feasible.
• Monitor and pursue funding and grant opportunities.
Support Various User Groups
• Explore right-of-way charging options for residents without off-street parking. • Encourage charging installations at major employment centers, shopping areas, and civic facilities through incentives, cost-sharing programs, or partnerships. • Partner with employers to integrate charging into transportation and sustainability programs.
Improve Policies and Permitting
• Add a section to the municipal code defining EV charging and permitting it in all residential, commercial and industrial zones.
• Complete the process of implementing the AB 1236 streamlined permitting requirements as soon as possible.
• Consider pricing incentives for EV charging such as discounted metered parking fees for EVs.
• Adopt clear, consistent signage standards.
Promote EV Adoption and Awareness
• Partner with regional organizations to promote EV incentives and education. • Publicizing the provisions of California renters’ Right to Charge law (AB 2565). • Support programs that reduce barriers for low-income households such as tenant charging at affordable housing sites and public charging in lower income neighborhoods through incentives, cost-sharing programs, or partnerships. • Coordinate closely with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) on service upgrades, incentives, and special EV rates.
• Encourage charging station sites that are safe for vehicle drivers, well-lit, near additional amenities such as restrooms or restaurants, and mitigate fire risk.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 11 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
This report is intended to be used by both public and private sector stakeholders interested in EV charging. For City of La Mesa councilmembers, commissioners, and staff it provides an analysis of future EV charging needs and a roadmap to priority Cityowned locations. The report also recommends policies and implementation strategies that City staff can use to encourage private sector development that meet state charging requirements and local priorities. By documenting the need for various types of charging (such as multifamily-, employee-, and freeway-adjacent) and the gap in current supply, the EV Charging Station Master Plan will assist both public and private property owners who might want to apply for funding from regional, state, or federal sources.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 12 Chapter 1. Introduction
The City of La Mesa's Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan (“EVCS Master Plan”) was prepared to develop a comprehensive strategy to support the transition to electric vehicles and meet state emissions targets.
• Primary Objective: The EVCS Master Plan includes a gap assessment of charging needs, considering public input and equity, to evaluate and locate public and private charging stations within and around the City. The EVCS Master Plan will provide a guideline for installing additional EV charging stations, identify funding opportunities, and provide recommendations to support the transition to clean transportation, prioritizing communities with low-income households. • Statewide Initiative Support: In alignment with Executive Order N-79-20, the City of La Mesa seeks to ensure the necessary infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles by 2035, focusing on public and private infrastructure to serve residents, businesses, and visitors.
• Climate Action Plan Integration: The EVCS Master Plan is part of La Mesa's Climate Action Plan (CAP), which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 2016 levels by 2035 and 85% below 2016 levels by 2045. The plan outlines opportunities for EV charging infrastructure, sets policies for future EVready infrastructure, and aims to make the City more competitive for grants.
By developing an EVCS Master Plan, the City will be able to work towards its CAP emissions reduction target and support statewide EV initiatives by having an inventory of future EV charging station locations that best serve the community.
CITY BACKGROUND
The City of La Mesa City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP) in March 2018, and in November 2024, the CAP Update was adopted by the La Mesa City Council. The updated CAP establishes a long-range roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the categories of Building Energy Efficiency, Clean and Renewable Energy, Clean and Efficient Transportation, Water Efficiency, Waste Reduction, and Urban Natural Environment. The CAP guides which implementation activities the City prioritizes to mitigate the effects of climate change, supporting La Mesa's vision of a thriving community where everyone feels at home.
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions citywide, the CAP focuses on actions and measures that help promote equity throughout the city and help the
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 13 community adapt to climate-related events such as prolonged drought, flooding, wildfires, and extreme heat. The CAP also highlights the co-benefits of taking actions to reduce greenhouse gases, including improving air quality, public health and safety, enhancing user safety and accessibility at public facilities, supporting jobs and the economy, and promoting resilience and livability.
UNDERSTANDING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
The transition away from internal
combustion engine (gas and diesel)
vehicles to alternative fuels—including
battery electric and fuel cell vehicles—is
underway. The State of California has
approved the Advanced Clean Cars II rule
so that by 2035 100% of new cars and light
trucks sold in California will be zeroemission vehicles, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The regulation
realizes and codifies the light-duty vehicle
goals set out in Governor
Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20.
Understanding the many benefits of EVs,
and how charging infrastructure works is
critical to planning a successful EV
network for La Mesa.
Source: City of La Mesa
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 14 CHARGER TYPES AND PLUG TYPES
EV charging is a critical component of a successful electrified transportation network.
Different charger types offer different charging speeds and come with different costs.
With an appropriate connector, EVs can typically be charged at any charging station.
Source: City of La Mesa
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 15 Charger Types
There are three types of EV chargers.
Each type charges at a different rate
and speed:
• Level 1 chargers operate on 120 volts
of electricity, produce 1.9 kWh and
give vehicles about 3-5 miles per
hour of charge. These chargers can
be typical wall outlets, or they can be
standalone or wall-mounted EV
charging stations.
• Level 2 chargers (sometimes called
destination chargers) operate on
240 volts of electricity, produce from
3.3 to 19.2 kWh and provide vehicles
from 12 to 55 miles per hour of
charge. These chargers can be
standalone, or wall-mounted EV
charging stations.
• DC Fast chargers (also called Level
3 chargers or superchargers) charge
rapidly, producing 50-350 kWh and
75-300 miles per hour of charge.
Plug Types
There are four plug types used to charge
EVs in the U.S.:
• SAE J1772 is the plug used for Level 1 and
Level 2 charging by all EVs in the U.S.
other than Tesla.
• North American Charging Standard
(NACS or SAE J3400 but more
commonly called the Tesla plug) is used
by Tesla for Level 1, 2, and 3 charging.
Thanks to the improved reliability of the
NACs connector, most car
manufacturers have committed to
transitioning to NACS connectors over
the next several years.
• Combined Charging System (CCS) is the
plug currently used for fast charging by
GM, Ford, VW, BMW, and Hyundai.
• CHAdeMO is the earlier fast-charging
plug used by Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Kia.
It is had been replaced by CCS in newer
model EVs.
Note: The above Level 2 charging speed value is an average. Level 2 charging speed varies significantly among vehicles and can range from just a few miles of range per hour of charge to around 40 miles per hour of charge.
Source: fueleconomy.gov.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 16 Benefits
The reduced emissions that EVs bring is one key benefit of why the City included expanding electric vehicle infrastructure as an action in their Climate Action Plan.
However, EVs offer numerous benefits to users and to communities, including:
Reduced emissions
and air pollution
Fuel and maintenance
cost savings compared
to gasoline
Convenience of
charging at home or at
work
Reduced noise
pollution
Improved acceleration
and torque
Rebates, tax credits,
and other state vehicle
purchasing incentives
Workforce
opportunities for EV
charger installation,
operation,
maintenance, and
battery recycling
Costs
EVs are still more expensive than gasoline cars to purchase initially, but EV drivers come out ahead because of the savings on fuel costs and maintenance over the life of the vehicle. Until recently, state and federal incentives have been able to provide as much as $14,500 in rebates and tax incentives per vehicle, reducing the upfront cost for an EV. While federal incentives ended in September 2025, California state, air district, utility, and local incentives for lower income drivers are still available.
Two key factors impact EV charging costs: installation and usage.
One of the biggest benefits of EVs is the ability to fuel your vehicle at home without ever going to a gas station if you are able to have a place to charge at home. Home charging installation generally costs $2,000 to $3,000 but may cost more if electrical upgrades are required. Another option is to use the 110V charging cord that comes with most vehicles, which plugs into a wall outlet. Manufacturers recommend using a dedicated electrical circuit without other electrical loads.
Commercial charging installation costs vary significantly based on how much site preparation and electrical infrastructure is needed. Factors such as the existing
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 17 electrical capacity, the distance between the chargers and the electrical panel, and whether or not trenching or boring is required will impact the cost. Installation costs per Level 2 charging unit typically range from $5,000 per unit to $25,000 per unit. DC fast charging installation costs are substantially higher, averaging from $25,000 per unit to $100,000 per unit.
The actual cost of the chargers themselves also vary by type:
• Level 1 charging cords cost about $150 and can plug into a wall socket. • Level 2 chargers generally cost between $325 and $8,000. • DC fast chargers are the most expensive, with station unit costs between $10,000 and $100,000, depending on the power level, which ranges from 50 kW to 350 kW.
Fuel costs for EV charging depend on charger type, source of electricity, and utility rate structures but are significantly lower than the cost of gasoline for the same mileage. Most EV drivers who own single-family homes charge at home on either Level 1 or Level 2 chargers. Costs can also vary by season and time of day, increasing during peak demand times. Many utilities offer special time of use rates for EV home charging. For homeowners interested in installing a Level 2 or DC fast charger in their home, users can utilize SDGE’s EV Time-of-Use pricing plan or San Diego Community Power’s EV Flex Connect cost optimization program to save money on home charging. These plans are helpful to save La Mesa EV users money, as they can plan for or program their chargers to charge when electricity rates are lowest, typically at night.
The County of San Diego's Electric Vehicle Costs & Incentives webpage provides more information on the cost of owning an EV.
At public charging stations usually accessed on the road or at work, prices depend on the charging network and pricing structures set by the charger owner. Average public charging prices are around $0.53 per kilowatt-hour. This equates to $35 dollars to drive 200 miles compared to $47 for gasoline for a car getting 25 miles per gallon (April 2026 prices). Some charging stations provide free charging to attract users to the location or provide a service for employees or visitors; others implement a fee structure to help pay for electricity use, station maintenance, amenities, and charging network expansion.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 18 MEETING USER NEEDS
An effective EVCS Master Plan must fulfill the needs of local EV users. The La Mesa EVCS Master Plan is focused on meeting the needs of the following three use cases:
• Urban Light-Duty Vehicle: Cars driven by individuals. • Transportation Network Companies: Rideshare platforms. These companies are incentivizing drivers to switch to EVs and have substantial charging needs. • Priority Populations: Includes low income or under-invested communities.
The City's approach understands the importance of recognizing that different EV users and trip purposes have different charging needs with respect to metrics, such as location, duration, and cost. The analysis of potential charging sites was viewed from two perspectives: user type and trip purpose, and resulted in the following groups of users that need to be served from a city-wide perspective:
• Residents of La Mesa
• Workers in La Mesa
• Visitors to La Mesa
• Travelers using adjacent freeways
EV charger user needs will vary depending on whether chargers are for one and twofamily homes; apartments and condos; commercial and industrial areas; or schools, parks, town facilities.
RESIDENTS – HOME CHARGING
Most EV drivers in La Mesa charge their cars at home. People who live in single-family homes typically have greater access to at-home charging, since those houses are more likely to have dedicated parking and plug-in access. But for widespread EV adoption, people living in multifamily developments, like condos and apartments, also need access. Residents without dedicated parking or home-charging access, including many renters, may face challenges in accessing charging. These challenges can be more pronounced for low-income households. Locating charging stations strategically near multifamily dwellings in the City of La Mesa helps ensure equal access to charging infrastructure.
Kittelson used data and methods from the National Renewable Energy Lab’s (NREL) EVI-Pro modeling tools to estimate home and public charging.1 EVI-Pro version 3 assumes that half of single-family homes and 1/3 of multifamily residences will use 1 https://afdc.energy.gov/evi-x-toolbox#/evi-pro-ports
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 19 Level 1 charging, which is just a plug. It also assumes that many multifamily dwellers, which include people in apartments, townhomes, and mobile homes, will not have access to home charging and will rely on public charging at work, retail or recreation centers, or curbside (on-street) parking in their neighborhoods.
Based on demographic data and modeling assumptions used to estimate future charging needs (e.g., 2040 conditions), it was assumed that approximately 50% of current and future EV drivers will have access to Level 1 or Level 2 charging at their home or apartment.
Recommendation: To reduce the burden on public charging and allow those that live in multifamily housing to experience costs comparable to single family home charging, the City could incentivize the installation of chargers in multifamily dwelling buildings. Among the options are implementing the California Green Building Code requirements, as well as publicizing the provisions of California renters’ Right to Charge law2to renters and property owners.
Goals for Residential Charging Station
• Install publicly-accessible Level 2 chargers near multifamily housing, including at privately owned sites such as shopping centers, transit hubs, and medical centers with well-lit publicly accessible parking areas, with a focus on ensuring that identified Priority Populations (e.g. State-defined low-income communities according to the most current data from the US Census American Community Survey) have equitable access to charging infrastructure. • Incentivize installation of home charging stations, for both multifamily and singlefamily homes.
WORKERS – WORKPLACE CHARGING
Workplace charging can help provide access for employees who live in multifamily dwellings or who otherwise don’t have easy access to home charging. Workplace charging could be considered an employee benefit and can be incorporated into employee recruitment and retention programs.
When developing EV charging infrastructure for people who work in La Mesa, it is important to focus on key employment centers that have a high concentration of employees or large parking lots. Examples might include medical centers, shopping 2 https://legalclarity.org/california-right-to-charge-law-compliance-and-requirements/ , Civil Code section 4745 and Civil Code section 1947.6
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 20 centers, or colleges. As EV sales continue to grow, demand for the available charging spaces will also grow, potentially leading to frustrated drivers or queues at fast charging locations. California Vehicle Code §22511 requires that EVs be connected and charging when parked in an EV-designated space. Property owners may issue warnings or request law enforcement to ticket drivers who do not comply. Policies limiting plug-in time or fees for remaining in a space after charging can also be implemented by the property owner.
Goals for Workplace Charging
• Provide Level 2 chargers for employees to charge their vehicles while they are parked at work.
• Implement policies and signage to prevent charged vehicles from parking too long in charging spaces.
• Encourage employers to explore partnerships with EV rideshare services for interoffice and business travel.
VISITORS – ACTIVITY CENTER CHARGING
Visitors to La Mesa may have different destinations than residents or employees, so it is important to focus on increasing charging accessibility in areas such as shopping centers, parks, restaurants, and retail businesses. A Consumers Report study3(March 2024) showed that installing charging provided an average 5% increase in retail revenue and increased the amount of time a charging consumer spent at a store increased by 50 minutes. There are already several commercial locations providing public charging including Sharp Grossmont Hospital, Kaiser Permanente, and La Mesa Springs Shopping Center. Providing charging stations for customers at hotels or motels is also an opportunity to encourage people to stay in La Mesa at these establishments.
Another category of visitors is travelers looking for a place to charge their EV on the way to their final destination. National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) is a government program that aims to accelerate the adoption of EVs in the US on major highways. Adopted in 2021, the goal of the NEVI program was to create a national network of EV charging stations no more than 50 miles apart. The freeways I-8, SR-125, and SR-94 were part of the first two rounds of NEVI funding, but no stations in or near the City of La Mesa have been awarded.
3 https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/cr-report-charging-the-future-the-role-of-retail-in-our-evtransition/
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 21 Goals for Visitor/Traveler Charging
• Encourage NEVI applications by EV charging providers for DC fast charger stations near I-8, SR-94, and SR-125.
• Install DC fast charger and/or Level 2 chargers at retail and recreation areas.
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Engagement was a key part of the development of this Master Plan and was designed to provide collaborative and public-facing efforts to gather meaningful input from stakeholders and the broader community. To facilitate this, the City created:
• A dedicated working group that met multiple times, comprising of representatives from various City Boards and Commissions; • A City staff working group that discussed opportunities and hurdles in expanding EV infrastructure;
• An interactive online map designed to reach a wider audience and collect feedback on specific charging locations;
• An interactive online survey designed to reach a wider audience and specific feedback on local experience with EVs and EV charging; and • A survey specific to property owners and local businesses to collect specific feedback on opportunities for adding EV charging stations to privately-owned property and/or concerns about EV charging.
Together, these engagement tools helped ensure that the project was shaped by a diverse range of voices and perspectives, fostering transparency, inclusivity, and responsiveness throughout the planning process.
Working Group
The working group, including 24 members from 11 City Boards and Commissions and the downtown La Mesa Village Association, met three times during development of the plan to review project goals, provide feedback on preliminary findings and recommendations, and ensure alignment with local priorities. These members also were able to share information about the project, about EVs, and the online surveys and maps with their networks to broaden the reach of feedback. The general topics of the working group meetings included:
• MEETING #1: Understanding of EV charging process and key terms, discussion on perceived barriers to EV charging, feedback on what is important in deciding where charging stations should be, and overall project scope and goals
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 22 • MEETING #2: Review of public engagement efforts, discussion on EV projections and growth estimates, site selection criteria to consider, and policies and incentives to consider
• MEETING #3: Supplemental public engagement feedback, priority site selection process for City-owned locations, and implementation recommendations The feedback from each of these meetings informed key decisions and approaches to this plan. Some examples include identifying physical and policy barriers that are locally relevant to EV adoption and EV charging station installation, requesting additional public outreach to reach residents living in apartment or condominium buildings, and adjusting the City-owned locations included in the field reviews.
Staff Input
To obtain as much information as possible about potential sites, the team met with the City’s Building Maintenance Director and the Parks and Recreation Operations Manager to review and discuss potential locations. In addition, the team used a data evaluation tool called ElectroTempo to review vehicle travel density, areas with multifamily residents, lower-income parts of the city, and existing charging sites.
Community Input
Digital platforms were used to
encourage community members to
share their experiences and identify
areas of opportunity. The online survey
tools were publicized through the City
website, social media, City e-newsletter,
a local online news article, and inperson via City booths at community events. In addition to the online
options, a paper survey was mailed to
EDCO customers who were identified
as commercial property renters or
owners. The results of the input are
incorporated in the relevant sections of
this plan.
Source: City of La Mesa
23 Chapter 2. EV Charging Needs
EV ADOPTION TRENDS
The electric vehicle market continues its growth both nationwide and in La Mesa.
According to Experian’s 2024 EV Year in Review Report, new EVs accounted for 9.2% of all retail vehicle registrations across the U.S. in 2024, and used EV registrations climbed to just over 1%, from 0.7% the year prior. Experian also concluded that while EV adoption is expanding well beyond the traditional EV strongholds, California still holds the highest number of registrations, with Los Angeles accounting for more than 180,000 new retail EV registrations, followed by San Francisco at 91,000+ and San Diego with more than 31,000.4
The California Energy Commission’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) online dashboard provides DMV registration data for light-duty vehicles (cars, SUVs, small pickup trucks, minivans) by year, ZIP code, and fuel type. Table 1 shows the number of registered light-duty vehicles and the percentage of which are ZEVs (battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles) at the state, county, and city levels.
As shown in the table below, the percentage of EV ownership in La Mesa lags behind the State and County percentages, which may indicate there are challenges for residents who would like to own an EV in La Mesa. That is one reason why the City intends to expand EV charging infrastructure with this Master Plan. 4 https://www.experian.com/blogs/insights/auto-evs-drive-growth-nationwide-expanding-adoption-across-keystates/#:~:text=The%20electric%20vehicle%20(EV)%20market,vehicles%20are%20being%20embraced%20nationwide.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 24 Table 1: Passenger Vehicles and Electric Vehicles in California State San Diego County City of
La Mesa
Passenger Vehicles (2023) 29,344,963 2,537,388 55,575
% of State Passenger Veh. 100% 8.6% 0.2%
% of San Diego County
Passenger Veh. - 100% 2.2%
# of ZEVs (2023) 1,516,107 133,086 2,368
% of vehicles that are ZEV 5.2% 5.2% 4.3%
% of State ZEV 100% 8.8% 0.2%
Figure 1 compares historical registrations of ZEVs at the state, county, and city levels.
It is important to note that registration data is not new car sales; vehicles may shift from one ZIP code to another when the owner moves.
Figure 1: Share of Vehicle Population that are ZEVs
Source: California Energy Commission (2024). California Energy Commission Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Statistics. Date last updated April 30, 2024. Retrieved August 2024 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/zevstats.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 City of La Mesa County of San Diego California
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 25 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES
Nearly half of the City of La Mesa consists of multifamily housing (such as apartments and condominiums), with single-family housing clustered in the southern portion of the city and multifamily units cluster more in the northwestern portion of the City. La Mesa is comprised of 52% single family and 47% multifamily housing5; with 54% of the total housing stock occupied by renters. This is identical to the multifamily average for the State of California. However, a somewhat higher percentage of housing in La Mesa is owner occupied (64% for La Mesa vs. 44% for the state), making La Mesa more dependent on public charging than most other cities. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the residential land uses and dwellings per acre throughout the city.
Further, as shown in Table 2, over 90% of residents work outside the city, and 92% of workers live outside the city. This indicates that workplace chargers could be an unmet need for commuters coming to La Mesa.
Table 2: Inflow and Outflow of Employees of the City of La Mesa, CA Worker Flows Count Share Avg. Commute Miles
Employed in La Mesa,
but living outside the
city
23,145 91.7% of workers
• Less than 10 miles (62.6%)
• 10 to 24 miles (22.3%)
• 25 to 50 miles (11.3%)
Live in La Mesa,
but employed outside
the city
27,030 92.8% of residents
• Less than 10 miles (52.9%)
• 10 to 24 miles (28.2%)
• 25 to 50 miles (2.7%)
• Greater than 50 miles
(16.2%)
Employed and living in
La Mesa 2,100
8.3% of workers
and 7.2% of
residents
All would be less than 10
miles
Source: Census OnTheMap, LEHD
5 https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0640004-la-mesa-ca/
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 26 Figure 2 shows the residential land use is primarily urban with some suburban areas.
This indicates urban areas where there is more likely a need for public charging infrastructure.
Figure 2: Residential Land Use and Existing Chargers
Source: Kittelson & Associates, compiled from City of La Mesa and US Census data from 2025
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 27 Figure 3 highlights areas of higher residential density, shown in darker blue, particularly in the central and northern portions of La Mesa. These areas generally align with locations identified in Figure 2 as having a higher concentration of multifamily housing. This overlap indicates that higher-density neighborhoods are more likely to include multifamily residential units, where residents may have limited access to home charging and are therefore more dependent on public charging infrastructure.
Figure 3: Dwellings Per Acre
Source: Kittelson & Associates, compiled from City of La Mesa data from 2025
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 28 Figure 4 shows the distribution and density of jobs. There are pockets of high job density in the central area of along Flether Parkway, El Cajon Boulevard, University Avenue, La Mesa Boulevard, and Spring Street.
Figure 4: Number of Jobs
Source: Kittelson & Associates, compiled from City of La Mesa and US Census data from 2025
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 29 Figure 5 visualizes key points of interest throughout La Mesa that may serve as potential EV charging locations. The map highlights major retail destinations (red) and large employers (blue), which represent areas where users are more likely to park for extended periods and therefore have higher potential demand for public charging.
Figure 5: Destinations and Large Employers
Source: Kittelson & Associates 2025
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 30 PROJECTION OF EV CHARGING NEEDS
To plan for EV charging needs, a forecast projection of EV adoption by residents and commuters was made and then estimated the need for public charging.
The projection model used is based on an estimated adoption rate of new cars in La Mesa and then uses the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) percentages6to estimate the number of new cars that will be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) each year. The model assumes that all cars will be battery electric—whether full battery or plug in hybrid; fuel cell electric cars will be nominal by 2040, and plug-in hybrid EVs are not as likely to need public charging.
In November of 2022, the California Air Resources Board adopted ACC II, which requires automakers and dealers to sell an increasing number of ZEVs each year, and 15 other states have adopted similar goals. The projection model used assumes that light-duty EVs will reach parity in cost and availability (makes and models) with conventional vehicles between 2030 and 2035.
To estimate the number of people that are likely to buy a new (not used) light-duty vehicle, City staff used Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)7 data that analyzes total vehicle sales by month and year and correlates it with overall consumer spending. FRED shows that typical new car buyers are between 40 and 60 years old, and 93% own their home. Income falls into two groups: Under $50,000 per year (mostly single-person households) and $100,000 per year and up (mostly families).
New car buyers are about evenly split between men and women; however, men are 86% of the market for new pickup trucks.
City staff combined FRED demographics with La Mesa’s projections about household and population growth from the SANDAG regional forecasts8 and La Mesa’s Housing Element9to estimate the future vehicle registrations and new car sales. La Mesa’s plans show a growth in overall population and a focus on high-density housing for new housing starts.
6 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii 7 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA
8 https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/data-andresearch/socioeconomics/estimates-and-forecasts/series-14-regional-growth-forecastdocumentation-and-baseline-subregional-allocation.pdf 9 https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/18333/Adopted-La-Mesa-HousingElement?bidId=
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 31 The number of registered EVs was estimated based on fast-, medium-, and slowgrowth scenarios, assuming that all new EVs will be battery electric with 200+ miles of range. Table 3 and Figure 6, below, show the forecasted number of registered EVs by year. Note that plug in electric vehicles and the increasing availability of used electric vehicles will add to these numbers.
Table 3: Projected EV Population in the City of La Mesa Year Fast Growth Medium Growth Slow Growth
2025 2,660 2,633 2,558
2026 2,888 2,801 2,671
2027 3,203 3,021 2,827
2028 3,452 3,197 2,960
2029 3,836 3,470 3,171
2030 4,361 3,827 3,433
2035 6,126 5,591 5,198
2040 7,943 7,409 7,016
Note: The 2023 EV population in the City of La Mesa was approximately 2,368 vehicles.
Source: Kittelson & Associates (2025)
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 32 Figure 6: Estimated Growth of EVs in the City of La Mesa Source: Kittelson & Associates (2025)
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2035 2040
Fast growth Medium growth Slow Growth
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 33 Community Input
A short public survey was conducted online to gain an understanding of how many community members own, or desire to own/use, electric vehicles. The survey received 178 responses representing residents from different areas of the city, in different housing situations, and with different experiences with owning an EV.
Some key takeaways from the responses included:
• Most current EV owners who responded to the survey live in single family detached homes in La Mesa where they have their own parking and charging available. However, this finding reflects the characteristics of survey respondents rather than the broader population and is consistent with other findings that lack of home charging remains a key barrier for residents in multifamily housing, reinforcing the need for accessible public charging options.
• Installing charging stations in a public site such as a park, library, or shopping center was the highest priority among respondents.
• Publicly accessible DC fast charging stations were ranked as a priority. • Installing chargers on-street and near major freeways was ranked as the lowest priority relative to other location types evaluated in the survey. The availability of charging stations and the time and frequency of charging needed were the top two obstacles to owning EVs.
A summary of the survey responses is provided in Appendix A.
34 Chapter 3. EV Charging
Infrastructure
CHARGING STATION TARGET GOAL
The City of La Mesa, in collaboration with its consultant team, used data and methods from the National Renewable Energy Lab’s (NREL) Electric Vehicle Infrastructure – Projection (EVI-Pro) tool to estimate the number of future public charging ports needed.
10 EVI-Pro version 3 assumes that half of single-family homes and 1/3 of multifamily homes will use Level 1 charging (just a plug). It also assumes that a substantial share of multifamily dwellers, which include people in apartments, townhomes, and mobile homes, will use public charging at work, retail or recreation centers, or curbside in their neighborhoods. The related data and methods from the NREL EVI-Pro tool were used to estimate the number of public charging ports needed in La Mesa by speed (Level 2 and DC fast charger) with the following assumptions:
• Based on demographic data, Kittleson has assumed 50% of current and future EV drivers have, or will have, access to a Level 1 or Level 2 charging station at their home or apartment. These are broken down into two groups:
• Daily, 20% of current and future EV drivers will use a Level 2 charger • Daily, 30% of current and future EV drivers will use a DC fast charger • Each Level 2 port will be used four times a day, two to four hours per session • Each DC fast charger port will be used 10 times a day, one hour per session These assumptions are based on typical utilization patterns and modeling inputs from the NREL EVI-Pro tool, supplemented by industry-standard charging behavior assumptions.
10 https://afdc.energy.gov/evi-x-toolbox#/evi-pro-ports
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 35 Table 4 shows the resulting number of charging ports required under three EV growth scenarios - low, medium, and fast growth. The daily percentage of people charging and the per-port use is higher than the demand created by resident EV adoption alone to create a buffer for commuters and day-trip visitors. If DC fast charging stations are more plentiful in La Mesa than in adjacent communities, some pass-through travelers might leave the adjacent highways to charge their vehicles in La Mesa. Based on the medium growth scenario, the City will need a total of 119 public EV chargers (65 Level 2 and 23 DC fast charging ports) by year 2030.
Table 4: Number of Public Charging Ports Needed in 2030 In 2030 EVs (Fast
Growth)
EVs (Medium
Growth)
EVs (Low Growth)
Total EVs in La Mesa 4,361 3,827 3,433
EV Charging Demand
EVs without home charging 2,180 1,913 1,717
EVs charging daily with L2 436 383 343
EVs charging daily with DCFC 654 230 206
Charging Infrastructure Needed
L2 ports required 109 96 86
DCFC ports required 65 23 21
Source: Kittelson & Associates (2025)
La Mesa will need 119 public chargers by
2030 to meet expected demand.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 36 WHO CAN PROVIDE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE?
Construction and management of EV charging stations in La Mesa can be provided by the City or by private sector entities. Both public and private site hosts may coordinate with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) on electrical service, infrastructure upgrades, and rate structures to support EV charging installations.
City-Led Installations
The City already provides public charging in one location (the Community Center) and employee charging location at the Civic Center. The City’s first installation took advantage of the SDGE’s Power Your Drive funding program to install charging stations at the Civic Center. These chargers are owned by SDGE and will be reevaluated for removal or ownership transfer to the City of La Mesa after a 10-year operating period. One additional installation in the downtown La Mesa Village at the Lemon Avenue parking lot has been funded by grants where the site engineering, vendor selection, and installation were managed by the City. The chargers will be operated by the City.
Additional City of La Mesa public charging stations can be sited on city properties such as the Civic Center, public parking lots, or parks. City-owned properties are common spaces that are attractive sites for charging stations. A total of 30 city-owned properties were initially reviewed as potential charging locations. Following feedback from city staff, this initial list was reduced to 14 locations that received site walks. All sites were assessed for potential Level 2 or DC fast charging installations. For the priority sites identified, order of magnitude estimates were prepared.
There are a growing number of business models for owning and operating EV charging stations, from City-owned-and-operated to third-party-owned-owned-andoperated, to several options in between. Various models might be attractive depending on the city’s staffing and financial resources and Table 5 summarizes different business models that can be used to provide charging infrastructure. The City can continue with build/own/operate model that they have used recently, or the City can choose from several other business models for their charging installations.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 37 Table 5: Business Models for Charging Infrastructure Type Process Responsibilities
City-Owned and
Operated
City issues bids for equipment and
installation vendors and performs
project management
City is responsible for utility
interaction and coordination. City is
responsible for electricity cost. City
sets pricing and keeps revenue.
City-Owned/
Consultant-Assisted
City issues bids for consultant to
guide them through any or all of
the process including grants
writing, specifications, bidding, and
implementation.
City is responsible for utility
interaction and coordination. City sets
user pricing and keeps revenue. City is
responsible for electricity cost.
City-Owned/ThirdParty Assisted
City issues bids for turnkey
engineering, equipment, and
construction of charging station.
Vendor turns project over to the
City upon completion.
Vendor is responsible for utility
interaction and coordination. City is
responsible for electricity cost. City
sets pricing and keeps revenue.
City-Owned/ ThirdParty Maintained
City issues bid for either consultant
or third-party assisted and hires
third-party vendor for
maintenance and repairs. Includes
meeting any grant- required
metrics.
Vendor is responsible for utility
interaction and coordination. City is
responsible for electricity cost. City
sets pricing and keeps revenue.
Third Party-Owned
and Operated
(Charging as a
Service)
City offers site to third-party vendor
who will finance, construct and
operate the site. Can be done as a
license.
Vendor is responsible for utility
interaction and coordination,
permitting and construction. Vendor
pays for electricity and sets user
pricing; may include revenue share to
City. Vendor is responsible for
maintenance and repair.
There are multiple business model options available, and the City should evaluate the approaches that best align with its operational capacity, financial goals, and desired level of service for the community. Using a City-Owned/Third-Party Maintained model will allow the City to keep operational control, including costs and charging session fees, but will take more staff capacity and may be less attractive for companies to contract with the City for charging maintenance and operations. A Third Party-Owned and Operated (Charging Point Operator) model is an attractive path for City of La Mesa to minimize staff time and ongoing costs, but the City will have limited operational control.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 38 Private Sector Installations
Private property owners, such as medical centers, shopping centers, schools, transit facilities, and multifamily residential properties, also have choices on whether to install, own, and operate their own charging stations or engage a third-party vendor that offers charging as a service (CaaS). In CaaS, the vendor places the charging station on the site host’s property and is responsible for engineering, installing, and operating the charging station. Since CaaS is a profit-driven business model, installation on private property will be commonly driven by a known demand for usage at the particular site. CaaS may include revenue sharing with the site owner.
The City can encourage private sector installation by incorporating EV-related incentives in their policies and private project reviews, and by educating private property owners on the increasing demand for EV charging stations, as well as the economic and environmental benefits.
Implementation Partners
There are several partners that are commonly included in any EV charging station installation. These include:
Local Utility
The utility serving the City of La Mesa is San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE). As the City’s electricity fuel provider, SDGE is vital to the implementation of EV charging providing:
• Information about EVs and charging infrastructure
• Electrical service upgrades
• Meters for special EV rates
• Incentive programs to construct charging stations
• Special residential and commercial EV Charging Rates
The City met with SDGE twice to discuss City-owned sites during the development of this plan. The City should continue to maintain a close relationship with the utility’s local service planners and governmental relations representatives to understand changes in service upgrade timelines, pricing plans and incentive programs.
Early notification to SDGE about upcoming infrastructure projects can help avoid utility delays down the road.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 39 Charging Station Manufacturers and Providers
Today, site hosts have dozens of types of charging station hardware and software options to choose from. Utilities and government funding sources may require that equipment meet certain standards and be on an approved list. Master Approved Product Lists are maintained by each utility, the State and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
• SDGE’s Approved Product Listing can be found as a spreadsheet on their website.
• The State of California also maintains an Eligible Equipment and Networks list for various funding programs.
Source: Chargepoint
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 40 POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS
There are a number of federal policies and regulations governing EV charging, but these typically apply to federal funded programs such as NEVI. There are also national regulations that are adopted by the states such as National Fire Protection Code (NFPA 70). Federal requirements for signage and accessibility are superseded by California’s more stringent requirements.
On a state level, there are numerous laws and regulations that impact the City of La Mesa such as the California Green Building Code, signage and accessibility standards, and permit streamlining legislation. These are described below.
Streamlined Permitting
EV charging station permitting is a much-discussed topic among California state and local governments. Land use decisions and permits are the responsibility of local jurisdictions, but delays in permit issuance postpone the air quality improvements that result from more zero emission miles being driven.
Permitting of EV charging stations in California is governed by existing State laws, including AB 1236 (2015) and AB 970 (2021). AB 1236 “requires all California cities and counties to develop an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS).” If a permit is not deemed complete, the applicant must receive a detailed list of comments and have an opportunity to re-submit. AB 970 establishes timelines for completion of the initial review of permit applications and limits the review to negative health or safety impacts only.
The California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) has established a Permitting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Scorecard to measure compliance with permit streamlining.
The City of La Mesa has adopted the 2025 California Green Building Code and is in the process of implementing permit streamlining including:
1. Adoption of a streamlining ordinance to establish an expedited EVCS permitting process
2. Permitting Checklists Online for Level 2 & DC fast charger
3. Administrative Approval of EV Charging Stations
4. Approval Limited to Health & Safety Review
5. Electronic Signatures Accepted
6. EVCS Not Subject to Homeowners Association (HOA) approval, consistent with State law
7. One Complete Deficiency Notice if Application is Incomplete
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 41 There are numerous resources available for model ordinances and permitting checklists. The California Governor's Office of Economic Development (GO-Biz) Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook (Second Edition) covers planning and site selection, permitting, accessibility, grid interconnection, and construction, commissioning and operation procedures, as well as best practices. The GO-Biz Permitting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Best Practices webpage includes examples of streamlining ordinances from other cities in California.
Signage
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) 2026 defines two types of EV signage: wayfinding signage and station signage.
Wayfinding signage helps drivers navigate to a charging station from a road or highway exit. This type of EV signage on California roads is considered General Signage and covered in Chapter 21 of the CAMUTCD.
Station signage provides information about the charging location such as time limits, penalties, and definitions. Any sign in the public right-of-way must meet all CAMUTCD requirements, but station signage on private property does not need to meet the CAMUTCD requirements. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has issued a Zero Emission Vehicle Station Sign Installation Guide for EV signage. Sample signs are shown below.
Cities have also adopted their own requirements for marking EV parking spaces, such as the example above.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 42 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City reference the CAMUTCD signage requirements and also adopt a standard for private parking space signage, including wall or post signs and pavement marking. A uniform standard will help drivers identify EV charging spaces which can be difficult to locate in a large parking area. Multiple examples of the standards adopted by other cities are available.
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (commonly called CALGreen, Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) is a mandatory statewide building code in California. It automatically applies to all cities and counties in the state as part of the California Building Standards Code. It must be adopted by city ordinance.
The most recent CALGreen Code took effect on January 1, 2026 and has been adopted by the City of La Mesa. The key EV charging requirements in the 2025 Code are:
• Any new one- and two-family homes or townhouses with private garages must have a dedicated conduit or raceway plus electrical panel capacity for an EV charger.
• New multifamily dwellings must have panel capacity and a dedicated 208/240V outlet for each parking space, including assigned and unassigned spaces. In addition, 25% of common area parking spaces must have Level 2 EV charging installed. Cities do have the option of adopting more restrictive green building standards.
• New commercial properties must have EV-capable spaces (dedicated conduit and panel capacity) and installed charging, as well as capacity for expansion.
The precise number/percentage of each is determined by the building occupancy and parking count.
Recommendation: The City should continue to implement and publicize compliance with the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which includes EV charging requirements for residential, multifamily, and commercial development.
Local Municipal Code
The State of California’s requirements for signage, accessibility, and building codes provide a baseline. The City of La Mesa can choose to adopt more stringent local requirements. For permit streamlining, the mandatory requirements are set in law.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 43 The City’s Municipal Code was written before EVs and EV charging were available.
There might be portions of the City’s Municipal Code, ordinances, and other documents that could prohibit or impede the installation of charging stations. An initial review of the La Mesa Municipal Code did not reveal any references to EV charging. However, zoning language related to fueling could impact the ability to install charging stations. Parking count language may also impact the ability to install charging. The Electric Vehicle Charging Permit Streamlining Handbook (2023) issued by GO-Biz states: “Within the context of zoning requirements, cities or counties should help enable charging projects by clarifying that charging stations count as one or more parking spaces, as required by law (Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 and Government Code Section 65850.71). This approach ensures that charger installation does not take a site out of zoning compliance.”
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City add a section to its Municipal Code defining EV charging, and allowing it in all residential, commercial, and industrial zones.
Source: City of La Mesa
44 Chapter 4. Future EV Charging
Stations and Adoption
WHERE SHOULD THEY GO?
Charging station locations and power levels (Level 1, Level 2 or DC fast charger) vary depending on the needs of the local EV drivers. As discussed above, stations may serve multifamily residents, employees, commuters or long-distance travelers. They can also be a convenient amenity for community members at parks, shopping centers, schools, or other locations where drivers park for at least 30 minutes. A gap assessment was completed that looked at existing charging station locations and three different use cases to see which areas of the City have charging gaps and need additional charging stations. The definition of “gap” can mean no existing charging stations or only one type, such as Level 2. By planning for the future demand of a variety of users, the City hopes to maximize the availability and use of chargers in desired locations, which would reduce the chance of stranded assets.
USE CASES
Three use cases were identified to assist with the gap assessment:
• Residential Users: This use case represents a multifamily resident (owns or rents) who desires to charge at home using a dedicated or semi-private charger (shared within a parking lot of an apartment/ condominium building). This use case excludes single-family owned homes where it is assumed that charging could be done in the driveway or garage. If home charging is not an option, multifamily residents must rely on public and workplace charging. • Destination Users: This use case represents someone that desires to use a charging station while at work or while visiting for shopping or recreation. • Fuel Corridor Users: This use case represents someone that is traveling along a nearby freeway (e.g., I-8, SR-94, SR-125) and desires to use a public fast charging station to charge or recharge before continuing on to their final destination.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 45 Table 6 describes the datasets used for each of the use cases to develop a propensity map of areas that have the most need for public charging, based on data analysis.
Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the resulting areas that have the most need for public charging for each of the three use cases. Figure 10 shows the overlay of these, identifying priority zones to deploy additional charging locations.
Table 6: Data Used in User-based Analyses
Underlying Datasets
Fuel
Corridor
Users
Destination
Users Resident Users
Population Density - - Yes
Multifamily Residential - - Yes
Charger Sheds Yes Yes Yes
Freeway Sheds Yes - -
Destination Sheds Yes Yes -
Median Household Income - - Yes
Number of Jobs - Yes -
Large Employers - Yes -
Replica Destinations - Yes -
Had Public Lands (Parks/Libraries) Sheds Yes Yes Yes
Park and Ride Lots Yes - -
Number of Dwellings - - Yes
Renting Households - - Yes
Vehicle Ownership - - Yes
Transit Parking - Yes -
Commercial Land Use Yes Yes -
Sheds refer to the distance from the road or point, and were analyzed using distances of 0.25, 0.50, 1, and 2 miles.
Source: Kittelson & Associates (2025)
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 46 Figure 7 provides an overview of areas with the highest need for EV charging based on the residential user use case, which focuses on multifamily housing and locations where residents are less likely to have access to home charging. Areas with higher propensity reflect concentrations of population density, multi-family housing presence, low-income household presence, zero vehicle ownership households, rental households, and vicinity to public land.
Figure 7: Opportunity for Public Charging Based on Residential Users Source: Kittelson & Associates, using data from City of La Mesa and US Census
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 47 Figure 8 shows areas with a higher likelihood of demand for public EV charging based on the “destination user” use case. “Destination users” are defined as individuals who charge their vehicles while at a destination, such as a workplace, retail center, or recreational site. Areas with higher propensity reflect concentrations of these destinations, where users are more likely to park for extended periods and have a greater need for public charging.
Figure 8: Opportunity for Public Charging Based on Destination Users Source: Kittelson & Associates, using data from City of La Mesa and US Census
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 48 Figure 9 shows areas with a higher likelihood of demand for public EV charging based on the “fuel corridor user” use case. “Fuel corridor users” are defined as drivers traveling along major regional roadways who require fast charging to continue their trips. Higher-propensity areas are generally located near major freeways and corridors, including I-8, SR-94, and SR-125, where through-travel demand is concentrated. This analysis incorporates roadway network proximity and regional travel patterns to identify locations where fast charging infrastructure is most needed.
Figure 9: Opportunity for Public Charging Based on Fuel Corridor Users Source: Kittelson & Associates, using data from City of La Mesa and US Census
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 49 Figure 10 shows the combined results of the three aforementioned use cases, identifying priority zones for future EV charging deployment across the City of La Mesa.
These areas represent locations where residential, destination, and corridor-based charging demand overlap, indicating the highest potential for shared public charging infrastructure. This analysis incorporates multiple datasets, including residential and land use data, employment and destination locations, and roadway network proximity to major corridors such as I-8, SR-94, and SR-125. Higher-priority areas are concentrated along the I-8 corridor due to the convergence of higher residential density, major employment centers, and regional travel routes, while areas along SR94 and SR-125 show comparatively lower overlap of these demand factors.
Figure 10: Identified Priority Zones
Source: Kittelson & Associates (2025), using data from City of La Mesa and US Census
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 50 Community Input
An interactive online map was developed and published to gain an understanding of where residents and visitors want to see future charging stations. The map provided an aerial background with existing public and private charging station locations and a priority area for future EV charging stations (based on the gap assessment previously conducted) with the ability for the user to click on specific locations to drop a “pin” and provide comments on that location. The map included instructions in English and Spanish. There were 41 unique locations identified, as shown on Figure 11, with common themes including schools, parks, shopping centers, multifamily residential areas, transit locations, faith-based/community parking lots, and other places where users are likely to park for extended periods.
Figure 11: Public Feedback on Charging Station Locations Source: Kittelson & Associates (2025)
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 51 Equity Considerations: Median Household Income
There are multiple ways of determining what areas are underserved for charging, including the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 map developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which uses multiple environmental and social datasets to classify census tracts in the top 25% statewide as “disadvantaged communities.” While no La Mesa census tract meet this 75% threshold for being a “disadvantaged community,” two census tracts fall within the 60 to 70% range. Another standard, used by the California Energy Commission and applied for analysis in this report, is based on U.S. Census ACS 2018-2022 data and identifies a tract as “low income” if its median household income is less than 80% of the statewide median.
Source: City of La Mesa
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 52 Figure 12 shows census block groups in the city that have a median income that is less than 80% of the statewide median household income of $73,524 and qualify as a low-income community under this criterion. Low-income communities tend to have a greater need for public charging since they have fewer single-family homeowners and more multifamily renters11. The State’s EV incentive programs (such as Clean Cars 4 All in San Diego) focus on low-income drivers and the increasing availability of used EVs are making them more affordable for lower income drivers. In assessing potential future charging sites, City staff and Kittelson took into account public and private sites that could ensure equal access charging to charging for lower income and multifamily residents.
Figure 12: Priority Communities Based on Household Median Income 11 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60091-y
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 53 SITE SELECTION
Considerations
When reviewing potential locations for addition or expansion of electric vehicle charging stations for this Master Plan, some key considerations were reviewed. These were applied to sites throughout the city that were identified either by data analysis results, public feedback, stakeholder feedback, or City staff. The criteria used to evaluated sites throughout the city are provided in Table 7.
Source: City of La Mesa
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 54 Table 7: Site Selection Criteria
Category Question Consideration
Location
Is site near an existing
charging site?
Reviewed a 1,000-ft proximity to existing
public charging stations documented
during the existing conditions report
Was the site identified
during the public feedback
process?
Based on locations shown in
Figure 11
Land Use
Is site near multifamily
housing that could be used
by residents?
Review of a 1,000-ft walking distance to an
apartment complex with more than 4 units
Within highest propensity of
residential gap analysis area?
Yes/No, based on comparison against
Figure 7
Is the site near a commercial
area and therefore boost
business?
Review of a 1,000-ft walking distance to a
commercial building
Is the site in a commercial
area near multifamily
housing?
Review to see if the site is within a shopping
center, healthcare area, or other similar
commercial use and within a 1,000-ft
walking distance to an apartment complex
with more than 4 units
Is site near major
employers?
Review of a 1,000-ft walking distance to a
major employer
Is the site at a major
commercial destination?
Review of site being within a commercial
destination parking lot
Within Highest Propensity of
Destination Gap Analysis
Area?
Yes/No, based on comparison against
Figure 8
Within Highest Propensity of
Fuel Corridor User Gap
Analysis Area?
Yes/No, based on comparison against
Figure 9
Within Gap Analysis Priority
Area?
Yes/No, based on comparison against
Figure 10
Demographics
Is site in a low-income area
(below 80% of median
income)?
Reviewed based on maps created for
existing conditions report
Is the site within a High Air
Pollution Area?
Based on ElectroTempo software estimates
What is the current and
expected year 2035 EV
ownership?
Per census block based on federal census
data
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 55 Category Question Consideration
Number of Charging
Stations and Ports
Potential number of spaces
available to convert or add as
EV charging stations
Grouped as 1-4, 5-10, or 10+
Type of chargers that would
be most helpful at location
(DC fast, Level 2, Level 1)
Estimated based on location, land use and
feedback from City staff
Parking space use and time
restrictions
Based on existing meters or signs indicating
parking stall use restrictions or time limits
Proximity to Ports
Location of existing power
infrastructure
• Desktop review to estimate feasibility
• Reviewed during field visits for
selected sites
Distance from power source
to EV charging station
spaces
• Desktop review to estimate feasibility
• Reviewed during field visits for
selected sites
Existing capacity to add
chargers and magnitude of
upgrades needed
• Desktop review to estimate feasibility
• Reviewed during field visits for
selected sites
Estimated construction cost • Based on estimated shovel-readiness Accessibility
Room for people in
wheelchairs or other
mobility devices to
maneuver around the EV to
access charging cable and
charging port
Reviewed during field visits for selected
sites
An accessible route that
leads from the charging
station to an accessible
entrance of the building or
facility
Reviewed during field visits for selected
sites
Ability to meet current ADA
requirements
Reviewed during field visits for selected
sites
Additional Notes
Lighting of location
Nearby area does not have unusual risks or dangers
Visibility from the roadway / ease of finding
For future sites, proximity to amenities such as restrooms or places to eat, lighting and overall safety
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 56 Top City-Owned Locations
An initial list of potential publicly owned charging locations was established looking at the various City-owned properties, including:
• Government office buildings
• Fire stations and police station
• Parks
• Recreational facilities
• Public parking lots
• Libraries
• Post offices
• Curbside (sidewalk) parking
For each of the initial 30 locations identified, the site selection criteria were applied, and City staff also provided input to validate or modify assumptions and provide additional considerations, such as existing electrical capacity. A summary of the screening results is provided in Appendix B.
From the initial screening, 12 locations were selected as having higher potential for near-term implementation and impact. A field review was performed at each of these locations to provide a more in-depth review of opportunities and constraints. Both Level 2 and DC fast charging options were considered based on typical use case for the location. Several additional locations were considered either as alternatives to the ones listed below or as meeting specific needs, such as proximity to multifamily housing.
After the field review, five sites were selected for having the best combination of expected usage and constructability:
• PALM AVE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE PARKING LOT 4730 Palm Avenue • CITY HALL 8130 Allison Avenue
• ALLISON AVE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE PARKING LOT 8343 Allison Avenue • MACARTHUR PARK MUNICIPAL POOL 4975 Memorial Drive
• LA MESITA PARK 8855 Dallas Street
These locations were selected based on a combination of factors, including their proximity to multifamily housing, commercial activity centers, whether they are major destinations, as well as their location within the highest-priority areas identified in the gap analysis (Figure 7 through Figure 10). As shown in Appendix B, many of these
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 57 sites meet multiple criteria, including accessibility, visibility, and potential for higher utilization.
As a result, recommended locations are more concentrated in the central and downtown areas of La Mesa, where there is a greater overlap of residential density, employment, and destination activity. While other areas of the city may also benefit from additional charging infrastructure, the priority locations identified in this plan reflect areas with the highest combined demand and highest feasibility for near-term implementation. Table 8 describes why the five particular sites were selected.
Table 8: Top Ranking City-Owned Locations
Sites Address Why Selected?
City Hall curbside parking in front 8130 Allison
Avenue
Highly visible location; convenient
power source; retain across the
street
Allison Ave Downtown Village Parking Lot 8343 Allison
Avenue
Behind commercial stores and
restaurants in the Village; adjacent
to new multifamily construction
Palm Ave Downtown Village Parking Lot 4710 Palm
Avenue
Behind commercial area, nearby
power; chargers can be wall
mounted
MacArthur Park Municipal Pool
5100
Memorial
Drive
High traffic location; adds to Level 2
charging at the nearby Community
Center
La Mesita Park 8855 Dallas
Street
High traffic location; YMCA nearby;
good utility power access
Parking Lot North of Fire Station 11 8054 Allison
Avenue
Good alternative if City Hall location
is determined infeasible
Parking Lot East of Police Station 8085 Allison
Avenue
Good alternative if City Hall location
is determined infeasible
Jackson Park Parking Lot
5870
Jackson
Drive
Near multifamily housing; near
utility equipment
Aztec Park 5440 Aztec
Drive
Curbside charging near multifamily
housing;
near utility equipment
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 58 Table 9 summarizes the budgetary planning level cost estimates for Level 2 chargers and DC fast chargers for each of the recommended locations. The cost estimates were prepared by Quinn Construction Services in March 2026 and considered:
• Design, permitting, and utility coordination.
• Utility upgrades
• Charger equipment
• Network and maintenance service
• Switchgear equipment
• Construction
• Excludes permit fees, utility fees, survey, title report, rendering, photosims, hearings, electrical load studies, arc flash studies, civil engineering, geotech engineering.
Table 9: Cost Estimates for Recommended City-Owned Sites Site Address Level 2
Chargers
7.2 kW
Number of
Units
Quote DC Fast
Chargers
120 kW
(Number of
Units)
Quote
Palm Ave Downtown
Village Parking Lot
4710 Palm
Ave 2 $69,516 2 $268,280
City Hall
(curbside parking in
front)
8130 Allison
Avenue
3 $239,774 3 $373,920
Fire Station 11 / Civic
Center
8054 Allison
Avenue 2 $69,516 2 $266,280
Allison Ave Downtown
Village Parking Lot
8343 Allison
Avenue 3 $238,774 3 $373,920
MacArthur Park
Municipal Pool
5100
Memorial
Drive
2 $ 210,516 2 $423,280
La Mesita Park
8855 Dallas
Street
3 $197,774 3
$411,920*
Not including
ADA path of
travel costs
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 59 Figure 13 provides a map of the identified locations that were considered medium or high potential for implementation, including the five priority locations.
Figure 13: Recommended City-Owned Locations for Charging Stations A detailed site-specific recommendation for each of the priority locations at Cityowned properties is provided in Figure 14 through Figure 18, including an electrical systems analysis for charging infrastructure options.
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 60 Figure 14 presents a site-specific charging infrastructure recommendation for the Palm Avenue Downtown Village Parking Lot. The proposed layout includes two Level 2 charging stations located within the existing public parking lot. The design leverages an adjacent transformer and requires no trenching, resulting in a relatively simple installation with minimal disruption to the site. Conduit connections are illustrated to show the direct connection between the electrical source and the proposed charging stations.
Site-specific considerations include the use of a public parking lot and the potential loss of one parking space to accommodate an ADA-compliant EV charging stall and loading zone. The site is centrally located within the downtown village area, supporting destination-based charging for nearby businesses, visitors, and employees, and was also identified through public feedback as an area with charging demand.
The estimated installation cost for the Level 2 charging configuration is approximately $69,516, representing one of the lowest-cost implementation opportunities among the priority sites due to the availability of existing electrical capacity and the absence of trenching requirements.
LOCATION & ACCESSIBILITY
Destination Gap
Visitor Gap
Public Feedback
Publicly Accessible
Addresses charging shortage
Palm Ave Downtown Village
Parking Lot
4730 Palm Avenue
NUMBER OF STATIONS
2 EV Charging Stations
Level 2 Chargers
COST
Trenching: None
Electrical source: Transformer
Existing capacity? Yes
Estimated Cost: $69,516
SITE SPECIFIC NOTES
- Public Lot
- Loss of 1 parking space for EV-ADA
space and loading zone
LEGEND
Electrical Source
Charging Station
Conduit Connections
EV Parking Stall
ADA Stall
Figure 14
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 62 Figure 15 presents a site-specific charging infrastructure recommendation for City Hall. The proposed layout includes three DC fast charging stations located along existing street parking spaces directly in front of the building. The design leverages a nearby transformer, minimizing trenching requirements and reducing overall installation complexity and cost. Conduit connections are illustrated to show the routing from the electrical source to the proposed charging stations.
Site-specific considerations include the use of on-street parking and the need to accommodate an ADA-compliant EV charging space within the proposed layout. The location is publicly accessible and highly visible, situated within a central civic area that serves residents, visitors, and nearby multifamily housing. Its proximity to key destinations and identified residential, destination, and visitor charging gaps further supports its prioritization.
The estimated installation cost for the DC fast charging configuration is approximately $330,280. An alternative Level 2 configuration was also evaluated, with an estimated cost of approximately $237,516, and may be appropriate depending on funding availability, electrical capacity, and expected user dwell times.
LOCATION & ACCESSIBILITY
Residential Gap
Destination Gap
Visitor Gap
Disadvantaged Community
Publicly Accessible
Near Multifamily Housing
NUMBER OF STATIONS
3 EV Charging Stations
DC Fast Charging
COST
Trenching: Minimal
Electrical source: Transformer nearby
Existing capacity? Yes
Estimated Cost: $330,280
Cost if L2 chargers are used: $237,516
SITE SPECIFIC NOTES
- Street parking
- In front of City Hall
City Hall
8130 Allison Avenue
LEGEND
Electrical Source
Charging Station
Conduit Connections
EV Parking Stall
ADA Stall
Figure 15
City of La Mesa Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan 64 Figure 16 presents a site-specific charging infrastructure recommendation for the Allison Avenue Downtown Village Parking Lot. The proposed layout includes three DC fast charging stations located within existing metered parking spaces in the Village area. The design requires moderate trenching and connects to an existing transformer on Palm Avenue, with conduit routing illustrated to show the proposed electrical connection.
Site-specific considerations include the use of metered parking spaces and the potential loss of one parking space to accommodate an ADA-compliant EV stall and associated loading zone. Despite this, the site remains well-suited for charging due to its location within a high-activity commercial area, strong visitor demand, and public accessibility. Public feedback also identified this area as a desirable location for additional charging infrastructure.
The estimated installation cost for the DC fast charging configuration is approximately $373,920. An alternative Level 2 configuration was also evaluated, with an estimated cost of approximately $238,774, and may be appropriate depending on funding availability, electrical capacity, and expected user dwell times.